same-sex marriage

Bible

marijuana

one-liner

homosexuality

sandwich

US healthcare system

hysterectomy

is, for its opponents, a social issue that shouldn't be decided by courts but rather through the democratic process. To do otherwise would perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers.

Although a flurry of lawsuits have been effective in overturning gay marriage bans in dozens of states, ban supporters claim that marriage shouldn't be decided by courts but rather through the democratic process. This means that when a majority of Americans vote to prohibit same-sex unions in their state, that decision should stand. This became a key argument in both the Louisiana and the Sixth Circuit cases and is echoed in the judges' final decisions. In his upholding of gay marriage bans in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, Sutton wrote that by leaving this decision up to voters, states are instilling a sense of power in the people. 'When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers,' he wrote.

is not a matter for the courts, on the grounds that fundamental social change is better cultivated through the democratic process.

In Louisiana, U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman stated that 'fundamental social change' is 'better cultivated through the democratic process.' He went on to write: 'Louisiana's regime pays respect to the democratic process... to vigorous debate. To predictable controversy, of course.'

is not constitutionally protected nor a matter for the courts because it is not an inherent right specifically protected by the constitution.

Anti-Gay Marriage Argument No. 3: It's Not in the Constitution One of the most highly disputed arguments against gay marriage is that it's not an inherent right protected by the Constitution. In the controversial Sixth Circuit decision that upheld gay marriage bans in four states, Sutton wrote: 'But the right to marry in general, and the right to gay marriage in particular, nowhere appear in the Constitution. That route for recognizing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage does not exist.'

is not constitutionally protected, nor a matter for the courts because although the 1967 supreme court ruling in loving v. Virginia, which legalized interracial marriage, ruled that marriage is indeed a 'fundamental right' this 'right' does not apply to same-sex couples because sexual orientation has not been viewed by the supreme court as a protected class.

Although Sutton acknowledges that the Supreme Court ruled marriage was indeed a 'fundamental right' in the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, which legalized interracial marriage, the judge wrote that this 'right' doesn't apply to same-sex couples. In the Louisiana case, plaintiffs argued that barring same-sex couples from marriage discriminates based on sexual orientation. Judge Feldman disagreed, writing in his decision to uphold the gay marriage ban that 'neither the Supreme Court nor the Fifth Circuit has ever before defined sexual orientation as a protected class, despite opportunities to do so.'

is not in the government's interest because it discourages heterosexual couples from marriage.

In the past, gay marriage opponents have even argued that by allowing gay couples to marry, states would be discouraging heterosexual couples from doing so.

is not in the government's direct interest since one of the functions of marriage is for the state to incentivize couples to stay together and create a stable family unit in the event of an accidental, unintended/unplanned pregnancy.

One of the most commonly employed anti-gay marriage arguments is that of 'responsible procreation.' Sometimes this phrase simply implies that gay couples aren't as qualified to parent as straight ones, so it's the government's responsibility to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. Although a large body of scientific evidence refutes these claims, the argument has persisted. 'Responsible procreation' can also refer to the idea that marriage was created as an incentive for couples to stay together if they have an unplanned pregnancy, explained Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, who is involved in a few of the cases facing the Supreme Court. Provided with benefits such as tax deductions and tax breaks, married heterosexual couples will be more likely to raise their child together, some say. Because gay couples can't get pregnant by accident, they don't need to be offered the incentive of marriage, the argument goes.

is a recognition that relationships are about more than gender. After all, Valentine's Day cards generally do not read 'my favorite thing about you is that you're the opposite sex.'

This is also ridiculous. I don't know much about straight couples. But I'm pretty sure they don't give Valentine's Day cards that say, 'My favorite thing about you is that you're the opposite sex.' If we're talking about the 'fundamental core' of marriage, well, a relationship is about a little bit more than just gender.

is the demand for an equality that amounts to a requirement of action (i.e. Making a person do something, such as forcing ministers to preside over weddings they don't approve of), which is unpalatable to many of our citizens for religious reasons.

The ones who are opposed are really opposed, starting with Scalia. He said marriage equality amounts to 'a requirement of action which is unpalatable to many of our citizens for religious reasons.' In other words, marriage equality would force ministers to preside over weddings they don't approve of. But, of course that's ridiculous. Yeah, there are nondiscrimination laws that require businesses to treat customers equally. But, he's mixing up non-discrimination laws with the First Amendment, which protects private religious acts. Religious officials can choose who to associate with in private. But this case is about the government. And the government, which has to represent everyone, can't pick and choose who the law protects.

same sex marriage, n.Definitions

same sex marriage