It Is Not Marriage Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses. They propose the union between two men or two women.
The arguments for Posted Wed, November 28th, The Court is scheduled to consider ten petitions on that issue at its private Conference on Friday. This article discusses the legal arguments in favor of same-sex marriage.
Later articles will discuss the arguments against, and the options the Court has in considering the cases. The first article in this series can be found here. Putting the two together — marriage equality — is the ambitious goal of that movement.
That can be achieved by changes in state law — as has now been done in nine states: Constitution, but that is a very difficult proposition not seriously contemplated now.
It might be changed — at least to some degree — by Congress, but that is not a real prospect now. Marriage as a legal matter is basically controlled by state law, since it is up to the states to decide who can marry. But marriage is also a constitutional matter.
There is no case now pending at the Court that directly asks this question: A case in California has often been understood, wrongly, as a test of that question. Before the Supreme Court could reach the constitutional arguments, it very likely would have no choice but to resolve two prior questions.
First, what constitutional test should be used to determine the validity of marriage laws that exclude same-sex couples? First, they say that the decision has been overtaken by more recent Supreme Court decisions recognizing and protecting gay rights, including a right to privacy in their sexuality.
In fact, today in Minnesota, same-sex marriages are not allowed. That choice of argument was made for a strategic reason, as well as a logical one. Opponents of gay rights have often argued against recognizing such rights on the premise that courts were being asked to create new rights; that claim had to be countered strategically to appeal to the innate caution of most courts that would hear gay rights claims.
Logically, that choice reflects the fact that marriage as a fundamental right is of such long-standing recognition in the courts that the point is really not debatable. Within that promise, advocates link the right to marry to a right of liberty, a right of privacy, a right of intimate choice, and a right of association.
The Court, the argument goes, did not recognize a new constitutional right to interracial marriage, but a right for all persons to select a marital partner.
If there is no valid government reason for treating people with such a characteristic less favorably, then such a law discriminates. Their lawyers, of course, are able to cite soaring declarations from past Supreme Court opinions about legal equality as a bedrock of the American legal system.
That, too, is based upon theories both of social science, as well as studies of physical science.
In this argument, they equate gays and lesbians with racial minorities and women — people with innate characteristics they did not choose. Further, advocates contend that gays and lesbians have not been able, on a level of equality, to persuade governments to provide them with laws or regulations that protect them from discrimination based on their sexual identities.
Unless the Constitution comes to their rescue in assuring them equality, they have no dependable recourse to government, the argument goes. When the argument turns from the general question of gay equality, to marriage equality, advocates employ all of these equal protection theories:Archives and past articles from the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News, and leslutinsduphoenix.com Mormonism in the News President Monson passes away - 2, January LDS Newsroom: With tender feelings we announce that Thomas S.
Monson, president and prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, died this evening at pm in his home in Salt Lake City.
Obergefell v. Hodges, U.S. ___ () (/ ˈ oʊ b ər ɡ ə f ɛ l / OH-bər-gə-fel), is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United .
An alternative to anti-Mormon protests: Leaders of the Mormon Church urged their followers to contribute to a constitutional ban on marriage for gay families, a call that apparently resulted in the bulk of the donations to that effort in California.
Get the latest health news, diet & fitness information, medical research, health care trends and health issues that affect you and your family on leslutinsduphoenix.com Three understandings should form the basis of any discussion about the place of religion and morality in the same-sex marriage debate.