Currently the Supreme Court is debating what to do about state bans on same-sex marriage. Should they uphold the states right to enact such a law, as their elected officials have? Or does it amount to discrimination by the government? Read this article and answer the following questions. For each question you should cite the article in your response. Be sure to explain yourself throughout your response.
Which justice has the most convincing legal argument in your eyes? Why or why not? Cite the article in your response. Remember to explain why you think the justice you picked has the best argument.
In your opinion, should marriage be left up to the states, or is this a case where the federal government should intervene? What part of the Constitution is justification for the states rights, pro-ban advocates? What part of the Constitution is justification for the anti-ban, same-sex marriage advocates? Which part of the Constitution should, in this case, hold more legal weight?
What does this article say about the role of the judicial branch in American politics as a whole? What kind of sweeping changes have been made in the past b the Supreme Court? Should the Supreme Court be social engineers, who are there to "make things right" when others fail to see the immorality of their ways? Or should the Supreme Court simply be an arbiter of the law, with no consideration to the moral or social ramifications?
Listen to this segment from NPR and answer the following questions. First, briefly summarize the main idea of this segment. Do you agree? Why or why not?
12 comments:
I find that Mary Bonauto had a very compelling argument. Her point about how women in the past also fought for rights helps push the argument for gay marriage becoming legal. Since people now find the notion of women having the same rights as men obvious, it draws an obvious parallel between women rights and gay rights, thus saying that gay marriage is, or should be, an obvious right.
I feel that gay marriage should be up to the federal government- what's the difference between Michigan and Washington DC when it comes to gay marriage? We are a united nation that preaches the notion of freedom, so our citizens should be able to marry who they love. As for same-sex advocates, article IV, section 2 paragraph 1 says that people are entitled to all privileges and immunities in the states- thus saying that all people are either entitled to gay marriage or banned from it; however, the 10th amendment gives all power's not listed to the states, which is mostly family relations and regulations of that sort-including marriage. The constitution should hold more weight since it is specified that all citizens should have the same rights, and since gay marriage is a right in some states, it should be nationwide. The 10th amendment is only for what is not listed, and the constitution grants equal rights.
The article says that the role of the judicial branch for American politics is to give a clear interpretation of the law and to evaluate the situations in a unbiased and fair way, according to the constitution. Many changes, such as the brown v board decision and many others, have left huge impact on society. I believe that Supreme Court should be social engineers. The U.S. is a international role model because of it's preached freedom and equality, so it's best that we have moral and fair laws for the citizens who were promised these things. The constitution acts as a guideline for the states; however, the framers understood that society's expectations would change over time which is why amendments were accounted for within the constitution. In this sense, moral and social ramifications should certainly be considered because the constitution is strictly law.
To summarize, the article says that the complication of marriage in today's day and age is not a question. New technology and adoption and divorce complicate family ties. Essentially, the guest says that there is no typical American family, which is why the argument is going on over gay marriage. I agree with this statement, I have friends who are adopted, have divorced parents, numerous step-moms/dads, etc. If the idea of marriage is just for bonding together parents for a child, then gay marriage should be legalized. Many adopted children are brought into homosexual homes, so if the bonding notion is the case, marriage would be ideal for these households struggling against discrimination.
I seem to parallel most with Justice Samuel Alito on this issue currently. While I am an advocate for all people’s right to get married no matter their sexual orientation, our country is not ready for that change on a state to state level. Each state wants something different and should not be forced into anything that violates the state’s rights or what the citizens of that state rule in a majority. I am irritated by the comment made by Justice Stephen Breyer saying, “Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether doing so is harmful to marriage?” How is two people that are committing their lives and futures together going to harm anything if their intentions are pure? This question Justice Breyer posed states that he must be ignorant to the success rate of children adopted into same-sex couple homes and that in a happy house, a child can grow and mature with only society to hold them back. According to the LGBT advocate website, lifelongadoptions.com, “Studies have shown that children are more influenced by their interactions with their parents, than by their sexual orientation.” However, I side with Justice Alito in that this is a decision for the states, but a decision in one state should be respected in another state. To no have a process that allows for marriage criteria, adoption status, or anything else to be legal accepted in another state is unacceptable. The government should catalyze a more set way for the states to accept a person’s status from another state. While the choice to allow gay marriage cannot be forced on areas that do not support gay marriage, all states are part of the U.S.A. and must abide cohesively so for one state to deny another’s rulings is like two nations feuding. In the Constitution, Amendment 1 supports the ban on same sex marriage as a marriage is “only the union of man and woman” while the 10th Amendment supports a states right to legalize the union. The part of the constitution that banned gay marriage was written before the thought of same gender couples was even close to acceptable so that part of the defense loses some significance and the tenth amendment provides for anything not dictated by the federal government to go to the state level. The right for a state to manage laws is more significant since in this amendment was not written, the federal government would control everything on a general level. Judges mainly will decide on a case by case level whether a person’s marriage or status is valid in a state, but otherwise, unless a lawsuit is formed, they must abide by all laws according to the state and country. A significant ruling by the Supreme Court was in the case of the United States v. Windsor where the court ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. I would have to say that it is up to each state to make their own decision whether to allow gay marriage, but the Supreme Court is obligated to keep each ruling made by the courts applicable as long as they are within Constitutional restraints. They cannot be overbearing and dictate what a state does not want as this would defeat the purpose of democracy.
