Presentation on theme: "Same Sex Marriage is a choice. People love who they love, others can’t choice for them."— Presentation transcript:
Same Sex Marriage is a choice. People love who they love, others can’t choice for them.
For years, the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender and feminist communities have recognized that same-sex couples cannot participate fully in our society if they are denied the rights and responsibilities offered to heterosexual couples through marriage. Because of this it has led to cases in various states to where the couples have to secure their own rights to marry.
ARTICLES OPPOSING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ARTICLES OPPOSING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Bradley, Gerard V., "Same-Sex Marriage: Our Final Answer?" Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 14:729-752 2000 Bradley, Gerard V., "Same-Sex Marriage: Our Final Answer?" Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 14:729-752 2000 Coolidge, David Orgon; & Duncan, William C., "Reaffirming Marriage: A Presidential Priority," Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 24:623-651 Spring 2001 Coolidge, David Orgon; & Duncan, William C., "Reaffirming Marriage: A Presidential Priority," Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 24:623-651 Spring 2001 Coolidge, David Orgon, "Same-Sex Marriage? Baehr v. Miike and the Meaning of Marriage," South Texas Law Review, 38:1-119 March 1997. Coolidge, David Orgon, "Same-Sex Marriage? Baehr v. Miike and the Meaning of Marriage," South Texas Law Review, 38:1-119 March 1997. Dent, George W. Jr., "The Defense of Traditional Marriage," The Journal of Law and Politics, 15:581-644 Fall 1999 Dent, George W. Jr., "The Defense of Traditional Marriage," The Journal of Law and Politics, 15:581-644 Fall 1999
The movement to open civil marriage to same-sex couples achieved its first temporary success in 1993 with the decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court that the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples would be presumed unconstitutional unless the state could demonstrate that it furthered a compelling state interest. In response to this decision the state constitution was amended to allow the legislature to preserve that restriction.
In Nov. 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring same-sex couples from civil marriage was unconstitutional. The Senate then asked the court for an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of a proposed law that would bar same-sex couples from civil marriage but would create civil unions as a parallel institution, with all the same benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities under law. In February, the court answered, "segregating same-sex unions from opposite-sex unions cannot possibly be held rationally to advance or preserve" the governmental aim of encouraging "stable adult relationships for the good of the individual and of the community, especially its children." Under this decision, the state of Massachusetts began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in May 2004.
Same sex marriage is not allowed any many states as you know. Many people are not for same sex marriage I don’t see while know harm is done toward them as you know. To me love is love, if you really love someone then that’s your choice, there for it’s your choice weather it’s girl and girl or guy n guy. Your call on who you love not others around you.
A similar court decision in Alaska in 1998 led to an even stronger constitutional amendment, itself defining marriage as between one man and one woman. In further reaction to the Hawaii case, the federal Defense of Marriage Act 1996 provided that no state would be required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state, and also defined marriage for federal-law purposes as opposite-sex. The majority of the states also passed their own "marriage protection acts." In November 2004, eleven more U.S. states amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage.
1971 Now issued its first policy statement recognizing lesbian rights as a feminist issue. The statement acknowledged that a woman's right to independence and self-determination includes the right to define and express her own sexuality and to choose her own lifestyle. This policy cited some of the more blatant forms of discrimination against lesbians-employment, education, child custody and marriage-emphasizing that lesbian couples are denied all the economic and legal benefits granted to married women, including tax deductions, insurance benefits, inheritance rights and more.
The Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996 and signed by former President Bill Clinton, defined marriage as "the legal union between one man and one woman," and asserted that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state. In addition, 38 states have passed their own Defense of Marriage acts.
President Obama's first Supreme Court nominee, it has become clear that the topic of marriage equality a.k.a., same-sex marriage, will be front and center.
Six months after gay and lesbian couples began legally marring in Massachusetts, opponents of same-sex marriage swept Election Day, with voters in 11 states approving constitutional amendments codifying marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution.
The amendments won in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and even Oregon the one state where gay rights activists had hoped to prevail.
The amendments passed with a 3-to-1 margin in Kentucky, Georgia and Arkansas, 3-to-2 in Ohio and 6-to-1 in Mississippi. Bans passed by narrower margins in Oregon, about 57 percent, and Michigan, about 59 percent.
CALIFORNIA Current law-State law, passed by public referendum, bans same-sex marriage In defiance of that law, San Francisco issued more than 3,200 marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The state high court is expected to rule on the validity of those marriages. The state will extend certain state-level marriage benefits to those on a domestic partners' registry starting Jan. 1, 2005.
Why can’t same-sex couples have access to the same rights and protections as their straight neighbors simply because they are citizens? How would we respond if the right to interracial marriage were based on the prospects that these relationships made good business sense or added to the state budget? While economic arguments were certainly advanced during the struggle for African-American civil rights — in the late 1950s, Atlanta’s business-oriented mayor, William B. Hartsfield, promoted his city as being “too busy to hate” — those rationales are not what we think about when we remember that struggle’s highest ideals.
FLORIDA Current law-adopted as state law Legislation-None Court action-Miami lawyer Ellis Rubin has filed 8 lawsuits 3 federal cases and 5 state cases in 2004 on behalf of about 40 same-sex couples. Two of the federal cases seek recognition of marriages performed in Canada and Florida and challenge the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The other cases were filed on behalf of unwed same-sex couples seeking the right to marry. None have gone to trial yet. The National Center for Lesbian Rights has filed a lawsuit on behalf of six same-sex couples challenging Florida's same-sex marriage ban.
HAWAII Current law-Constitutional amendment giving the legislature the right to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. DOMA passed by the legislature and adopted as state law by public referendum. But Hawaii law provides limited state benefits to same-sex partners.
http://www.acslaw.org Same-Sex Marriage is a Feminist Issue www.hrcactioncenter.org http://lawlibrary.rugers.edu/SSM.html Same-Sex Marriage: A Selective Bibliography of the Legal Literature http://www.ncsl.org http://www.ncsl.org Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships http://www.stateline.org States that allow same sex marriage http://www.stateline.org http://www.nytimes.com http://www.nytimes.com The Wrong Reasons for Same-Sex Marriage
("Why Not Civil Unions or Partnerships" 8) ("What I think" 6) ("CALIFORNIA " 15) ("FLORIDA " 17) ("HAWAII" 18) ("Same Sex Marriage" 1)