Legality of Same-sex couple Marriages
For us, it is self-evident that all men are born equal and that God has granted them certain unalienable rights, among which are the rights to "Live free and pursue happiness," as the Declaration of Independence puts it. (Jefferson). A nation was born with these words. Revolution began with these words, a revolution that did the impossible; this revolution was headed by a collection of colonies, colonies that toppled the control of the most powerful empire in the world.. The United States of America was founded on these words. Men's fundamental rights were fundamental to the founding principles of our country. Throughout history, this social contract has been repeatedly violated, most notably with the establishment of slavery and the ongoing segregation of African Americans. Despite the fact that their case is the most widely publicized, there are other contract breaches that continue to exist.. Denial of a legally recognized marriage is a major obstacle for many gays who face significant prejudice and discrimination. By restricting the fundamental human rights of same-sex couples by prohibiting or relegating their union to a lesser institution, such as a civil partnership, anti-gay marriage violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Gay people have not only been denied the right to marry; they have also been denied many other rights. As a general definition, sodomy refers to any sexual act that is deemed to be unnatural. For a long time, it was against the law to engage in gay conduct. Despite the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) finding in Lawrence v. Texas that such laws are unconstitutional, several states, including Texas, Oklahoma, Montana, and Kansas, continue to have state criminal codes that criminalize gay encounters as "deviant sexual behavior" (Morris). Despite the fact that these restrictions are no longer enforceable, the failure of parliamentarians to amend the penal code sends a clear message: homosexuality is not welcome.
The fight for gay rights is not a blip on the radar; it's a revolution that has been in the works for years. In June of 1970, a pub in Greenwich Village, New York's Stonewall Inn, became the epicenter of the modern homosexual rights movement. Many gay men and women gathered at the inn to mingle in a city that was otherwise hostile to their lifestyle. When police raided the inn early one morning, the brutality displayed by officers sparked a disturbance that would last two days ("Pride"). There has never been a protest against sodomy legislation in most states before. Many states' constitutions and penal codes have now been rewritten to remove such provisions from the books. In this riot, the flame of revolution was kindled and continues to burn to this day.
Even if homosexuality is no longer criminal in today's culture, LGBT individuals are nevertheless subjected to discrimination. Many states do not allow same-sex marriage or only allow it through alternate institutions like civil partnerships. Only 16 states and the District of Columbia had allowed same-sex marriage as of November ("Pride"). The Defense of Marriage Act (also known as DOMA) was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. In addition to defining marriage as a legal union between two people of the opposite sex, this law stated that no state was required to recognize a homosexual marriage performed in another state (Defense of Marriage Act). Couples of the same sex were barred from marrying and, as a result, from receiving the advantages to which married couples are entitled.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) first considered this act in the case of United States v. Windsor in 2013. Since Edith Windsor and her deceased, legally wed partner were not recognized as spouses under the DOMA, she was unable to claim a federal inheritance tax exemption. In spite of the fact that Windsor paid the tax, she went to court to have her case heard. According to the Supreme Court's reasoning, the denial of exemption violates the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on discrimination and infliction of bodily harm on people protected by state marriage laws, and thus, the federal act is unconstitutional. The federal act violates the Fifth Amendment by attempting to replace this protection and by treating those people as though they were living in marriages that were less respected than others. vs. Windsor, the United States
The Fifth Amendment states that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (US Const. amend.). This was a major setback for DOMA since it denied government benefits to same-sex couples who were barred from legally marrying. On a federal level, marriage could not be denied to same-sex couples since the DOMA's assertion that marriage was reserved for heterosexuals was unconstitutional. Despite the fact that the verdict only applied to federal statutes, the states could still implement laws prohibiting same-sex marriage despite the case's advancement of homosexual rights on the federal level.
Another case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, reached the SCOTUS about the same time as US v. Windsor, bringing the issue to a state level in the United States Supreme Court. During the campaign against Proposition 8, which prohibited same-sex marriage in California, the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry was brought to court (Hollingsworth v Perry). No state shall make or enforce any law that restricts or abridges any privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of their life, liberty, or property without due process; nor shall any state deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (United States Constitution XIV)
Contrary to its original intent, the Fifth Amendment has made the Fourteenth Amendment a rallying point for gay-rights activists. The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to protect newly freed African Americans from the discrimination they faced after their victory in the Civil War. Under the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, no one is denied essential liberties by a state government. In the United States, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution say unequivocally that no person's rights or benefits may be denied on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic protected by the Constitution. A couple's constitutional rights are obviously breached if they are refused equal access to the privileges that come with a legally binding marriage because of their sexual orientation.