This NPR segment comments on how a family structure including how procreation occurs with modern medical assistance have changed over the last couple of decades so to base a marriage off of procreation is not as relevant. 40% of births are from unwed parents in today’s America. The relationship between children and their parents is changing as it used to be entirely on marital status, but today it’s it plays little role in that relationship. Justice O’Connor said in Troxel v. Granville that there is not really any same, average American family and today that is even more appropriate as family dynamics are morphing. I do agree that the definition of a family is changing as more people are not raised by biological parents than ever and witht his changing world, society must adapt as well as the laws that dictate us.
1. I don’t think it should be left in the hands of the court; that the states should have jurisdiction in the what they want to do , similar to what Justice Stephen Breyer said “Justice Stephen Breyer, considered one of the court's liberal justices, made a similar point.
“Suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don't want to do it to change ... what marriage is,” he said. "Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether" doing so is harmful to marriage?”
From this even the justices believe that the right of marriage should be to the states.
2. I believe that Justice Kennedy has the strongest case only due to one line and that is “He was tough on gay-marriage advocates, declaring that the definition of marriage as between as man and a woman "has been with us for millennia, and it's very difficult for the court to say, oh well, we know better." And this was strong only because of his statement that we have lived in a society in which a man and a woman live together and it is very hard tot change that fact with a decision of less than 9 people that can affect millions.
3. In my opinion it should be left to the states because something like marriage should not be put into the hands of the government. The 10th amendment would imply that since the action of marriage is not stated in the constitution that means that it is reserved for the states to decide.
4. The role of the judicial branch to make sure that the rights that in the constitutions and the right provided by the law are given to that people abroad. The changes that I made in the past were toward the implementation of the bill of rights to a court cases that need the bill of rights implied into a case. I don’t think they should be the social engineers of the future because in doesn’t say that the supreme court has any jurisdiction in interrupting what is right and wrong to society but instead what is right and wrong in the constitution, and in the constitution, but they should also show consideration for the ramifications of their decision because it will not only affect them it will affect millions.
5. The show was arguing the relevance of the fact that there is no such thing as the average American family and that due to the blurred line on the subject that we should focus on ingoring our definition of an average family and allow gay marriage. Not I don’t agree I believe that we should focus the average family because it hasn’t truly changing in centuries of existence and that is the marriage of a man and woman and that we should talk it out for a great deal of time before we decide to change the status quo.
I think that Justice Samuel Alito had a particularly convincing argument when he asked "how do you account for the fact...until the end of the 21st century, there was never a nation or culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex? ... Is it your argument that they were all operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes and prejudice?" This was a good point in that this decision has a lot to do with peoples cultures and traditions. Several cultures and nations view marriage in the traditional sense, but it doesn't mean that they were holding these beliefs to single out and discriminate against one particular group.
In my opinion I believe that the federal government should intervene. With the federal government, the decision will be the same across the country and no two states will have differing laws. If it is left up to the states not all will have the same law which means it can be legal in one state but still banned in another. This would be a problem if the state with the ban refuses to recognize the marriage of the same-sex couple even though it was allowed in the other state. This was an issue brought up in the article, and Lawyer Douglas Hallward-Driemeier pointed out that we live in a "mobile society, where we travel and move all the time." For that reason I believe that whatever decision is made should be one that is the same for every state so that there will not be an issue of one state recognizing a marriage or not. The 10th amendment states that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated by the Constitution and all remaining powers are reserved for the states. Considering that marriage is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, this serves as justification for the states to be pro-ban and anti-ban advocates in these cases since the power is left to them. However, section 1 of the 14th amendment states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This mandates that individuals be treated equally by the law, which justifies the anti-ban advocates case. I think that the 14th amendment carries more weight because with bans on same-sex marriage it is depriving couples of marriage, which is considered a civil right.
