I just wanted to send out a reminder: these drafts should
be fully formatted in either APA Your papers should be double-spaced meet the
page length requirement.9 PAGES
Here are my personal tips and tricks:
Tips and Tricks for the Editing Phase
1. Read your paper backwards sentence by
sentence. This will cause fragments to stand out. They will not
sound correct when they are read alone out of context.
2. Pay particular attention to homonyms (words that
sound the same but are spelled differently). Spelling/Grammar check will
not fix these errors. Look for to, too, two… there, their, they’re…
etc.
3. Make sure all paragraphs are indented.
4. Make sure all lines after the first in each
citation are tabbed (hanging indent)
5. Make sure your work cited/reference page is not
entirely centered. (Works cited/references should be centered… The
citations themselves should be left justified).
6. Make sure you have maintained double-spacing in
your reference/works cited page and your entire paper.
7. Read your paper aloud. Sometimes that is all
it takes to recognize a section that is not clear.
9. Give yourself 24 hours to sleep on it after adding
major sections. You need to look at your paper with fresh eyes to
recognize errors.
10. Have another person read it!
11. Print out a copy to mark errors on. A lot of
times we see errors better when we have a hard copy to work with.
12 Double check all APA
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"
Running Head: DRAFT FOR THE GAY MARRIAGE AND THE FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION. 1
Draft for the Gay Marriage and the Freedom of Expression
Scott Atidepe
Southern New Hampshire University
05 February 2017
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ AAAAAAAAAAAAA BBBBBBBBBBBBB
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
DRAFT FOR THE GAY MARRIAGE AND THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. 2
Draft for the Gay Marriage and the Freedom of Expression
Introduction
Same-sex marriage is popularly known as gay marriage is legalized, not only here in the
US but also in some other European countries. However, this has had many dissenting views,
and people have not yet come to terms with this, and some people don’t understand why it should
be legalized, and more should be done to make people accept this. Recently same-sex marriage
(popularly referred to as gay marriage) has been the subject of a heated argument, may it be in
the court chambers, online platforms, religious institutions, schools just to name a few. The
argument has mainly dwelt on the legalization of gay marriage and whether homosexuals should
have equal opportunities and rights as the heterosexuals. Since for a long time (one may also say
from time immemorial) homosexuals has been discriminated against in most societies of the
world.
Arguments and Counterarguments
Why should people keep it upon themselves to choose who should marry who and who
shouldn’t? For a long time, parents used to choose couples and suitors for their children until
recently in the late nineteenth century where this was scrapped and the responsibility solely
rested on the spouses themselves. More so no one cares which man married what woman why
then should people begin to care when a particular man marries a certain man or a certain woman
marrying a confident lady? As America we claim to be a country of the free, but how free are
we if we can’t marry whom we want?
DRAFT FOR THE GAY MARRIAGE AND THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. 3
Shouldn’t discriminate against homosexuals (a minority group) be treated same as that of
discrimination due to race, gender, and religion? Our constitutions state very clearly that all
people in this glorious country are an equal to another regardless of skin color, religion, sex and
doesn’t depend on what state they live in. Why then should people be discriminated due to their
sexual orientation? Or doesn’t the law apply to all of us? I would highly doubt how we are
supposed to interpret the constitution if this law of equality doesn’t fit and cannot be used on
homosexuals too.
What effect would the legalization of gay marriage bring? Would we be affected in any
way? Certainly not! Marriage is between two consenting adults and if they fill are they are okay
with each other no one should think they are not. The point is that we all feel that there is
someone out there to love and cherish us. What difference does it make if the one who does this
to me is of the same gender to me? Does my relationship affect your relationship, your job, your
beliefs, your rights? Does it even in anyway has a retrogressive effect on our nation’s economy?
Our defense? I don’t believe it has. In any way! Marriages an institution has for long been
considered the foundation of a society and the beginning of civilization and progress. If this is
the case, then why deny some individuals this chance?
Legalization of gay marriage only means the acceptance of the reality. Like, the
homosexuals exist, some people are attracted to their sex. And these people are in love with each
other and are ready to commit to each other under the law and acquire the benefits for married
couples that the states and federal governments offer together with the repercussions that come
with a marriage sealed under the law. Not legalizing gay marriage would only mean denial of
reality since it is a well-known fact nowadays that homosexuals exist. And they are ready to and
are already fighting for their rights.
