Happs In Gay Marriage - Happy HO

Contents:

• HETEROSEXUAL AND HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAG – ARE STRAIGHT AND GAY MARRIAG INTIL?
• GAY MARRIAGE: THE KEY TO HAPPS?
• GAY MARRIAGE: THEOLOGIL AND MORAL ARGUMENTS
• 27 REASONS TO SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE
• HAPPS IN GAY MARRIAGE
• GAY MARRIAGE FULFILLS 'PURSU OF HAPPS'

HETEROSEXUAL AND HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAG – ARE STRAIGHT AND GAY MARRIAG INTIL?

Hodg legalized gay marriage natnwi, cludg the 14 stat that did not prevly allow gays and lbians to wed. Adults (37%) favored allowg gays and lbians to wed 2009, a share that rose to 62% 2017.

GAY MARRIAGE: THE KEY TO HAPPS?

For stance, 45% of adults the Silent Generatn (those born between 1928 and 1945) favor allowg gays and lbians to wed, pared wh 74% of Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996). 4As wh the general public, Amerins who intify as lbian, gay, bisexual or transgenr (LGBT) are most likely to ce love as a very important reason for gettg married. The first natn to legalize gay marriage was the Netherlands, which did so 2000.

GAY MARRIAGE: THEOLOGIL AND MORAL ARGUMENTS

Sce then, several other European untri – cludg England and Wal, France, Ireland, all of Sndavia, Spa and, most recently, Atria, Germany and Malta – have legalized gay marriage. And May 2019, Taiwan beme the first untry Asia to allow gays and lbians to legally wed.

27 REASONS TO SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE

(Disclosure: The thors of this preview are affiliated wh the law firm that reprents the Rponnt Wdsor and prevly reprented parti ligatn claimg a right for gay and lbian upl to marry unr New York’s Constutn. Agast that background, the Nth Circu found that none of the reasons offered by s proponents to jtify Proposn 8 provid any nceivably ratnal basis for the whdrawal of that right and ferred that the only explanatn for Proposn 8 was mere disapproval of gay and lbian persons.

Evans, [3] held that such a law nied equal protectn to California’s gay and lbian rints. Bee of the California-specific circumstanc on which s analysis was premised, the Nth Circu found unnecsary to nsir, and exprsed no opn, as to “whether same-sex upl have a fundamental right to marry, or whether stat that fail to afford the right to marry to gays and lbians mt do so. ”[4]In the Supreme Court, the two lbian and gay upl who are challengg Proposn 8, urge a broar posn.

HAPPS IN GAY MARRIAGE

They argue that Proposn 8 not only vlat the Equal Protectn Clse, but ni gay and lbian persons the fundamental right to marriage guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Procs Clse. ”The Send Circu found that gays and lbians satisfied all the qualifitns of a “spect class” that triggers heightened scty, namely that they are members of a group that has been historilly subjected to discrimatn; that they have an immutable or distguishg tra that do not affect their abily to ntribute to society and that they are a polilly weakened mory.

Proponents of both Proposn 8 and DOMA offer some of the same jtifitns for the distctn disfavorg gay and lbian persons.

[13] That is surely required here where the ligatn-crafted ratnal proffered by proponents of both Proposn 8 and DOMA mask the realy of the bias and irratnal fears regardg gay and lbian cizens that marked the mpaign that led to Proposn 8’s enactment and the legislative history of any event, the qutn of which standard of review should be applied evaluatg the jtifitns offered by the proponents of Proposn 8 and DOMA is certa to be a central foc of qutng by the Jtic both arguments. Zarrillo, as well as the Cy of San Francis, subsequently filed su the Uned Stat District Court for the Northern District of California, allegg that Proposn 8, by nyg gay and lbian California cizens the right to marry based solely on their sexual orientatn vlat the Due Procs and Equal Protectn cls of the Fourteenth the Governor of California and the State Attorney General, named as fendants the su, announced that while they would enforce the law, they would not fend .

GAY MARRIAGE FULFILLS 'PURSU OF HAPPS'

Moreover, bee Proposn 8 did not change the California laws that nferred on civil partners all of the same benefs and rponsibili applible to married oppose-sex persons, the Court nclud that the practil effect of Proposn 8 was to leave gay men and lbians wh the “cints” of marriage while whdrawg om them the “stat and digny” that beg a regnized marriage Nth Circu then examed each of the jtifitns proffered by the proponents for Proposn 8 light of this special California amework and nclud that none of them provid any nceivable legimate or ratnal basis for the whdrawal of the right of gays and lbians to the signatn marriage. It therefore ferred that Proposn 8 uld only have been motivated by disapproval of gay and lbian persons and held that unr the U.

[18]Bee s cisn was premised on California’s special circumstanc, the Nth Circu found unnecsary to “nsir whether same-sex upl have a fundamental right to marry, or whether stat that fail to afford the right to marry to gays and lbians mt do so. Rponnts assert that petners lack standg bee petners do not ntend that they would personally suffer any jury if gay men and lbians were given the right to marry California. They further assert that any argument petners might have about the alleged overbreadth of the junctn entered by the district urt was waived by petners’ failure to raise the issue prr to this appeal and that, any event, the junctn was appropriate bee Proposn 8 impos an intil jury on all gays and lbians throughout California.