Discrimination and Same-Sex Marriages
Scott D. Kuhn
July 17, 2011
My subject is on discrimination and same-sex marriage. During my research, I looked at what discrimination was and where it came from. Next, I focused my attention towards the Bible and the views of Christianity. Lastly, I took a look at what the law had to say about same-sex marriage. What I found was astonishing. My conclusion was that discrimination is ever prevalent in today's society, and that if you do not allow same-sex marriage, then you are discriminating against others.
Discrimination and Same-Sex Marriages What if someone came into your home today and told you that you could no longer have children. Why you
…show more content…
828). To accomplish this end, they need to get a movement going just like Martin Luther King did to really push their civil rights movement onto the main stage. Martin Luther King realized that without the public support, his dream of equality would never come to pass. History shows that if you are able to gain popular support, your agenda has a much better chance of moving forward. The issue then lies with who's rights trump whose. According to Adler, (Fall 2010) a judge must make a decision by "treating like cases alike". (p. 601) Unfortunately this is not always possible. An example would be to compare a sweet potato and a regular old Idaho red. While both are potatoes, they are as different as night and day. This forces a judge to make a political call based on his views and those of his constituents. When Proposition 8 passed in 2008, it changed the California constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages. This is another example of how to change the rules. Needless to say, the same-sex marriage advocates immediately went to court and got it overturned. In the case of Perry v Schwarzenegger, there are 12 different bodies of religious originations who have banned together to appeal the lower court's ruling and reinstate Proposition 8. Their main premise is that the lower court did not view the data with a unbiased opinion (Dushku, 2010, pp. x-xvi). A key point in the court brief was the