DRAFT FOR THE GAY MARRIAGE AND THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. 4
It is also important to note that who to love is a personal autonomous choice and also who to
marry. It is due to love that interracial bans on marriage are no longer in place. Similarly, choices
on whether to use contraceptives, procreation and rearing of children are autonomous and since
marriage is one of the most private decisions individuals make in their lifetime. There is a
nobility in the wedding, and no person whatsoever should be denied the right Tom chose whom
to marry.
Despite the fact that gay marriage has been legalized people and the majority of
individuals I dare say have different views and beliefs on matters about the wedding. In most
religions say Christianity, Judaism, Islam, view homosexuality as a sin. (good, 2011) They argue
that the essence of marriage is procreation so as to repopulate and hence since homosexuals
cannot procreate on their own it can’t be acceptable. If this is how were to represent the case then
only productive people, and still those who want to procreate would and should only be allowed
to marry since infertile couples too cannot procreate if then we were to go with this bias.
Another counter-argument is that we should preserve traditional marriage, marriage should not
be termed as “traditional ” since if it were then parents would still be choosing spouses for their
children, there would be no interracial marriages, and one would still be marrying children. The
point is marriage has changed with time and culture of an era. It’s high time we accepted gay
marriage too.
Conclusion
No one ever thought that the released slaves in the great civil war would come to coexist
with the whites, the Spaniards peacefully and to people also once feared that the different
religions of the world would come to clash and people of different religions coexisting would
DRAFT FOR THE GAY MARRIAGE AND THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. 5
have seemed like a far-fetched dream. If it was possible for humankind to overcome such greats
obstacles in history then surely this obstacle against legalization of gay marriage, I firmly believe
it can be overcome and issues resolved, and the fears of the people assured. Changes in the
society will always come, and people should embrace these changes and not be afraid of
changes. It is for the reasons listed above too that I believe gay marriage should be legalized. The
truth is, gay marriage is something that people have been fighting for in many years. And it has
finally come to the surface, and since everybody now is well aware of we should take charge and
of it like how human beings have done with other controversial issues in history I need not even
point out slavery (Yoshino, 2015).
DRAFT FOR THE GAY MARRIAGE AND THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. 6
References
good, D. J. (2011). a theology of marriage. Anglican theological review.
Yoshino, k. (2015) A new birth of freedom? Obergefell v. Hodges. Harvard: Harvard law review.
The Defenestration of a Conservative Professor.
Authors: Jeffers, Thomas L.
Source: Commentary. May2015, Vol. 139 Issue 5, p32-35. 4p
The Odd Couple: How Justices Kennedy and Scalia, Together, Advanced Gay Rights in Romer
v. Evans.
Authors: Sparling, Tobin A.1
Source: Mercer Law Review. Spring2016, Vol. 67 Issue 2, p305-329. 25p.
Document Type:
DRAFT FOR THE GAY MARRIAGE AND THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. 7
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"
https://academicheroes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/logo.png00adminhttps://academicheroes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/logo.pngadmin2019-06-28 04:22:202019-06-28 04:22:23DRAFT FOR THE GAY MARRIAGE AND THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
THE
IMPLEMETATION OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF OUR CONSTITUTION
Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal
contract between spouses that establishes rights and
obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and
their in-laws. The definition of marriage varies according to different
cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal
relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are
acknowledged.
The ten (10) commandments of the Roman Catholic
church is summed up into two (2) general commandments first, “ You shall love the Lord your God with
your whole heart, with your whole soul, and with all your mind ” and the second is “You shall love your neighbor as you
love yourself ”. These commandments speak of love and therefore love is the center of
the catholic faith.
And the primary essence of marriage is about two
persons tying themselves to act as one and united by love. Love itself is a
universal language and individuals might have different native tongues but
shares a common feeling of love. Same is true with same sex marriage it is
founded
also with love between two same sex couple opting themselves to be legally
tied. Controversy arises that same sex marriage is beyond generally accepted
principles of morality but is it always what is not moral also not legal?
“ No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the
laws.”
