The+Right+to+Marry

__**THE RIGHT TO MARRY**__

toc  = = =**History **= __1960s/1970s__-The fight for Freedom to Marry began in 1969 when the first gay marriage ceremony was performed in the US by the Metropolitan Community Church. In 1970, that same church filed a lawsuit to try to have same-sex marriage legalized.The lawsuit ultimately failed, and there were very few lawsuits after, until 1993. In the meantime, multiple states either banned or disallowed Freedom to Marry, including Maryland and Kentucky. Washington was another state that denied a judicial challenge to the ban on same-sex marriage. (1)

__Early 1990s__- In 1993, the issue of Freedom to Marry moved back into the spotlight. In the case //Baehr v. Miike// (1993), The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that banning same-sex marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause of the state's Constitution. The government in Hawaii was forced to prove that banning same-sex marriage was in their best interest, otherwise the state had to allow these couples to marry. The judge issued a stay, which remained in place until an amendment to Hawaii's constitution banned same-sex marriage in 1998. (1)

__Mid 1990s__- Three years later, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This act stated that the federal government must not recognize the marriage of same-sex couples and no state had to recognize the marriage license of a same-sex couple that was given by another state. This was a major piece of legislation because it denied legally married couples from being recognized, but also denied them protections and responsibilities that come only in a marriage, such as child custody protections, medicaid, survivor benefits, and thousands more. (1)

__Late 1990s__- California became the first state to allow domestic partnerships in 1999, in lieu of same-sex marriage. This allowed same-sex couples some protections of the law, but not the full extent that comes with a marriage. That same year, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that Vermont must grant same-sex couples the same rights that it grants to heterosexual couples. This was a major decision as it gave a legal precedence that established civil unions, such as domestic partnerships, as an institution. Nearly a year after that, an amendment was passed in Nebraska that banned same-sex marriage. Many other states followed suit for the next few years and passed similar amendments for their own constitution that totaled to 29 states having constitutional bans on Freedom to Marry. (1)

__2000s__- In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. Several other states, such as Connecticut, New York, and New Hampshire also passed legislation that allowed same-sex marriage. California's Supreme Court also granted the right to marry in 2008, but the situation quickly reversed when a controversial piece of legislation was passed by voters called Proposition 8. California citizens voted in favor of this legislation that banned gay marriage and this brought massive amounts of media attention to the issue of gay rights. (1)

=**Origins **=

The original push for advocacy of same sex marriage began in 1969 however, this advocacy faded out until the kids 90s when advocacy groups started pushing for same-sex even harder than before.

The beginnings for the advocacy for legislation of same-sex marriage began in October 10, 1972 with the supreme court case //Baker v.// //Nelson.// Since then, many states have pushed for same sex marriage legislation. States involved in this type of legislation have been Kentucky, Maryland, Washington, Colorado and many others. While many other states throughout history have tried to ban the idea of same sex marriage. States like Nebraska pushed for a ballot initiative in order to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage.

There have been many court cases ruling within the basis of same-sex marriage. Among the fifty states, there is a split between states that have tried to push for and against same-sex marriage legislation. This has become a very political subject and something that politicians have used to their advantage. Which in turn has created more media attention as well as attention from the public to join advocacy groups. Advocacy groups have played a major role in the legislation that has come about dealing with same-sex marriage.

These advocacy groups have surfaced different parts of the issue dealing with same-sex marriage. Questions dealing with whether or not same-sex marriage can occur in some states rather than all and allow for states to be granted the right to determine if they honor same-sex marriage licenses or not. =**Legislation **= There has been a split in the type of legislation dealing with same-sex marriage. Some states more than likely more Liberal based states have pushed for laws promoting and allowing same-sex marriage. Whereas, other more Conservative states have been pushing for legislation preventing same-sex marriage.

