Stefanie Pacheco

Marriage Equality
Philosophy Moral and Ethics
Same Sex Marriage is the marriage between two people of the
same sex or social gender.

Distinguishing marriage between two

same sex couples has taken on many forms such as; Civil Unions,
Domestic Partnerships and Registered Partners.

These forms come

with limited or same level benefits as regular married couples.

The

Gay Community and people for equality still believe these are unfair
terms Marriage should still be used. There are many benefits that
you or your spouse is entitled to. Such as; the right of survivorship for
homes; pensions, Social Security and retirement programs, along with
joint tax returns, ability to qualify for spousal exemptions on income
and estate taxes, joint insurance healthcare policies and the ability to
apply for immigration and residency for partners from other countries.
Being able to take sick leave to care for a partner, or a partners child;
being able to make critical medical decisions, and the right to be
together in crisis situations (such as a hospital emergency room). Legal
rights to seek custody and visitation, joint adoptions.

Both parents

have same rights and responsibilities to raise and have children and
joint ownership/property rights.
The Constitution of the United States says nothing specifically
about marriage itself, so how can one say whether bans on gay
1

marriage are constitutional?

Amendment 14 of the Constitution

guarantees citizens of the United States equal rights. According to the

Supreme Court, marriage is a fundamental right as ruled in Zablockie
v. Redhail (1978). Also, the Supreme Court recognized in 1967 that the
freedom to marry is essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness and
one of the basic civil rights to man.

Something is considered

discrimination if it has the intent or effect of not giving a group equal

rights.
There is a history of Marriage Equality people have been fighting
for many, many years. Nina Baehr sued the state of Hawaii, alleging
the states refusal to issue her and her same-sex partner a marriage
license amounted to illegal discrimination. Baehr v. Lewin (Hawaii,
1993).

Hawaii was the first State Supreme Court to rule Traditional

Marriage.
On September 21, 1996 President Clinton signed into law The
Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in Section 1: No State has to
recognize same-sex marriages.

Section 2: Federal Government

prohibited from recognizing Same Sex Marriage.

DOMA also ignores

the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Article IV, Section 1
states: Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public
acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the
Congress may be general laws prescribe the manner in which such
acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
2

This act in fact violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment.
After DOMA on June 26th, 2013 The Supreme Courts historic
ruling striking down Section 3 of the discriminatory Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA) is an enormous victory for loving, married
couples and their families, and affirms that they deserve equal
treatment under the law.
Several LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) organizations
maintain current fact sheet to help the community understand the
effects of the Windsor (DOMA) decision.
Employment

Issues,

Benefits

and

Such as; Bankruptcy,

Protections

(Civilian

Federal

Employees and Spouses), Employment Issues and Benefits (Private),

Family and Medical Leave Act for Non-Federal Employees, Federal
Taxes,

Free

Application

for

Federal

Student

Aid

(FAFSA)

and

Immigration.
DOMA violated the fundamentally American principles of
fairness and equality, said Edith (Edie) Windsor, the ACLUs plaintiff in
Windsor v. United States.

Edie sued the government after the IRS

forced her to pay $363,000 in estate taxes when her wife and partner
of 44 years died in 2009. Edies courage and quest for equality has
changed the course of history. This decision moves the U.S. one step
closer to full equality for all citizens, regardless of who they love.

Often the law is distorted by the prejudices of lawmakers and

jurists, and legal decisions are made for the wrong reasons. In Craig v.
Boren it was ruled that, classifications which discriminate on the basis
of gender must be substantially related to some important government
purpose. Some people argue that marriage should be between a man
and a woman TRADITION is not an important government purpose.
Neither is the desire to harm that group.

If those were accepted

government purposes, sex discrimination would still be legal. Supreme

Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, It is revolting to have no
better reason for a rule of law than that it was so laid down in the time
of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was
laid down have been vanished long since, and the rule simply persists
from blond imitation of the past

In early 2004, the Massachusetts

Supreme Court ruled that government attorneys failed to identify any

constitutionally adequate reason to deny same sex couples the right to
marry. In the House debates regarding DOMA, the law was justified to
prevent a threat to marriage, but they never said how marriage was
threatened.

