Arguments for Obergefell v. Hodges, a combination of cases relating to same-sex marriage, was heard in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The cases dealt with two main issues.
1. Should states recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states?
2. Should states be able to keep same-sex marriage illegal within their own borders?
With the Supreme Court seemingly split on the issue, Justice Kennedy is seen as the one who will break the tie when the decision, expected to come in June, is made. How would you answer the questions being posed?
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I feel that states should recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, because those marriages were legal. I don't think that states should be able to keep same-sex marriage within their own borders, because people travel and they shouldn't be seen as "illegally married" when in such a state. Also, the nation is changing as a whole, in a positive direction when it comes to same-sex marriages, so I feel that every state should just suck it up and follow. No damage will be done by allowing same-sex marriages!
ReplyDeleteOkay seriously? By now there are 36 states that recognize same sex marriage so what's going on with the other 14? I agree with Rachel that if it is a majority thought in the US then it should be followed throughout the U.S. Same sex marriage should not be defined by state borders. In the article is says that "the social science on this [the value and perils of same-sex marriage] is too new." It's not too new to be able to see times are changing and it's time to recognize that.
ReplyDeleteSame-sex marriage should definitely not be defined by borders! The fact that some states haven't legalized it just shows that the US hasn't really progressed as much as people like to let on. I agree with Katie about how it's time to recognize that times are definitely changing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the previous posts here in that it's sad that this is such a controversy. No, I don't think same-sex marriage can be confined to state borders, and I think the argument that same-sex marriage hasn't been around long enough to make a decision is weak because if that logic were used in every case, nothing would ever begin to exist and nothing would ever grow or change or adapt. The states opposing same-sex marriage also claim that it's to keep children with their biological parents, but children who are put up for adoption or who are in the foster care system are typically there because they have no home to return to or the home is unsafe and they will have better lives in their new homes; so in a way, allowing same-sex marriage would decrease the number of children in state custody and provide them with loving homes. Like the article said, we are a constitutional democracy, not a direct democracy, and our system of government gives a lot of power to the courts regarding social change. What the supreme court says must go, so at the moment it is legal for states to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but when this decision comes out in June, if it supports same-sex marriage, that will no longer be the case.
ReplyDeleteAs for recognition of marriages in other states, I'm not entirely certain. However, I'm leaning towards no (again, only until the supreme court decision is released and if it supports gay marriage) because of federalism and the relationship between state and federal governments. As was pointed out, this is a relatively new issue, and nowhere in the constitution does it say if the right to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples goes to the states or to the federal government. So at the moment I would say that yes, it goes to the states and what is law in one state doesn't need to be the law in another state.
I believe that all people have a right to live their lives any way they want as long as they do not hurt others. I think that same sex marriage should be legal, and in addition I believe that gays and lesbians should be allowed to adopt children. Study after study after study has shown that children raised in homosexual families turn out just as well adjusted as children raised in heterosexual families. Therefore, the LGBT community should be allowed to adopt children.
ReplyDeleteSame-sex marriage should be legal in all states. I agree with Katie and Carolanne that times are changing. People should stop fighting the fact the LGBT community is continuing to grow and they deserve to have the same rights and heterosexual couples, whether that be the right to adopt or marry.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rachel completely when it comes to the first question. States should recognize same-sex marriages performed in others states because they were legal, just like heterosexual marriages performed in other states. While it is true that federalism allows states to have different laws in respect to certain areas, marriage is something that transcends borders and thus doesn't apply. I also believe that states should not be allowed to keep same-sex marriage illegal within their own borders. Marriage is a legal right that everyone is entitled to regardless of sexual orientation. Just because someone doesn't like the idea of two men or two women marrying each other doesn't mean they have the right to prevent them from marrying. The recent and dramatic shift we have seen over the past few years in support of same-sex marriage is proof of how accepted it has become in America. Now that same-sex marriages are allowed in 36 of the 50 states, I think we have passed the point where the right to marriage can continue to be denied to same-sex couples.
ReplyDeleteI am all for people marrying whoever they want to marry. In terms of whether same sex marriages in one state should be accepted by the next state, I do not think it would be right to force one state to accept the wishes of another. The concept of federalism dictates a division of power among the states and federal government. With opinion so divided on the subject at the moment, I think it should still be an issue decided by region. However, I am open to other viewpoints. If after a time large majorities within the nation agree, the standard can be changed. But how will we measure these majorities? This is where I begin to believe the courts are not the best area to deal with this issue. Scalia presented a similar opinion. Shouldn't a debate as complex as this be measured by majority referendum votes? I think yes. This is a question the nation as a whole (or states as a whole at this point in the process) needs to decide.
ReplyDelete