The role of the judicial branch is to give a clear and fair interpretation of the Constitution. A fair enough ruling so that no group or individual is left out. The Supreme Court has made sweeping changes in the past, like in the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ruling that separate schools are not equal. This called for the integration of the schools which was a major change during that time. I believe that the Supreme Court should not act as social engineers who "make things right" because their decision should not be biased in any way toward what they personally feel as moral or immoral. They should simply base their ruling off of their interpretation of the law.
The NPR segment was discussing the tie between marriage and family and how much variation there is today in how families are formed. Joanna Grossman sums it up by quoting what Justice O'Connor said in an old court case, "that there's really no such thing as the average American family." I agree with Joanna Grossman in that no family is the same and that the formation of families is more varied today than ever. From the increasing number of children born to unmarried parents to the technologies that can be used for forming gay and lesbian families, I would also agree with the delinkage that has happened associating children with their biological mom or dad. Today there are so many children that are not or can not be "linked" to a biological parent. The modern view of family has definitely changed from the traditional point of view in the past.
1.) I believe that chief justice John Roberts had the strongest argument because the idea of having a say so in controversial topics greatly influences and person’s view or feeling on the idea. If a person or in this case, a large group of people know that their opinion matters and feel as though it may make a difference then their ideas would grow increasingly strong. As stated by Chief Justice John Roberts, "But if you prevail here, there will be no more debate," he declared. "It will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted. People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it's imposed on them by the courts."
2.) Originally I did believe that marriage should be left up to the states because they ideas and feelings of the people would be localized and depending on the majority of the votes a decision could be made. I now believe that the government should intervene because it has now become apparent that it is an ongoing debate and as a nation, we should come to a consensus. Article IV section II does clearly state that all privileges and rights are entitled to the people which is justification for the states’ rights, pro-ban advocates. Amendment 10 gives powers not listed to the states which are in favor of justification for the anti-ban, same-sex marriage advocates. The individual parts of the constitution that gives power and equality to people should have more weight versus the broad spectrum of power given to the states because it is the people who make up the nation and their opinion should be taken into consideration to avoid chaos.
3.) The article says that the roll of the judicial branch is to interpret the constitution clearly and fairly and to remain unbiased in decision making. The Supreme Court should simply be an arbiter of the law and not there to “make things right.” I believe they should be an arbiter of the law because the constitution was written with the intentions of it being implemented into the everyday lives of the American people and it is only right that we continue to uphold the rights of the constitution and not make decisions in an illegal manner.
The main idea of this segment is that there is no modern day family. Families today are created in different ways, through marriage, divorce and other factors. A quote that sums the entire idea up is, “that there's really no such thing as the average American family.” I do agree with this idea because it is clearly evident all around us. I am not for the idea that families should be created this way but I do agree with the fact that there is no one way that they are created.
I think Justice Stephen Breyer has the best argument of all of the justices. The most convincing point of his argument is:
“Justice Stephen Breyer noted that gay couples are the only group that states exclude from the right to marry.
"And so we ask, why? And the answer we get is, well, people have always done it," observed Breyer. "You know, you could have answered that one the same way [when] we talk about racial segregation."’
This is a convincing argument because it relates the unjust principles of same-sex marriage being illegal to racial segregation; in simpler terms, Justice Breyer is explaining that the only reason same-sex marriage is not legal in all of the United States is because it’s always been that way and no one, until recent decades, has shown strong interest in changing the laws in order to make gays equal to every other citizen, just like the civil rights movement was able to make racial minorities equal to every other citizen.
I strongly disagree with marriage being left to the states, not only because I believe every citizen, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be allowed to legally marry, but also because it will cause even more conflict if some states ban same-sex marriage and others do not (Beyer made the argument that if some states banned same-sex marriage while others did not, then more havoc would be caused because, if a family moved to a state where gay marriage was banned, then their marriage could be disregarded by the state, causing implications in their once-happy, care-free family.)
Pro-ban advocates would argue that the 10th Amendment should protect states from being forced to adopt laws that would allow same-sex marriage, while anti-ban activists would argue that Article IV, section 2 states that all citizens should have the same rights. I think Article IV, section 2 should hold more legal weight, simply because it states its purpose more directly.
This article shows the power and thoughtfulness that the Supreme Court must hold in order to actively make decisions that will affect governmental policies and social changes. I believe it is up to the Supreme Court to “make things right” because there isn’t any other branch of government that has enough power to enact such a huge social change (even though President Obama would like to make the huge change, he doesn’t have the power to). As Justice Breyer argued, the issue in same-sex marriage is similar to that of the issue with racial segregation. In the nationwide dispute on racial segregation, the final decision by the Supreme Court was to rule that it was inherently unequal and enacted a nationwide law that banned racial segregation. The same must happen with same-sex marriage.
