Gay Marriage Persuasive Essay

Gay marriage is a topic that is so often discussed by those with highly diverse opinions. As some people agree with those of the same sex pursuing marriage, others do not seem to feel the same way. This fact can apply to individuals as well as entire countries. Several of these individuals and countries originally agreed with the subject of gay marriage as others were required to be forced due to the fact that their ban on gay marriage was decided as unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage is a controversial issue in today's world where some choose to agree with the decision of homosexual people and some choose to oppose it, all doing so usually for different reasons.

Opposed to contrary beliefs, I “hate the sin, but not the sinner.” I will not condone it. I will not vote for it. I will not hate them, and I will not be a bully. I recognize that we live in a nation full of Christians and not a Christian nation which separates the church from the state, but my Christian faith does not agree with the practices of homosexuallity. On top of that, if gay marriage is not a “big deal” then why did people force the Supreme Court embedded gay marriage in the Constitution? With everyone arguing about the Supreme Court decision and that “Same-sex marriage is [now] a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed under the 14th Amendment”, an easy response is to attack the opponent by arguing that what happens under the roof of someone’s home is not the business of the government. My bigger question, however, is if the marital status of two people is not the business of the national government, then why did the Supreme Court have to hear and review to the court case to please the people? Shouldn’t the judiciary branch of the government focus on imposing more important policies for the betterment of the American nation instead of personal

I'm all for intelligent discourse - but this is fucking ridiculous on most counts. Should the Supreme Court have made a ruling on Marriage? No - Marriage is in its own right a religious entity. But here's the problem

Chief Justice Roberts made a principal dissent, claiming that in just one day, the court has transformed the societal institution of marriage that has banded humanity together for millennia. Roberts made clear that no consensus is worth a decision he feels completely overstepped the Supreme Court’s constitutional bonds, stating “Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner…but do not celebrate the constitution”. Roberts repeatedly insists that history and tradition must be drawn on to come to a conclusion, and judges ought not to rely on his or her own moral judgement concerning the morality of whether denying the fundamental rights would be unjust in light of the constitution. Although Roberts’ does agree that same-sex couples who have previously challenged state laws excluding them from marriage “make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness” , he ultimately believes that the Constitution cannot decide what is fair and what is just.

The case Obergefell vs. Hodges reached the United States Supreme Court in 2015 (Oyez). This case dealt with the rights of same-sex marriages and became important case in our nation’s young history and in our society in general. The problem was groups of same-sex couples were being told that their marriage licenses were not being upheld to the same legal standards as those of heterogeneous couples. Therefore same-sex couples in Ohio, Tennessee , Kentucky, and Michigan went and sued these agencies in challenge of their constitutional rights (Oyez).They took their issue to court because they believed that the states were denying them their 14th amendment rights without due process. They couldn’t understand why their marriages license were not

Hodges concluded that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of a person protected by the Constitution. The Court has long afforded the right to marry constitutional protection. But the standard test for identifying a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause is that the right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition (Washington Post)”. However, the majority opinion went further to find that “the liberties implied within the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause have stretched to certain personal choices central to a person’s dignity and autonomy, including their intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs (Washington Post)”. Using this idea, the majority opinion concluded that the liberty interest to marry extends to same-sex couples. The ruling has helped gay rights advocates fight more than a hundred and fifteen pieces of legislation that were introduced in state legislatures that were targeting gay people. The majority opinion agreed that the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change. “In addition to clearing the way for same-sex marriage nationwide, Friday’s decision may help end discrimination against gays and lesbians in other matters, such as adoption and custody rights, legal experts say (LATimes)”. Gay couples can now have no problem matters when wanting to start a family because of the great decision made by the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in the United States v. Windsor, which struck down a federal law denying benefits to married same-sex couples, and exactly twelve years after his majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws making gay sex a crime.“In all his decisions Justice Kennedy embraced a vision of a living Constitution, one that evolves with societal changes (NYTimes)”. Kennedy makes a great point that the generations before wrote and ratified the Bill

I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, and ever since the recognition of marriage in all cultures, it has been that way. A lot of people have been trying to look at it as a right of the people protected under the Constitution. I say that it is being examined completely wrong. Marriage is, by my definition, the union of a man and woman recognized by the state. I do not think it is the union of two people. Regardless of what I believe, I do not think it was legally right for the Court to require all of the states to recognize gay marriage. According to Chief Justice Roberts,

