There is no human rights violation in denying the legalization of same-sex marriages. In order to push through with this claim, it is first necessary to classify marriage as a civil matter and not a religious one. …
Download file to see previous pages...
In following this line of reasoning though, one may say that since it is a violation of the constitution to deny anyone of their civil rights, it is therefore unconstitutional to deny people should they want to enter into same-sex marriages. However, for one to claim violation, one must prove first that same-sex marriage is part of the protected rights of the Constitution. This paper aims to correct the presumption that same-sex marriages should be legalized because every individual should be allowed to marry. The truth is, marriage is set as heterosexual by nature, thus, marriage policy limiting the union to only between one man and one woman does not violate the Equal Protection Clause or any other legal or moral principle (Stacey 27). Law protects such union to ensure the continuation of species. The law was not placed there to protect the emotional wants of individuals. Simply put, there is no right to same-sex marriages, thus, homosexuals are not being denied of their right. In fact, if one looks at the natural needs of a child to be raised by both biological parents, the natural need of a man to be ensured of paternity, and the natural need of a woman to be with her child (Stacey 27-8), not legalizing same-sex marriages protects these natural rights. It is Not Included in One’s Civil Rights Civil law is one of the greatest contentions about marriage. Literally speaking, laws governing marriages has always been a concern of the state and not the federal government. In any case, however, it has been long ignored that marriage is actually an institutional union between one man and one woman (McVeigh and Maria-Elena 891-2). Those who argue that same-sex marriages should be considered a civil right and should be treated just like any heterosexual monogamous marriage are doing so based on the principle of the Equal Protection Clause. This is, however, a flawed argument. It is absolutely wrong to consider that one’s constitutional rights ensure equal treatment that includes the aspect of marriage. One must understand that equal treatment, as according to the Constitution, does not give reference to social relationships such as families, marriages, friendships, and the likes (McVeigh and Maria-Elena 899). A good example of this is a relationship between two friends who decide to consider their relationship as marriage. Such consideration of the friends involved in the friendship cannot go to the courts and demand equal protection rights just because they finally decided to consider their friendship as marriage. To do so is tantamount to saying that just because some people in a certain sports event pray together before the start of the event, courts are required to work under the equal protection law and allow these particular sports event goers to redefine the event as a religious ceremony. Social Reality Cannot be Declared by the Constitution Social reality cannot be defined merely by civil rights. The equal protection under the civil rights is there only to guarantee that every citizen will be treated equally. This means that the law should start by acknowledging and segregating characteristics and inconsistencies in reality so as to bestow upon each party what is rightfully theirs (Bily 27-8). For example, the government recognizes a relationship between two contracting parties who agree to fulfill a transaction of mowing the lawn. However, the law governing the contracts does not define beforehand what kinds of contracts can be done or can be accepted. This law, instead, merely makes clear how binding a consensual contract is, and what legal obligations both agreeing parties have in fulfilling the contract. This law also clarifies the consequences should one or both parties breach stipulations in the contract
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Different religions and cultures have different views about human sexuality. Hindus also believe in having sexual relations with one at a time. However, all the religions advocate heterosexuality rather than homosexuality. In other words gay relationships or lesbianism are unacceptable to religions. Traditionally and historically, sex is assumed as a divine act performed between two persons of opposite sex.
Purcell stated that same-sex marriage first came into the forefront of the news and controversy in mid-199, when three same-sex couples challenged the Hawaiian Supreme Court for their right to marry. The Supreme Court ruled that the decision by the state “might be unconstitutional” (29).
The following analysis will approach the issue of gay marriage from the perspective of the arguments both in favor and against the practice. As a means of analyzing these arguments for their logical importance and credibility, the reader will be able to reach an informed decision with regards to whether or not the practice should be allowed.
Canada is one of the countries in which same-sex marriage has been legalized. Other countries that have legalized same-sex marriages include Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Belgium. This has spurred debate on whether same-sex marriages should or should not be banned and the debate has not reached any conclusion to date.
This essay analyzes that the legalization of the same-sex marriages has created diverse effects in the economy and the country's focus. (Pearson 56) The discrimination of the same sex marriage is a violation of human rights. President Obama accepted the same-sex marriage during the election campaigns.
It is enough to remember Sparta, where the pupils were the lovers of their supervisors and lived in their houses. In Ancient Greece, there existed homosexual relations that were even legalized by means of a legal procedure. It can easily be derived from the antique Roman and Greek literature that homosexuality was a common thing.
To claim that denying the legalization of same sex marriage is a violation of human rights,one must first prove that same-sex marriage is one of the rights protected by the Constitution.Marriage by its vary nature,is heterosexual,thus,policies limiting marriage to the union between one man and one woman do not violate the Equal Protection Clause
One of the examples of such confusion can be the consistently ongoing debate over gay marriages not only in US but also in other parts of the world. However there is a large group of people that do not
Legalization of same sex has brought about potential consequences both positive and negative for parents, children, families, same sex couples, social structure public health, and status of women. This is therefore an important issue for analyzing the reasons
4 Pages(1000 words)Research Paper
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Research Paper on topic Human Rights and Same-Sex Marriage for FREE!