The main idea of the NPR article’s argument is that there is no definition of an American family today; instead, we have a broad range of family types, and this causes the argument for gay-marriage to withstand. I agree with this because, although many are still against liberal policies such as gay marriage or purchasing alcoholic beverages on Sundays, society has become a lot more lenient over the years, thus changing family dynamics. However, I don’t think this change is bad by any means.
I think Chief Roberts has the most convincing argument. He said "I'm not sure it's necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case...I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can't. And the difference is based upon their different sex...Why isn't that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?" I think he has a great point. If a man an woman can marry, then a man/man or woman/woman should be able to. He makes it a point of sexual discrimination, which I 100% agree with.
I think it should be a federal government decision. It's a huge controversial topic that needs to be decided upon. I don't think there is a part of the Constitution that can provide reasoning for either side of the argument. It doesn't mention marriage anywhere within it which is what makes it so controversial. I think the 14th Amendment should hold the most weight in this issue. In Reed v. Reed, the Equal Protection Clause protected women from situations where gender discrimination occurred with no basis. There is no underlying argument for why gay couple isn't allowed the freedom of marriage like heterosexual couples.
I think the article says that Americans look to the judicial branch for answers to issues that are too big for states to handle. The Supreme Court was there to make the final decision on racial discrimination and they'll eventually make the decision on gay marriage. I think the Supreme Court should consider what is socially right and the morality of the decision they will make.
The main idea is that the Supreme Court needs to consider the 21st century family dynamic. The dynamic is not the "Dick and Jane" style with a mom, a dad, and their biological children. Nowadays, children are born out of wedlock, with more than two parents, and with non-heterosexual parents. I do agree that the aspect of family dynamic needs to be looked at. Times have changed and children don't just simply have a mom and a dad. There are stepparents, polygamists, and children with gay parents. Even if there are states out there that don't allow gay marriage, it will and is happening in other states. The article addresses an important issue that impacts the decision the Supreme Court will make.
I feel like Mary Bonauto had the best argument comparing same-sex marriage to recognizing women as equal under the law and that “times can blind society to the “humanity” of people who are different.” Although some of the other arguments I agreed with such as for the longest time there was never a nation or culture who recognized same sex-marriage but it is 2015 and now is the time. Bonauto is stating that if we can overcome the discrimination of women rights we can do the same for same-sex marriage, it is only right.
It should not be left up to the states, the federal government should intervene. There is no reason why a same-sex couple should have to uproot their life, just to move somewhere else to get married. There is no difference between states and no valid reason why same sex-marriage should be legal in only certain states. Article IV, Section 2 says that “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” Basically saying that people are entitled to either or but the 10th amendment states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” giving all power’s not listed to the states. I believe that the Constitution holds more weight because it is specifically stating that all citizens should be granted equal rights.
The judicial branch in American politics as a whole is to interpret the laws and they interpret the laws as relates to the constitution. A very significant change that has been made in the past with the Supreme Court is cases such as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board. I believe that the Supreme Court needs to be social engineers, especially in this situation. When people have a very strong opinion about something, they often times do not recognize the immortality of their ways. Same-sex marriage should not be an issue because it does not affect others, but people fail to see that.
This NPR segment is basically about how the modern American family is nothing like it was some years ago. Justice O’Connor hit the nail on the head when he said “there’s really on such thing as an average American family.” I agree with this and I believe this is even more reason to allow same-sex marriage. With all the different type of families around today, a family with two moms or two dads is not a problem.
I think Justice Stephen Breyer had the most convincing argument, breyers argued that the only reason gay marriage is not legal all across the United States is because it's never been before. It was also pointed out, that only same sex couples are excluded from marriage rights. I agree with this argument, because it wasn't until the recent decade that many became serious about advocating equal rights for gays. The only reason same sex marriage isn't legal, is because we never made it legal, or had anyone seriously fighting for same-sex marriage.
I don't agree with marriage rights being completely controlled by the state, their would be several states where it would still be illegal, I don't think its fair for someone to not be able to marry because of the state they live in, or traveling to another state to marry, that's ridiculous. It would create more havoc than anything, as breyers stated. pro-ban advocates, are justified through the tenth amendment. The parts in the constitution that advocate equal and civil rights should hold more weight.
I think this article shows that Americans rely on Judicial branch for issues the states cant, or should not be allowed to handle individually. a significant change that has been made in the past with the supreme court is Brown v. Board, the case that ended racial segregation.
The point of the NPR article is to show, not everyone is living the typical American lifestyle anymore, times are changing and we need to accept and adapt. There are many different families in todays society , and there will be many more.
