From the cases presented, both dissenting and majority parties present their arguments in regards to the legalization of same-sex marriage based on a number of principles. The majority party for instance states that, in addition to decisions concerning family relationships, childrearing, procreation, contraception, those concerning a marriage partner are also among the most intimate decision that a person makes. They also point out that one’s right to same sex marriage is protected by the Constitution. They thus argue that regardless of one’s gender, marriage partners often offer each other hope of companionship, understanding and assurance while both are still alive. I totally agree with the fact that other than procreation, marriages are also meant for companionship, which does not require one to get married to the opposite sex.
Another principle drawn upon by the majoritto y party is that marriage protects families and children, drawing meaning from related rights of procreation, education, and childrearing. By giving acknowledgement and lawful structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows children to comprehend the honor and intimacy of their own family. It also allows children to understand its harmony with other families in their community and in their day to day lives. Notably, the majority in the cases presented neglects the limited conception of the judicial role, and ignores the question of what constitutes marriage, demoting ages of human experience with marriage.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
A chain reaction premise not supporting the issue of same-sex marriage in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) cites that the human race must procreate to survive, and this takes place through sexual relations between a woman and a man. That is why for the good of the society and children, such relations that can result in procreation should take place only between a man and woman loyal to an ever-lasting bond. Despite the majority’s premises, they still identify a few principles and traditions that support an important right for same-sex couples to marry.
Justice Thomas might respond to Robert’s argument by upholding or taking advantage of judges’ power to say what the law is, not what it should be. This means that individuals of any given State have liberty to expand marriage to incorporate same-sex couples or to preserve their historic definition. Therefore, whether same-sex marriage is a good concept should be of no concern to the judges. I support Justice Thomas’s argument that embracing heterosexual marriage and not same-sex marriage would be forcing today’s society to accept a social change that has long since been declared ancient. Furthermore, this issue does not create any crime or impose any punishment.
Cheshire Calhoun has a right to be concerned. In today’s society, many women are empowered and pursue their various careers while maintaining the traditional model of family and marriage. This means that same-sex couples, in the case of lesbians, also have similar responsibilities as couples in a heterosexual marriage. However, since the current law does not provide any clause identifying whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalized, the institution of marriage itself should be dismantled.
An alternative that should thus replace marriage as the family unit and the best means of raising children would be a ‘come-we-stay’ marriage formation. Here, couples get together in a union that would officially be considered culturally, religiously, and legally unacceptable. Moreover, under this marriage formation, the couples usually reside together, with or without the blessings or knowledge of guardians or parents. By replacing marriage as the family unit with the ‘come-we-stay’ marriage formation, today’s society will be considering another means of raising children.
Looking back at my life goals, marriage is not one of my goals. However, if it were so, it would be out of a desire not to be lonely and perhaps procreate. If I were legally denied the right to marry because of my sexual orientation, I would not be happy. I would feel denied of my right not to have a companion, regardless of the sex. I would also find it unfair since it would also mean that I would not get the opportunity to raise a child with my partner of the same sex.