Maryland was the first state that banned same-sex marriage. Whereas, the state of California passed a bill that allowed same-sex marriage. Legislation regarding this topic has been highly political and has been a constant back and forth between states allowing same sex marriage and not allowing same sex marriage. media type="youtube" key="dCFFxidhcy0" height="480" width="854" <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">[]

===<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"> ===

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Supreme Court Cases: __
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">The Supreme Court has had a constant battle of whether or not to establish a precedent for same-sex marriage on a national level. The biggest Supreme Court case dealing with this issue is the //Obergefell v. Hodges// case. These were the cases that encompassed and lead up to the //Obergefell v. Hodges// case, which was the case that legalized same-sex marriage. a milestone in the right to marry topic. (5)

//Bourke v. Beshear & Love v. Beshear (2014)-// This case was based out of Kentucky. This case found that a marriage ban that Kentucky was pushing to propose was deemed unconstitutional. (5)

// Deboer v. Snyder (2015)- //This case ruled in favor of striking down same sex marriage bans among states. (5)

//Tanco v. Haslam (2015)-// This case was an attempt to take away the same sex marriage ban in Tennessee. (5)

// Obergefell v. Hodges & Henry v. Hodges (2013)- // This case was argued April 28,2015. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion in the 5-4 decision. (7) Homosexual citizens in the states of Ohio, Kentucky, and Michigan sued the states based on the law of the states banning same-sex marriage as well as the refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages. Does the states’ bans of same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment under the Equal Protection Clause as well as the Due Process Clause? (5:4) Yes, the states refusing to offer same-sex marriage licenses as well as to recognize them is against the Fourteenth amendment. __** Majority Opinion: **__ Justice Kennedy: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties that it protects.This analysis of the fourteenth amendment also applies to same sex couples as well. Marriage is the keystone of social order, which is why marriage is protected under the fourteenth amendment, and this has been found as a precedent in other cases. The exclusion of same-sex couples for the right to marry violates the Equal Protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.b. The Constitution protects the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry. Justice Roberts: Same-sex marriage is not addressed in the Constitution. Therefore, it is beyond the purview of the Court to decide whether or not States have to recognize same sex marriage licenses or issue them.
 * __Facts:__**
 * __Issue:__**
 * __ Holding: __**
 * __Dissenting Opinion:__**

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Justice Opinions __
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Justice Anthony Kennedy: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Wrote the majority opinion for the case that banned the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). (6)

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Justice Antonin Scalia: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Scalia has written opinions believing that it is not in the court's power or authority to vote on same-sex marriage cases. This is a more conservative view of dealing with this issue. (6)

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Justice Samuel Alito: Alito has a belief that the sex of an individual should not be a consideration when giving marriage licenses. This is more of a liberal view dealing with this issue. (6)

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Ginsburg is willing to change with the public opinion on this issue which is a more liberal stance to take on this issue as well. (6)

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Justice John Roberts Roberts aligns with Alito and Scalia when dealing with same-sex marriage cases especially their opinion in the //Windsor// case. (6)

=** Polygamy: The Other Right: Right to Marry **=


 * //History://** Polygamy in the United States is intrinsically connected to the Mormon Church. Though he denied it during his life, there is evidence that Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, practiced polygamy. Despite his public denial, it was common knowledge within his community that he did so, and he emphasized a passage in the Book of Mormon that gave support for his actions. When he died, the Church was split between those who deeply opposed polygamy and those who saw it as divinely ordained and acceptable. Brigham Young, the leader of the latter camp, led the group to Utah and polygamy flourished under his and his successor's leadership. However, after legal pressure and decisions made by the United States government, in 1890 the leader of the Mormon Church, Wilford Woodruff issued a manifesto that conformed the Church's marriage practices to the law of the land. This resulted in a split that exists today. Following Woodruff were the majority of Mormons and they are the ancestors of the modern Mormon Church. Those who still followed the practice of polygamy, the Fundamentalists, still exist in small and isolated communities in Utah and Arizona. While less than 1% of Mormons practice polygamy, the Fundamentalists are some of the most obvious practicers in the United States today, along with a limited number of other polygamists throughout the United States.(11, 12)


 * //Legality://** Polygamy is currently illegal in the United States under individual anti-bigamy (bigamy is the granting of multiple marriage licenses) laws in each of the 50 states. There have been cases challenging these, as well as former federal statutes, that have come before the United States Supreme Court and other state courts.