Section 1 Article III of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution so provides the equal protection clause, it is a specific
constitutional guarantee of the equality of all persons. The equality the
constitution refers to is the legal equality or in the eyes of the law no one
is above and everyone must be treated fairly and equally. Under this
constitutional guarantee each and every individual is dealt with as an equal
person in the law which does not treat any person differently because of who he
is or what he is or what he possesses. The goodness of justice is portrayed
with blindfold regardless of sexual orientation every individual should be
treated equally and be afforded with the same protection under the law. To be
legally tied and to be called legal husband and wife under the celebration of
marriage should be enjoyed by all individuals it should not be limited into a
certain class. Same sex marriage should be allowed because it is also an
expression of love and love is unconditional that no one has a free choice to
which person he will fall in love. Being different in terms of sexual
orientation per se is not a wrong it is just a truthful expression of a feeling
and what makes it wrong is the standard set by the society. But our law should
not put any distinction and same sex marriage should be allowed because it is
within the coverage of the equal protection clause mandated by our own
constitution.
“The
separation of the church and the state shall be inviolable”.
In Section 6, Article II of the same
constitution it clearly provides that the state should be a separate and
distinct entity as to the church. It puts an emphasis that the two entities
should work independently the legal matters such as the running of the
government and creating laws belong solely to the state and the church has
nothing to do with it as it is only concern with religion. Legal matters
strictly speaking is lodge only to the state and the law making powers is only
within the hands of the congress and laws can be created without consent nor
concurrence coming from the church. And so, why a law concerning about same sex
marriage is something that is not talk about and even somehow condemn to be the
topic for the possibility of becoming a law? Questions of morality now comes
afloat of which heavily anchored by the strong opposition from the church.
Politicians specifically in the law making body are afraid to sponsor a bill
pushing the enactment of a same sex marriage law due to fear of losing their
position in the government. These politicians who are political power gluttons
will just firmly cling to their government positions instead of rightfully
paving a way to the true essence of their public office of which to publicly
serve by way of enacting law(s). To enact or even to attempt an enactment of a
same sex marriage law will earn heavy protest from the church of which these
traditional politicians will not dare to do nor to mess with the church because
of fear that the church will withdraw their support or even much worst to
condemn this traditional politicians resulting to a sure loss of their
government position in the incoming elections. The non-interference clause
under this situation is disregarded and the state cannot function without the
approval from the church. This could be prevented if the law making body will
be true to its purpose to serve the people and not the church alone.
The question of morality is another subject
or area to talk about it is not part of the legal matters of which the law
making body should put primary concern with. Although it is a fact to admit
that laws should be founded on moral justice but what is moral is subjective
and morality is not always within the ambit of legality. Morality is set by the
generally accepted norms of society and same sex marriage might be immoral but
in no aspect it is illegal. Marriage in
its very true essence is about love of two persons that should not be
curtailed. Same sex marriage is not an exception it is love also that bonds the
couple together same as other ordinary couple. So if it is morality that is the
spearhead to condemn the enactment of same sex marriage law and so then
preventing to be legally bonded the two lovers is also within the so called
morality? To love is always never a sin and same sex couple who love each other
should be afforded also with the same opportunity to be legally tied.
The constitution expressly provides equal
protection of all persons and there is the separation of the state and the
church that a law granting same sex marriage can be implemented legally without
interference from the church. The state does not require the church(s) to
mandatorily accept and facilitate same sex marriage it is up to their free and
sound discretion whether to allow it or not what the law supposedly do is to
allow other means of legally accepted principles and avenues of marriage
available and be afforded to same sex lovers opting themselves to be legally
tied and to call themselves legal husband and wife. The primary objective of
our laws under our constitution is equal protection and not to distinguish
regardless of difference in sexual orientation and a law should be implemented
in fair and equal manner. The issue of same sex marriage is about legality and
not about solely on morality.
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"
https://academicheroes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/logo.png00adminhttps://academicheroes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/logo.pngadmin2019-06-28 04:21:382019-06-28 04:21:40THE IMPLEMETATION OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF OUR CONSTITUTION
Despite the Supreme Court’s historic marriage ruling, LGBT
Americans can still be at risk of being denied services for who they are or
risk being fired simply for getting married and wearing their wedding ring to
the office.
The article shares the experiences of Tiffany Cannon and
Lauren Horbal, a same-sex couple that was denied housing in Tennessee, and
Patricia Dawson, a transgender woman who claims she was let go from her job in
Arkansas because of her gender identity.