As a result of the equal protection argument, some people who are opposed to same-sex marriage feel they must restrict the options available to same-sex couples in lieu of conventional marriage. Legally binding protection for samesex relationships is available in 19 states (Winning), but only five of these states enable samesex couples to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership. As with a marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships allow a same-sex couple to enter into a legally recognized relationship that provides the same advantages as marriage (Melina). The main distinction between civil unions and marriage is that the unions are still not regarded marriages, which is the most important difference. Couples of the same sex who are forced to enter into these partnerships are reduced to the status of second-class citizens because of their second-class obligations. Because same-sex marriages would diminish the meaning of a traditional marriage, many people argue for this separation. "The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex 'Marriage'" by Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council, is a comprehensive list of the negative effects that legalizing same-sex marriage will have on society. According to him, the legalization of gay marriage would lead to a growing demand for the legalization of polygamy because of the claimed erosion of marriage's essence (Sprigg). That the pair must be of different sexes is indicated by tradition before the Defense of Marriage Act was implemented is, at best, a slippery slope error that fails to take into account the institution's bipartite nature. As a result of states and countries currently allowing some form of same-sex union, the author claims that the legalization of same-sex marriage will reduce birth rates. He provides statistics to support this claim (Sprigg). Because they only reveal the results, these numbers paint a skewed picture. Before same-sex unions were permitted, the birth rate and fertility in these states were drastically different. It's impossible to tell if what's happening now is a direct outcome of legalizing same-sex marriage without data from before that time, as well as research establishing a causal link. People with high levels of education and a significant concentration of income are generally linked to low birth rates. A study by NerdWallet determined the twenty most educated cities in the United States based on the percentage of residents with a bachelor's or higher degree. In twelve of the top twenty cities, same-sex marriage is legal (Divya). In all but two of the states that allow same-sex marriage, the median household income is higher than the national median, according to Madeleine Scinto's infographic "A State-by-State Look at America's Wealth Distribution." Only six states outside of this group may legitimately claim this (Scinto). Despite the fact that neither of these facts proves that same-sex marriage is the sole reason of decreased fertility and birth rates in states that allow it, they do illustrate that there are other factors at play.
Moral or societal influence arguments for and against same-sex marriages are sometimes based on inconclusive or flimsy facts or fail to provide a complete picture of the issue. Because same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, so is a civil union or domestic partnership for same-sex couples. However, the legal arguments are unquestionable. A "separate but equal" union for same-sex couples is emulating the segregation of African Americans, which was facilitated by this similar doctrine in states. To ensure that segregation of whites and African-Americans was legal, the Supreme Court of the United States decided in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. In the case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, newly appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren led the court to a unanimous decision: that separate but equal was not constitutional as it denied African Americans their Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and their Fifth Amendment rights to due process. This ruling lasted until the Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954. (National). The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection to all citizens of the United States, notwithstanding the fact that this judgment was established in relation to racial segregation. Amendment XIV defines a citizen of the United States as "all individuals born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This means that homosexuals cannot be discriminated against based on their sexuality, as described in the amendment. Discrimination against same-sex couples by requiring them to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership violates the long-defunct separate but equal doctrine.
The legalization of same-sex weddings has been a hot-button issue in the United States since the 1970s, when two Supreme Court cases, US v Windsor and Hollingsworth v Perry, were decided. There is a long history of discrimination towards homosexuals. In many ways, their plight is just as difficult and agonizing as that of African-Americans in their struggle for civil rights. They have been persecuted and even tortured, frequently to the point of death, despite not being slaves. Not because of their skin color or any other physical trait, they are discriminated against. Because of who they love, they are subjected to prejudices that cannot be alleviated any more than ancestry. To put it another way, it's about time that the Civil Rights movement that began so long ago came to an end. Since its population are so diverse, the United States has been referred to as a "melting pot." Let's not just be a safe refuge for persons of different ethnicities. With this in mind, we've adopted the motto "Give me your weary, your hungry, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," from our own Statue of Liberty, which represents the concept that our country was founded on. Lifting my torch by the golden door, I say, "Send these destitute and tempest-tost to me" (Lyden). For people looking for a better life in the "new world," this is often seen as a promise. The same is true for individuals who have already arrived and are caught in a discriminatory tempest here at home, those who need a light to guide them toward a brighter future.
The denial of fundamental civil rights to people of the United States has been eliminated by the country's constitution. This ruling is violated if same-sex couples are denied the freedom to live their own lives, liberty, and happiness. Every American has signed a commitment that each man, woman, and child are endowed with "certain unalienable Rights" that have been "endowed by the Creator," yet this refusal shatters that agreement (Jefferson). A charter of government drafted to end King George's refusal of basic human rights to the colonies, this practice violates the Constitution to its very core. Please see this as a grave violation of our brother man's fundamental rights that must be remedied.