The president and others of the bills supporters also

failed to address the question of DOMAs constitutionality.

There are many arguments FOR and AGAINST same sex
marriage.

The arguments FOR are as follows: First Amendment of the

constitution states clearly Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that
4

Marriage is one of the basic civil right of man, fundamental to our

very existence and survivalto deny this fundamental freedomis to
deprive all the States citizens of liberty without due process of law.
There is no data that has pointed to any risk to children of growing up
in a family with one or more gay parents.

The simple fact of

recognition for same sex couples is essential. Gay and Lesbian couples
pay taxes, take out their garbage, see kids off to school and argue
about the toothpaste tube just like heterosexual counterparts. Forcing
couples to live together in an unmarried situation and treating them as
second-class citizens in wrong.

Here are some of the arguments

AGAINST same sex marriage; it is simply not a marriage, it violates

natural law. It always denies a child a father or mother. It validates
and promotes homosexual lifestyle. It turns a moral wrong into a civil
right.

It does not create a family but a naturally sterile union.

defeats the states purpose of benefiting marriage.

acceptance on all society.

It

It imposes its

It is the cutting edge of the sexual

revolution and lastly if offends god.

Here are some facts about Marriage Equality; 37 of 50 states
HAVE marriage (72% of all states).

Thirty eight of fifty six states,

special districts and territories HAVE marriage (66.07% of all American

regions). 70.33% of people live in a state, special district or territory
WITHOUT marriage. Marriage offers legal benefits and responsibilities

that protect families.

Marriage also provides societal status and

emotional benefits to the family unit.

In conclusion, these are real people with real lives. It does not
harm anyone for two people who love each other to put it on paper and
to be asked to be treated equally. I myself am in a same-sex marriage,
and I dont see myself or my spouses life in anyway different. We both
pay taxes, we own a home we contribute to society. We do not want to
be put in a particular category and treated as second-class citizens. All
anyone wants is to be treated equally, and that should be the same for
same-sex couples.

RESOURCES

10 REASONS WHY HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS HARMFUL AND

MUST BE OPPOSED
6

TFP STUDENT ACTION DEFENDING MORAL VALUES ON

CAMPUS
http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politicallyincorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-isharmful-and-must-be-opposed.html
FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE CITING:
http://www.mhcc.edu/docs/exit17/essays/ed9/sadler.pdf
2014 Marriage Equality USA, Inc.
[1] Robert Cabaj, On the Road to Same Sex Marriage (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1998) 133.
[2] Bruno Leone, At Issue: Gay Marriage (San Diego: Greenhaven,
1998) 14.
[3] William Eskridge, Equality Practice: Civil Unions and the Future of
Gay Rights (New York: Routledge, 2002) 24.
[4] The Three Fifths Compromise was enacted in the time of slavery,
and stated that blacks counted legally as three fifths of a person for
purposes such as what number of representatives to send to Congress.
[5] Leone 14.
[6] Eskridge 29.
[7] Eskridge 26.
[8] Oliver Holmes, Collected Legal Papers (Boston: A. Harcourt, 1998)
187.
[9] Massachusetts court rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.
CNN.com. 2004. CNN. 18 Feb. 2004.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage. ruling/
[10] Eskridge 34.
[11] James Madison, Federalist No. 10, New York Packet 23 Nov. 1787
[12] Steve LeBlanc, Protesters sing, pray and chant as lawmakers
weigh gay marriage question. Boston.com News. 2004. Associated
Press. 15 Mar. 2004. http://www.boston.com/news/specials/
gay_marriage/articles/2004/03/11/protesters_sing_pray_and_chant_a
s_lawmakers_weigh_gay_marriage_question/
[13] Jonathan Goldberg-Hiller, The Limits to Union: Same-Sex Marriage
and the Politics of Civil Rights (Michigan: Clover, 2002) 3.