//Reynolds v. United States (1878)//: Reynolds, a Mormon man living in Utah, challenged a federal law making polygamy illegal on the basis that his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion was violated. The court unanimously upheld the statute, acknowledging that while the Congress cannot make the belief in polygamy illegal, it can restrict the action of polygamy. (13)

//Davis v. Beason (1890)//: Before voting, Idaho law required the swearing of an oath affirming that the swearer did not practice polygamy or belong to an organization that promoted the practice. Samuel Davis, a member of the Mormon church, was arrested for violating this law as his church often practiced polygamy at this time. He claimed that the oath violated his First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion. A unanimous court ruled against him, reasoning that the practice of polygamy was not a meaningful aspect of religion and so was not guaranteed under the First Amendment. (14)

//Cleveland v. United States (1946)//: Under the Mann Act, it was illegal to take across state lines "any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose". A Fundamentalist Mormon sect challenged the law after members was arrested for practicing polygamy under the "immoral purpose" aspect of the law. The Supreme Court upheld the arrest and conviction. While acknowledging that the law was intended to restrict "white slavery", because of the historical objections to polygamy, it applied to that practice as well. The Court again affirmed that supporting polygamy under the religious argument was not valid, as it would open the door to making anything legal, given some religious support.

//Brown v. Buhman (2013)//: Members of the polygamy based TV show, Sister Wives, challenged a Utah bigamy statute that was part of the Utah constitution, which restricted polygamy, as well as "cohabitation". US District Court D struck down the cohabitation aspect of the law as unconstitutional, while making the law's definition of marriage more strict. This allowed them to uphold the bigamy aspect of the law, which made the granting of multiple marriage licenses remain illegal in the state.

//**Future:**// In the Supreme Court's decision of Obergefell v. Hodges, Chief Justice Roberts warned that the decision could lead to the possibility of plural marriages being legalized. This sentiment has already been taken up by some in the polygamous community as well as by those who use the example to criticize the decision. Conservative figures such as Rick Santorum have made claims that Obergefell will lead to the legalization of polygamy, which mirrors comments he made in 2003 claiming that if the Supreme Court ruled against the Texan anti-sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas, then polygamy, incest, and adultery would be made legal next. However, these claims have mostly been scoffed by the academic community, and are largely seen as anti-gay fear mongering. That being said, some polygamous groups have found optimism in the decision, even using it as a basis to try and challenge anti-bigamy law, regardless of expert's doubts. As both sides realize, it was not so long ago that legalizing gay marriage was seen as extremely unlikely. Time will only tell, but for now those in the polygamous community must wait and hope to gain the support needed to overturn anti-bigamy laws. (18)

=**<span style="color: #fa0725; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Effects **=
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">The Future in the Court: **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">The right to marry has been a hot topic in society. Since same-sex marriage has been legalized a precedent has been set by the Supreme Court justices that marriage is something that states have to recognize no matter the race,or sex of a person. the right to marry has encompassed a sort of non-discriminatroy field. The courts as well as legislators have set the precedent that anyone has the ability to marry whomever they want. This has become an issue that is beyond religious as it involves judges issuing marriage licenses. This Supreme Court ruling has eliminated the gray area dealing with homosexuals as well as a citizen's personal freedoms in general. The nine justices that are currently sitting on the court today have allowed for a more liberal view of social policies and issues and this will be upheld until a more conservative wave of justices will push for a more conservative interpretation regarding cases coming to the floor.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">
 * <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">Public Reactions to Marriage Legalization: **<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">The legalization of same sex marriage specifically created a public uproar with opinions as well as resistance to the new law. The most infamous outcry against the legalization of same sex marriage was Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis. Kim Davis refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses to the citizens in her county based on her religious beliefs. This only lead to a mass amount of media attention as well as resulted in Kim Davis being jailed. From this event, there has since become a huge divide among homosexual and heterosexual citizens within the Rowan County community. Among the negative responses to this legislation there has been many positive responses. Multiple advocacy groups who have been pushing and pushing for same-sex marriage legislation have finally attained the goal that they had hoped for. Many states rejoiced and celebrated the same-sex marriage advocacy groups in the media. It is obvious on many sites for advocacy groups that they have triumphed and their push for a person's individual liberties have been heard and expanded. (15,17)



