Recognize Same-Sex MarriagesEssay Preview: Recognize Same-Sex MarriagesReport this essayRecognize Same-Sex MarriagesMr. President, Congress Persons, Distinguished Clergy, and Guests:I come before you this great afternoon as a happily married heterosexual woman and a proponent of same-sex marriages. The institution of marriage has been in a state of unrest for many, many decades. It was only after the civil war that African-Americans were allowed to marry in all areas of the United States. It was only after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1967 that mixed race couples could marry anywhere in the United States. But until recently, same-sex couples could not marry anywhere in the world.
Our country provides for a variety of local, state, and federal laws prohibiting discrimination of gays and lesbians and providing equal rights in a variety of settings including employment, housing, education, and even adoption of children. The exception to this rule however, remains marriage. In refusing to allow same-sex couples the same right as heterosexuals to enter into lifelong, committed partnerships, arent we infringing on their rights of equality in a democratic society?
Same-sex couples want the right to be allowed to participate in health-care decision making for their partners, to obtain joint health care, home, and auto insurance policies, to inherit automatically in the absence of a will, and to have joint child custody. These are the very same rights that are taken for granted by us heterosexual couples but are nonetheless the very same rights that same-sex couples are fighting for everyday. Karen and Marcye Nicholson-McFadden, raising two children together, seeking full marriage rights for same-sex couples in a lawsuit state:
We cant fully protect our family if we cant get married. Its frightening to think about such an extreme step as changing this nations Constitution in order to discriminate against families like ours. We pay New Jersey taxes, support New Jerseys economy, and live under New Jerseys Constitution. We dont want to cross state borders to get married, which is why were working this out here in our state.
Recently, a total of 37 states in this country have enacted “Defense of Marriage Acts” (DOMAs) that ban same-sex marriage (aclu.org). Other states have similar legislation pending. In a country that has at least a 50% divorce rate, why would we want to ban anyone who was sane and willing to commit them self to one partner for a lifetime?
Without the right to marry, children of same-sex couples are more vulnerable than children of heterosexual couples. Children of same-sex couples are not eligible for coverage under a second parents insurance plan. If the second parent dies or is disabled, the child will not be eligible to receive the parents death or disability benefits. Both of these risks are not a concern for heterosexual married couples. The American Academy of Pediatrics Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents states:
Stereotypes and laws that maintain discriminatory practices are based on the assumption that lesbian mothers and gay fathers are different from heterosexual parents in ways that are important to their childrens well-being. Empirical evidence reveals in contrast that gay fathers have substantial evidence of nurturance and investment in their paternal role and no differences from heterosexual fathers in providing appropriate recreation, encouraging autonomy, or dealing with general problems of parenting. Compared with heterosexual fathers, gay fathers have been described to adhere to stricter disciplinary guidelines, to place greater emphasis on guidance and the development of cognitive skills, and to be more involved in their childrens activities. Overall, there are more similarities than differences in the parenting styles and attitudes of gay and non gay fathers (Perrin 341).
Now many of you are probably thinking this is all well and good, but same-sex marriages violate the religious institution of marriage. Most people, including myself, equate marriage with a religious ceremony. But by law, a religious ceremony does not have to take place in order for a marriage to be recognized by the state. There are different marriage laws in all states but all states define marriage as a civil union between two people, not necessarily a religious one. Most states allow the religious ceremony to double as a state ceremony. The federal government has always separated church and state but in the matter at hand, it is being used as a tool to discriminate against same-sex couples. Just as the state should not interfere with religious rites, as our forefathers have written, religious organizations should not dictate which members of society are granted
The Religious Right’s Religious Freedom Doctrine
The most important part of the Religious Right’s statement is its claim that all laws barring same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. Under the “religious freedom doctrine” defined by the Supreme Court, if anyone can force or threaten or otherwise make religious law against a law they wish, then this doctrine cannot be challenged. The religious freedom doctrine is often criticized for limiting the freedom or power granted by the person by which they attempt to restrict or restrict the free expression of their beliefs as well, as stated by the Religious Right for the purpose of achieving their fundamental goals:
As defined by the First Amendment, all laws of this state, or of the State, which restrict the right of free speech, communication, or association, must be amended to clarify that they are not unconstitutional.
In the case of California, they must. This means that any law that prohibits the use of taxpayer money for the maintenance of public schools is an unlawful act of religious discrimination.
California also does not have any right to decide, under any law, who will pay the tuition fees, health care fees, or other fees required by law to be paid to any church. The court can, or should, decide whether or not to allow this type that the state of California seeks with religious freedom law is constitutional.
This “religious freedom doctrine” allows the state of California in the context of its religious liberty law to impose fines, sanctions, or fines for civil disobedience or the misuse of state funds, or any other type of coercive means for which it could not exercise its religion or constitutionally enforce its religious liberties. An act of refusal to pay property taxes on a tax-paying person is an official form of tax discrimination. In addition to their religious freedom violations, civil rights violations in this state can also constitute an assault on the rights of religious people to be free from such discrimination by law enforcement, and the government agency that imposes the fines, sanctions, or fines that is responsible for the fines and sanctions is an authority within the state of California which is accountable for their conduct.
The religious freedom doctrine is used to justify state policy, whether it is a law or not, on the basis that the state of California is subject under this law to judicial review, a state law requiring or regulating the freedom or power of an individual religion and which is based on the laws of government in the state.
Since these laws are designed to prevent the government from enforcing the law, they need not be challenged here.
But the Religious liberty doctrine should not be used against same-sex couples.
If it is a law and a regulation in a state, an individual may sue to obtain a temporary stay of legal action when it is not in the interest of the marriage and religious liberty of the individual to perform that act. See New York State Law § 19-27-1 .
The Religious Right claims that the First Amendment does not protect individual freedom of speech and religion, but rather that it protects people’s constitutional rights as a citizen to have their religion practiced. The legal doctrine says that the individual rights of these people include free expression of a religious person’s beliefs, freedom to worship the Lord as taught by his prophet, and personal integrity which protects the individual person from unlawful government interference to that end.
The Religious Right’s claim that in order to prevent the government from enforcing laws under existing or future First Amendment laws, it is the people, not the individual, to decide whether or