In my honest opinion, I think that Chief Justice John Roberts has the best argument. He stated that sexual orientation should not resolve this issue. Because he said "I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can't. And the difference is based upon their different sex."
"Why isn't that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?"
I personally agree with this and think that it is also a gay rights issue. Because gay rights, same-sex, and sexual discrimination go hand in hand with each other because they’re all essentially the same and they all correlate with each other. For an example, if a man is allowed to marry a woman and they love each other. Then, if a man loves a man or a woman loves another women they should have the rights to marry each other. Because the couple are essentially signing a contract to be acknowledged by the states and for their love for one another and that they’re now united as one.
I think that this issue should be taken care of by the federal government. Because, as Chief Justice John Robert said (after agreeing that waiting for other states to see their results will have consequences)"But if you prevail here, there will be no more debate," he declared. "It will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted. People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it's imposed on them by the courts." I think that Chief Justice John Roberts is hoping that the federal government a.k.a. the Supreme Court will take over and impose the idea that same-sex marriage should be allowed, so that the people of the United States all have to adapt to it and move on with their lives. Amendment 10 would be pro-ban advocate’s choice of weapon in their arguments, but Article IV Section II would be anti-ban advocates would be their go-to topic for their arguments and should hold the most legal weight in this situation. Because even though Amendment 10 is all about protecting states from being forced to adopt laws which other states have approved. Article IV Section II is all about the citizen’s rights and their equality. This protects their civil liberty which are individual rights protected by the law from unjust governmental interference. As a whole, this article points out flaws about the judicial branch in American politics and that instead of the state making the decision the Supreme Court should be the one to make the decision and enforce on all states. Because, in the past the Supreme Court made the decision for the ban of racial segregation and equality amongst all race. And look as the country now, we are still struggling with racial discrimination, but the country as a whole is benefitting so much more and so are other races, thanks to this decision made by the federal government. Therefore, the Supreme Court should swoop in and make the decision that would better the country.
The main idea of the NPR segment was about the idea of whether family is defined in the 21st century where kids are born from parents whom are divorced, whom are of the same sex, scientifically or that of the Dick and Jane era where family is defined as man, women, and child. I agree that marriage as being tied to procreation is outdated. Because, in the 21st century kids are adopted into same-sex marital families and kids are living in a polygamic family. Something, that would have been considered completely outrageous back in the 19th and 20th century, but nowadays some states allow such things as a polygamy family to thrive. Because of how our nation is accepting of different culture and religion and the people’s rights, I agree that there is no such thing as an average American family.
I think Chief Justice Roberts has the best legal argument. Chief Justice Roberts said "I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can't. And the difference is based upon their different sex." I think this quote sums up everything that is wrong with this situation. We need to consistently stick to what is documented. It stated that we are equal under law and this is unequal. I think this argument is the most convincing because we are not sticking what is written. We aren't practicing what we are preaching. I think the federal government should intervene and take action on such a huge issue. If the states decide, it'll never get done but if the government gets involved it will be take a lot more seriously. In Article IV Section II it states that all privileges and rights are entitled to the people. This justifies the right of same sex marriage. However the 10th amendment states that the federal government only has the powers given to them by the constitution and all of the remaining power is given to the states, this makes pro-ban and anti-ban acceptable under the law. I think Article IV Section II should because it benefits the people and the people are the most important. It's "By the people, for the people". The role of the judicial branch is to interpret the constitution in a way that is clear and unbiased. Some sweeping changes that have been made in the past would be changes in racism and women'd rights. The Supreme Court should just interpret the law and point out when something is wrong under the law. There is no need for emotional connection to the law.
I believe that Chief Justice John Roberts had the most arguable debate on the case of same sex marriage. It’s hard to back up the issue and if it’s actually backed up on the constitution but waiting to make a solution will only lead to more consequences. Most people point out the equal protection clause in the constitution to back up a right for same sex marriage. This decision should definitely be left up to the states. The tenth amendment allows for these decisions to be left to the states and the population’s overall vote. The Supreme Court should not intervene on such matters because the states should have the right on whether to allow gay marriage within their state. The Supreme Court should just be social engineers who’s there to make things right when everything else fails. The judicial system can overlook the laws however I believe leaving it up to the states gives a fair chance and vote over the majority of the population to create their own laws. The main idea of the NPR argument is that there is no “tradititional” family in the 21st century. They’re stating that there is no average, typical American family, at least every family is different whether it’s a homosexual or hetrosexual couple. In this new society. No I do not agree that we should focus on an average American society because at least every family is different towards an another family, also with the new technology develop, people can create their own family.
Post a Comment