On June 26, 2015, LBGT+ activist groups rejoiced as the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage believing that a ban of it violated the 14th amendment of the Constitution. This didn’t help stop any hatred of same-sex couples and it seemed that the world would implode due to the court’s decision However, backlash soon followed, leading to an Appeals court, saying it didn’t violate the 14th amendment and many “Christian” groups saying the ruling by the Supreme Court goes against the bible. In the case of Obergefell vs. Hodges, the ruling has influenced the United States to take steps in a more progressive future where everyone has equal rights and helping America begin its transition into a more positive light with supporting this decision. Much of the backlash from this decision was due to these different “Christian” activist groups who said that same-sex marriage went against their religious liberties and violated the bible in Leviticus. Which is quite hilarious as none of them probably adhere to the teaching in the book of Leviticus like no eating shellfish and no mixing different materials to wear like a cotton, polyester blend t-shirt. The decision on same-sex marriage can happen due to the fact the United States has a separation of Church and State and has the first amendment to protect freedom of Religion which is being abused by many of these “Christians”. Honestly, religion should not influence how the government operates because if the courts had ruled differently denying same-sex marriage based on religion, there would be a violation showing how people who most likely do not practice religion are having their first amendment rights violate due to someone’s hateful view of the same-sex couple.
…show more content…
However, even though this has allowed same-sex marriage to be legalized, “it can also be refused by a religious organization to perform the ceremony or go against their religious doctrine” (Northrup). This decision doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights or attacks them for being Christian, instead it protects both parties through their own religious freedoms. Moreover, the case doesn’t hurt anyone and helps move America into a more positive future for everyone. From the Dred Scott case to Brown vs. The Board of Education, the Supreme Court’s reach has been question numerous times before this very important case in the fight for LGBT rights. After the ruling, many conservative leader such as Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz came out denouncing this ruling and the Supreme Court implying the court had overstepped. Even though the constitution doesn’t give the Supreme Court the right to fundamentally decide on any constitutional dispute. This was an ability given in Marbury vs. Madison leading to judicial review to be allowed in these types of controversial cases. This means that the Judges have the right to make decisions, interpret the law, and say what the law is but they don’t have the final say in the matter as Congress must make it a law in order to be recognized (Yoo). In short there are three different viewpoints that determine if the Court has overreached. From the religious stand point, the answer would, yes, that the court had overreached and was violating the Christian ideology and the First amendment. However, this isn’t correct as seen in previous paragraphs. Next, the ethical standpoint meaning that the courts couldn’t deny that the main purpose of the male and female genitalia is to reproduce to keep the population growing. By allowing same-sex marriage they are allowing non-pro-creation to happen to the population. This also means by science they would overstep their boundaries (Bensen). However, in a political standpoint the court system didn’t overstep which is how many people feel now as this allowance of people to actively be recognized to the government as having a spouse. This is a progressive step forward in the politics of America showing how a country can move to a brighter future. To know that the Supreme Court believes that same-sex couples can have the same rights as Heterosexual couples gives strength to the feminist and LGBT movement to continue to be strong as change is going to happen soon. This means that the
However, even though this has allowed same-sex marriage to be legalized, “it can also be refused by a religious organization to perform the ceremony or go against their religious doctrine” (Northrup). This decision doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights or attacks them for being Christian, instead it protects both parties through their own religious freedoms. Moreover, the case doesn’t hurt anyone and helps move America into a more positive future for everyone. From the Dred Scott case to Brown vs. The Board of Education, the Supreme Court’s reach has been question numerous times before this very important case in the fight for LGBT rights. After the ruling, many conservative leader such as Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz came out denouncing this ruling and the Supreme Court implying the court had overstepped. Even though the constitution doesn’t give the Supreme Court the right to fundamentally decide on any constitutional dispute. This was an ability given in Marbury vs. Madison leading to judicial review to be allowed in these types of controversial cases. This means that the Judges have the right to make decisions, interpret the law, and say what the law is but they don’t have the final say in the matter as Congress must make it a law in order to be recognized (Yoo). In short there are three different viewpoints that determine if the Court has overreached. From the religious stand point, the answer would, yes, that the court had overreached and was violating the Christian ideology and the First amendment. However, this isn’t correct as seen in previous paragraphs. Next, the ethical standpoint meaning that the courts couldn’t deny that the main purpose of the male and female genitalia is to reproduce to keep the population growing. By allowing same-sex marriage they are allowing non-pro-creation to happen to the population. This also means by science they would overstep their boundaries (Bensen). However, in a political standpoint the court system didn’t overstep which is how many people feel now as this allowance of people to actively be recognized to the government as having a spouse. This is a progressive step forward in the politics of America showing how a country can move to a brighter future. To know that the Supreme Court believes that same-sex couples can have the same rights as Heterosexual couples gives strength to the feminist and LGBT movement to continue to be strong as change is going to happen soon. This means that the