Loving v. Virginia case facts
In 1958, it is stated that two inhabitants of Virginia, Richard Loving, a white man and Mildred Jeter, a black woman wedded soon thereafter. The two were then adjudicated with blasphemous the state’s antimiscegenation decree that disqualified inter-racial matrimonies. The two were pronounced guilty and condemned to twelve months in jail with the trial magistrate agreeing to shift the ruling if the couple could vacate Virginia and not be back for over three decades ( Thomas, 2017).
Same-sex marriage states
There are various states that legalized homogenous sex marriage preceding the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that endorsed it nationwide. They include California, Delaware, Hawaii, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Washington DC ( Curtis, 2014). Massachusetts is recognized as the initial state to provide matrimonial permits to homogenous sex couples starting 2004. The Supreme Court ascertained in Goodrich v. Department of Public Health that the regions could not deny prohibit civil marriage to two people of similar sex who wanted to marry and the such procedures and regulations govern conventional marriage likewise apply to same sex-marriage ( Thomas, 2017). Against same-sex marriages, defenders contend cannot probably be treated as a fundamental right open to lesbians and gays because such right must have a basis in American background, practices and legal traditions. At the time of founding the nation, it was clearly comprehended that marriage was between one woman and one man.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Impacts of the Loving v. Virginia case
The case changed the landscape of America. Along with other cases, the ruling gave the United States its first black leader, former President Barack Obama; it drives gay marriages deliberations, it propelled the start of multiracial families, transformed the face of Utah, transformed the nation’s census ( Curtis, 2014) , as well as transforming the electoral systems and map.
Precedence for same-sex marriage
Many decades ago, the Supreme Court tendered down its ruling in Loving v. Virginia, signaling all multicultural marriage vetoes as a desecration of the 14th Amendment. Essentially, the popular case has since functioned as the foundation of the legal war for marriage parity ( Thomas, 2017). Same-sex marriage advocates apprehended the chance upon Loving’s owed procedure as well as equal protection foundations to present their case in court.
Changes over time
Since the landmark ruling, many states in the United States have legalized same-sex marriage claiming that people have rights to do what they want in addition to making choices regarding marriage. Despite the fact that many states still ban such practices; the number of people practicing same-sex marriage is on the rise ( Curtis, 2014). Considering the way many cases are transforming to supporting same-sex marriages, there is chance that America will at one point in time be a same-sex marriage approving nation. Same-sex marriages are on the rise in the country most notably being supported by former President Obama.
Views
Same-sex marriages are unethical and should be banned completely since it violates moral rights and has no place in traditional views projected by the nation’s founding fathers. As a scientist, I believe same-sex marriages create social and health problems. Research indicates that lesbians have a likelihood of being more violent compared to straight people. Gay men who act as women are also assuming the roles of a woman and that is not correct. All sexes have specific roles they have to assume in society. Men should act as men and women the same.
References
Curtis, M. K. (2014). A Unique Religious Exemption from Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context. In The Rule of Law and the Rule of God (pp. 83-114). Palgrave Macmillan US.
Thomas, G. (2017). Reframing Constitutional Law: Liberalism, Public Justification, and Same-Sex Marriage. Polity , 49 (2), 000-000.
