The role that the news media covered on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was shaping the State of Indiana to hate all people who does not practice same marriage, or homosexual acts. The mass media had to have an open mind and not judge neither the same sex couples or those who believed that same sex couples would be judged by others or judged by God. The mass media’s job in this reform was to bring different views of people that has a voice on such topic as the “the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Famous people such as Hillary Clinton, Reggie Miller both agree that this act should not be passed by Governor Pence, according to Ft. Wayne Indiana News station. On the other hand, Senator Marco Rubio stands with the decision of passing
Brandon Woody English 3604-201 Dr. Reginald Martin 7/9/2015 Uproar Over Marriage Equality June 26th, 2015 was a monumental day for the LGBT community due to the Supreme Court of the United States deciding that preventing gay couples from getting married was unconstitutional, consequently legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states. The response to the SCOTUS?s decision has been mixed, with supporters expressing elation to detractors displaying disappointment and anger in response to the ruling. Although I wouldn?t describe myself to be elated when news of the legalization of gay marriage was revealed, I am in support of the decision the Supreme Court handed down. I consider myself a supporter of the Supreme Court?s decision for the following reasons: the United States has long been a global leader on social issues; legislation in the modern era shouldn?t be based upon the rules included in archaic religious texts, and there are far greater issues that deserve the
In my brief I will explore the effect of the Loving V. Virginia (1967) on the case of Obergefell V. Hodges (2015) and how it led to legalization of same sex marriage. I will prove that the 9th amendment which addresses the right to marriage did not specify that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I will also prove that the precedents set by prior cases reflected on the decision of the supreme justice. I will first explain the prior cases and discuss their rulings and reflect on the reason judges chose this. I will then discuss the Obergefell v. Hodges case and its similarity to prior cases .
Rubio has defended his position arguing he rejected the bill once it became clear it would not gain the support from his fellow
Huckabee stated, “This ruling is not about marriage equality, it’s about marriage redefinition. This irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states will prove to be one of the court’s most disastrous decisions, and they have had many” (“Mike Huckabee”). Former Arkansas Governor and Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee opposes same sex marriage and believes Americans must defend, protect and preserve traditional marriage (“Values”).
Within the state of California, the judicial branch was inconsistent in their decisions when regarding same-sex marriage. While the California Supreme Court democratically upheld the decision of the people, it directly went against the federal constitution in the eyes of the majority of the United States Supreme Court justices. The short timespan within the state court’s two rulings confirms the inconsistent nature of the California government. Constitutional amendments such as Proposition 8, add to the long list of amendments that are forced to be corrected in the state’s
But, as with its Commerce Clause jurisprudence, the Court’s expansive rights jurisprudence may not be taken for granted. Consider the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case, which legalized same-sex marriage in all states. That decision, undeniably, was an audacious assertion of power by the Supreme Court, one that brought the guillotine down on states’ internal deliberations as to the merits of same-sex marriage. I thus cannot deny that this decision counts in favor of the view that the Court holds a bias toward centralization, but there is another side to this coin, namely, the four impassioned dissenting opinions delivered by the Court. The principal dissent among these decried the Court for “invalidat[ing] the marriage laws of more than half the States” without their assent.
To elaborate, on June 26, 2015, the US supreme court made gay marriage legal in all 50 states. As a state that is strongly fixed on both individualistic and more specifically, traditionalistic values, the platform of these political cultures in Texas were challenged through means of media. A culture that is based on traditional values strives away from changes and is resistant to accepting new laws, such as the legalization of same sex marriage. However, pop culture and widespread media shared amongst the citizens of the state of Texas, opened and shaped the debate over this issue. In fact, “scholars agree that the news media have become more attentive to and supportive of lesbian and gay rights over time.”
In the article, “An Appeal to Maryland Voters, for my Mom”, the author Chrysovalantis P. Kefalas, shows how his argument on why the ruling of the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional, is justified. Kefalas defends this action this action to show that despite religious views, authorities and laws should not hinder others from happiness and living a life that they desire. His argument take words directly from a widely used source to show that there is reason on both the sides of the law, and religion. He appeals to the Audience’s emotions by describing personal afflictions with himself and the beliefs he once had, and how his situation has affected his life as well as his family. His use of Ethos, Pathos and Logos give his argument a natural balance that can be seen from both sides, making it strong and effective.
Prior to the US constitution and any acts for civil rights, people have always desired certain rights and liberties that were once considered far from reach. The Bill of Rights outlines the basic rights, such as freedom of speech, the right to a fair court trial, and the right to vote. Although these civil liberties were written into the constriction it would be decades of struggle and sacrifice before they would apply to all men and women. Civil rights give people the right not to be treated unequally based on certain characteristic, such as their race. Although the Bill of Rights were established, it was not specific enough to include everyone.
Civil rights has progressed tremendously since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was created. My parents grandparents told me stories of how they were treated terribly in sweatshops, and were deterred from seeing a Bruce Lee movie because of all the mocking they would receive. Thankfully, discrimination towards any type of person has rapidly deteriorated in the United States. However, it is still common and is often changing towards different groups. In the past decade, discrimination in America seems to have shifted from women and people of black skin color to Muslims and people with brown middle eastern skin color.
A county clerk has recently showed her opposition to the new ruling by choosing to not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Even though it was her religious belief, church has to be separate from state. She served her time in jail. The rulings of the Supreme Court are law, and have to be followed. It is important that this branch is separate from the other, because if it weren’t, one branch could makes the laws, arrest the “criminal”, and prosecute them fully.
During Bill Clinton’s presidency, he signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which federally allowed people to deny other people services based on their religious beliefs. Especially during today, people argue over the topic of denial of services based on religious beliefs, but the Democrats are typically against it, while the Republicans support it. Since the RFRA cannot be used within states, various states have created their own version of this Act which has created various tensions between the different parties. The issue of denying services to a person based on religious beliefs is an unjust excuse to avoid facing modern issues because it is immoral, competes with the goal of self-improvement, and conflicts with the legalization
In 1964 the civil rights movement act helped protect citizens from discrimination in the work place. The civil rights movement act was actually the first law ever made to protect people from discrimination. You would think by the sixties someone would have already mentioned something about getting the workforces fixed but nope! As the saying goes, better late than never though.
In 2015, the Obergefell v. Hodges case ended the “state bans on same-sex marriage”, therefore legalizing same-sex marriage (Important Supreme Court Cases). Now, “same-sex couples can now receive the benefits...of marriage that were largely exclusive to heterosexual couples” (Koch). The ruling has led to the modern fight for gay civil rights. Exposure to the LGBTQ+ community, the southern “Bathroom Bills”, and other fights for transgender rights, and the press for more LGBTQ+ representation in the media has erupted from this case. Both rulings had very big impacts on their respective communities.
Religion seems to play an important and controversial role between issues that involve the LGBTQ society. Before American Democracy can answer any of these questions, a line needs to be drawn between politics and