<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">response to this legislation. Pope Francis strongly disagreed with the Supreme Courts' decision on same-sex marriage legislation. There is the common belief that Christians beliefs and morals are disregarded on social issues. There has become a divide among Christians and judicial officials. (16)
 * <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">Religious Reactions: **<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">Religion has been seen as the devil's advocate when regarding same-sex marriage. There has been multiple instances of religious opposition when regarding same-sex marriage legislation. The most prominent opposition has dealt with religious officials responding to the newest legislation. Pope Francis has held the highest media attention with the

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">**Effects on the 2016 Election:** Same-sex marriage legalization is a touchy topic and one that political candidates running for presidency in 2016 will use to their advantage in order to sway the moderate voters. Instances like this has already occurred in response to the Kim Davis opposition of the legislation. Candidates such as Donald Trump, and Ben Carson have given their opinions and stands with this issue only allowing the stage to be set with the ways in which they plan on using this issue to their advantage in the 2016 election.

__**The Path to Reform:**__ Throughout the years citizens advocating the rights to marry have created advocacy groups as well as made productions in order for this issue to be brought to the public's attention as well as the judicial branch.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">“The Case Against 8” Documentary: **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">This is a documentary created by Ben Cotner and Ryan White to show the struggling path that same-sex marriage legalization went through in order to get where they are today. This is a Sundance Film that is available for viewing by the public at certain locations.

**__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Advocacy Groups __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">: **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> There have been multiple advocacy groups created in order to promote same-sex marriage in all states and have a <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">person's rights to marry expanded by the courts. __Freedom To Marry:__ This advocacy group began in 2003. This group was founded by Evan Wolfson. The main headquarters is in New York with offices in Washington D.C. as well. The mission of this advocacy group is to have members of the group sign a pledge and then advocate for the rights of homosexual individuals. The biggest right: marriage. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">[|http://www.freedomtomarry.org__] <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">__Human Rights Campaign:__ This is a type of group that promotes equal rights for people of various sexual orientations. This is one of the first organizations promoting homosexual rights and was founded in 1980 by Steve Endean. Originally this group was strictly for lobbying purposes and was then expanded for awareness in the 90s.

= Sources =

> @https://verdict.justia.com/2015/07/07/is-three-still-a-crowd-polygamy-and-the-law-after-obergefell-v-hodges >
 * 1) <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; vertical-align: baseline;">[|__http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/history-and-timeline-of-marriage__]
 * 2) <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; vertical-align: baseline;">[|__http://www.revelandriot.com/resources/marriage-equality/__]
 * 3) <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; vertical-align: baseline;">[|__http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-laws.aspx__]
 * 4) <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; vertical-align: baseline;">[|__http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202730079556/SameSex-Marriage-Wins-in-Historic-Supreme-Court-Ruling?slreturn=20150908202926__]
 * 5) <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; vertical-align: baseline;">[|__http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/marriage-cases-seeking-supreme-court-review__]
 * 6) <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; vertical-align: baseline;">[|__http://time.com/3672426/supreme-court-gay-marriage-justices/__]
 * 7) <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; vertical-align: baseline;">[|__http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf__]
 * 8) <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; vertical-align: baseline;">[|__http://thecaseagainst8.com__]
 * 9) <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; vertical-align: baseline;">__[]__
 * 10) <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; vertical-align: baseline;">@http://www.hrc.org
 * 11) @http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.miamioh.edu/stable/pdf/25740483.pdf?acceptTC=true
 * 12) @http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1000270
 * 13) @http://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-supreme-court-cases-elessons/reynolds-v-united-states-1878/
 * 14) @https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/133us333
 * 15) []
 * 16) []
 * 17) [|http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/where-do-the-gop-candidates-stand-kim-davi]