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.
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
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 Indiana’s defense, some might say that Indiana’ RFRA is mirrored from the federal RFRA, where it protect people’s religious freedom and doesn’t specifically discriminate against LGBT people. However, the federal RFRA was intended to protect individual’s religious freedom from government intervention unless there was a compelling interest. On the other hand, Indiana’s RFRA protects private companies religious freedom and it justifies discrimination based on the name of religion. Overall the LGBT community should have rights that everyone have and laws that discriminate should be outlaw including Indiana 's RFRA.
When debating the legalization of same sex marriage, religious reasoning and accusations of bigotry often provoke obstinance. Instead of reiterating those arguments, William J. Bennett, a prominent cultural conservative, former secretary of education, and author of The Book of Virtues, focuses on societal effects in his op-ed article, “Against Gay Marriage.” Though Bennett’s piece conveys partiality, it also attempts to discuss this issue scrupulously to ensure readers will consider his argument and perhaps accept his implications. While some of Bennett’s word choices convey tolerance of the gay community, his rhetoric incites readers to accept that preserving society requires marginalizing homosexuals.
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
More and more television shows are using same sex couples as main and supporting characters to increase their ratings. According to the article, America's future is being decided by a select few people that are going to give the gays more freedoms than heterosexual people would
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.
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.
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