Nondiscrimination Bill is the Next Highest Priority for
LGBT Americans after Marriage Equality
Here’s a closer look at the kinds of discrimination FRC and
other conservatives believe embodies “religious liberty:”
Sweet Cakes by Melissa (2013): Sweet Cakes is an
Oregon bakery that refused a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. Discrimination
based on sexual orientation is illegal under Oregon law.
Just Cookies (2010): Just Cookies were not so just
when they refused an order of rainbow cookies for an LGBT student group at
Indiana University Purdue University-Indianapolis. Despite claims that they couldn’t fulfill the order, the owner admitted he didn’t think it was best for his “two young, impressionable
daughters,” and they eventually settled a complaint with the city of
Indianapolis for violating its anti-discrimination ordinance.
Masterpiece Cakes (2012): Masterpiece Cakes in
Lakewood, Colorado refused wedding cakes to multiple same-sex couples, though
follow-up test calls revealed it would accommodate a cake for a dog
wedding. The state attorney general has filed a complaint against the shop for violating the
state’s nondiscrimination laws.
Victoria’s Cake Cottage (2011): Baker Victoria
Childress of Des Moines, Iowa told a same-sex couple she couldn’t provide them
with a wedding cake because of her “convictions for their lifestyle.” It doesn’t seem any legal
action was ever taken, but discrimination based on sexual orientation is a
violation of Iowa law.
Fleur Cakes (2013): Fleur Cakes is the second Oregon bakery to refuse service to a same-sex couple
this year in violation of the law. The owner of Fleur Cakes, like those of
Sweet Cakes, would gladly provide cakes for all kinds of other sins, just not same-sex marriages.
Elane Photography (2006): The infamous case of Elane
Photography is a staple conservative argument for “religious liberty.” A
same-sex couple sued when photographer ElaneHugenin refused to document their
commitment ceremony because of her Christian beliefs. She has fought the
complaint with support from the Alliance Defending Freedom, but has so far lost at multiple levels of New Mexico court for violating
the state’s nondiscrimination law.
Aloha Bed and Breakfast (2011): The Aloha Bed and
Breakfast in Hawai’i refused to rent a room to a lesbian couple because the
owner believed same-sex relationships “defile the land.” The couple sued, and this April a state judge ruled against the B&B; for violating the state’s LGBT
nondiscrimination protections.
Arlene’s Flowers (2013): Washington florist
Barronelle Stutzman refused to provide the flowers for the wedding of a
same-sex couple who had long frequented her shop because of her “relationship
with Jesus Christ.” She now faces two lawsuits: one from the couple, and one from the state attorney general for violating state
law.
Liberty Ridge Farm (2012): Last September, the New
York-based Liberty Ridge Farm refused to let a lesbian couple rent the venue
for their wedding because it goes against their religious views. The couple filed a complaint, and conservatives were quick to defend
the venue as some small operation — a literal family “farm” — but blogger
Jeremy Hooper has pointed out that the business sells wedding packages for several thousand dollars and
even runs a wedding blog to tout its offerings.
All Occasion Party Place (2013): The All Occasion
Party Place near Fort Worth, Texas refused to rent its venue to a gay couple for a wedding
reception “because of God.” Because it’s located outside the city limits, it is
not covered by the city’s nondiscrimination protections, and Texas state laws
do not protect sexual orientation.
Wildflower Inn (2011): Due to “personal feelings,”
the Wildflower Inn in Vermont refused to let a lesbian couple hold their
wedding reception there. The couple filed a complaint, which they won last August when the Inn settled, admitting they violated the state’s
nondiscrimination laws. Its owners paid a $10,000 civil penalty and established
a $20,000 charitable for the couple, which they intend to use to support The
Trevor Project.
Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (2007): The
Ocean Grove pavilion in New Jersey is a case conservatives cite quite regularly
along with Elane Photography, but the story they tell doesn’t hold up. The
church group refused to let a same-sex couple hold a civil union at its
boardwalk pavilion, and when the couple filed a complaint, a judge ruled in
their favor and the pavilion ultimately lost its tax exemption. The key detail
conservatives leave out is that its tax exemption was not based on its religious affiliation, but on a Green
Acres real-estate tax exemption for conservation and recreation purposes. The
New Jersey Civil Rights Division upheld the judge’s decision in the case, and since losing,
the pavilion has re-obtained tax-exempt status through the group’s religious
identity.