The gay couples who have fought long and hard to be able to have the right to marry were obviously be happy with the opinion. However those who are especially religious and who have fought against this will be angry and possibly even resist the decision reached claiming that the Supreme Court has no authority over them. Due to this more people who are avidly religious are likely to band together and claim that they can go against this with all their might claiming god on their side. This will create great friction between gay people and religious people, Even though there is already great friction between these 2

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on a major case that will affect millions of Americans in one way or another. This ruling has been decades in the making and was certainly going to be controversial no matter how it turned out. The key issue is whether or not gays and lesbians had the same constitutional right that heterosexual people do in regards to marriage. Not too long ago the concept of this even being considered by the high court would’ve been unfathomable. The 5 to 4 court ruling favoring the plaintiffs has shocked many generations of religious and conservative people.

The Supreme Court argues that gay marriages are not pleasing in God’s eyes, and further violates the same sex couples’ from their freedom of religion. A cultural issue is at hand in this case due to the people and the government going by tradition and religion. The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therefore”. Free exercise refers to being allowed to worship whatever it is that they believe in without the government imposing on them, it is their right. People have the liberty to express the rights they are given and should be protected. However, if that comes in the form of not allowing state or federal government services, then they cross a line by saying the state or federal government must conform to their

Opponents of legalizing gay marriage claim homosexuality is against natural order and view marriage as a sacred pact between a man and a woman. In their eyes, it will ruin the traditional institution of marriage. In 1971, the Supreme Court decided that “the institution of marriage as a union [was] of man and woman” in the Baker v. Nelson case (“Gay” 2). The United States government has defined marriage as such. Allowing homosexuals to marry will redefine the very foundation that Americans thrive on. And whose to say it will end with gays being allowed to wed? The entire process will lead down a slippery slope of allowing polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional relationships being able to marry (“Gay” 2). In addition, marriage is for the sake of procreation and children are negatively affected in a queer environment. The statistics speak for themselves. Children raised by gay couples constantly lack either a father or a mother figure and are thus 12% more likely to engage in homosexuality and promiscuity (Roleff 87). Kids can never identify with their own gender or have an opposite gender role model in a homosexual atmosphere. We need the future generation to grow up in the

United States is a country where every citizen has an equal right to be free and everyone is treated equal without looking at the race, gender, or the class of a citizen. Even though we live in a free country where everyone has equal rights, there is still a debate going on whether same-sex marriage should be allowed. Gay marriage has been an issue in the United States since the early 1970s. In the 1970 case of Baker v. Nelson, two men named Richard Baker and James McConnell were denied a marriage license by the Hennepin County District Court's clerk in Minnesota. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the case in favor of the county clerk saying that the clerk has the right to decline a marriage license to gay couples. Gay marriage became an issue in California when Proposition 8 was passed in the November 2008 elections. Proposition eight stated that "only marriage

This has caused tremendous tremors around the entire United States. It 's has developed civil rights issues, creating unique cases that have even made it to the Supreme Court. Cases such United States vs. Windsor and Hollingsworth vs. Perry. In the case of Hollingsworth v Perry the issue was that in May 2009, a California District Court ruled that Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and temporarily prohibited its enforcement, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, affirming the District Court’s ruling. (Santoro, law. Cornell) The United States Supreme Court will now consider whether a state can define marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman, in addition to considering whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to bring suit in federal court. (Santoro, law. Cornell) The Court’s ruling will implicate the rights of gay men and lesbians, the role of the government in structuring family and society, and the relationship between the institution of marriage and religion and morality. (Santoro, law. Cornell) These style of cases show how vastly apart the United States are in these manners. The main reasoning for how we perceive these specific issues is based

As the society changing, the history of marriage also changes. Marriage is legally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship, but do those two partners always have to be a man and a woman? Most people believe that homosexuals should be granted equal rights as heterosexual couples. Being as an important social issue, same-sex marriage has become a hot topic of public debates in the recent years. For over the past decade, public support for the same-sex marriage has quickly risen. The United States is one of over twenty countries that allow gay and lesbian couples to wed. I believe that same-sex marriage should be legalized in all countries for several reasons, such as being an issue of equal rights, separation of church and state, no negative effect on the heterosexual communities, increasing in child adoption, and decreasing divorce and suicide rates.

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Should gay marriages be legal? Why should our nation accommodate such a dreadful Supreme Court ruling? Gay couples have become a major problem for our children. Children only repeat what they hear, see, and other habits from their role models. Our children are the ones who are being subjected to these horrifying situations.