Hands On Originals (2012): Hands On Originals, a
printing company in Lexington, Kentucky, refused to produce t-shirts for the city’s Pride festival
because “we’re a Christian organization.” The Gay and Lesbian Services
Organization filed a complaint, and the Lexington Human Rights Commission
ultimately ruled against the company for violating the city’s sexual
orientation nondiscrimination ordinance.
Dr. Angela McCaskill (2012): Last year, Gallaudet
University suspended its chief diversity officer for helping challenge
Maryland’s marriage equality law at the ballot. She refused to apologize,
seeming to compromise her responsibility to ensure that LGBT employees and
students at the university are not subject to discrimination. She suggested she
might seek compensation for the suspension, but she has since been reinstated.
Crystal Dixon (2008): Crystal Dixon published an
editorial letter in the Toledo Free Press objecting to the idea that “those
choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims’” because they
“violate God’s divine order,” identifying herself in the letter as Associate
Vice President for Human Resources at the University of Toledo. The university
proceeded to terminate her employment because her views directly contradicted
her responsibility to uphold its nondiscrimination statement, which includes
sexual orientation. She sued, and last December the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled that the university had legitimate grounds to fire her. She has appealed to the Supreme Court.
There are several common themes in the 15 examples FRC
sites. First, in every case where legal action has been taken, the
discriminating entity has lost, and in the cases that are ongoing, the state
has sided with the same-sex couples who filed complaints. Secondly, many of
these cases have taken place in states that don’t even have marriage equality,
proving that the issue is not even related to marriage laws, but to
nondiscrimination provisions. Lastly, as the last two examples demonstrate,
conservatives believe anti-gay discrimination for discrimination’s sake is
perfectly valid, even when it’s an individual’s job specifically not to. Most
of these examples address public accommodations, and none of them make a
compelling case against either marriage equality nor ENDA’s employment
protections.
Conservatives may champion “religious liberty” as their
argument against LGBT equality moving forward, but it’s an argument they’re
already losing across the country.
Example of gay discrimination
An employer allows a man
whose female partner is pregnant to take annual leave so that he can go to
ante-natal appointments with her.
The employer refuses a similar
request from a woman whose female partner is pregnant. This is likely to be
direct discrimination because of sexual orientation.
“Today’s decision is
historic, no doubt about it. But it does not end discrimination against many
LGBT people,” said Adam Talbot, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign,
an LGBT rights group.
When we’re denied services
related to our weddings, we don’t have full marriage recognition. Being told by
the government clerk to go to the next town over to obtain our marriage
licenses because she won’t issue them to same-sex couples means we don’t have
full marriage equality. Being told by a public-serving business, including a
wedding venue, a baker, or a florist, that they won’t provide services for
weddings of same-sex couples is another form of marriage discrimination, where
same-sex couples continue to get singled out for discrimination.
Anti-discrimination laws, in the end, are not about re-litigating the
definition of marriage, nor condoning homosexuality. They’re about protecting
LGBT people from being fired, evicted, and turned away from diner counters,
especially now that they’ve won the bittersweet right to live their
relationships fully in public.
The irony of gay marriage becoming
legal in the United States is that it has made discrimination against LBGT
people easier. For example: Many newlywed couples may be asking their employers
for spousal benefits for the first time. Depending on where they live, it may or may
not be illegal for that employer to respond by
firing them. Some state legislatures have tentatively taken on this issue;
Pennsylvania and Idaho, for example, both saw bills introduced in 2015. But in
many places, these efforts are complicated by a tangled political question:
Should these laws make exceptions for religious individuals and organizations
that object to employing and providing services to gay people?
Gay-rights advocates are planning to push hard for discrimination
protections, while religious-liberty groups continue to raise concerns about
protecting people’s freedom of conscience. Meanwhile, state-level legislators
are caught in the middle, no longer able to avoid a contentious set of issues
many would rather have ignored.
https://academicheroes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/logo.png00adminhttps://academicheroes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/logo.pngadmin2019-06-28 04:20:242019-06-28 04:20:28Nondiscrimination Bill is the Next Highest Priority for LGBT Americans after Marriage Equality
