Striking Analogy between Interracial Marriages and Same-Sex Marriages - Essay Example

?Table of content: Introduction: Keywords: Striking analogy between interracial marriages and Same sex marriages: Interracial Marriage: Richard and Mildred case: Historical proceedings over interracial marriages: Defining of the term marriage in context of inter racial marriage: Cultural significance of inter racial marriages: A co relation between inter racial marriages and Gay marriages: Central Theme: Historic occurrences: On National Level: Defense of Marriage Act 1996: Section 3 of D.O.M.A: Edith Winsor case: Literature review: Different States Ruling: Supreme Court’s March 26th proceedings: Conclusion: Introduction: The same sex marriage has been a term in vogue for quite some time and it has been under debate in courts as well. This is not just limited to United States or any particular country, rather various regions have seen various trends, masses gathering and movements aimed at allowing and legalizing the same sex marriages. Social, legal and political factors are to be taken into account when studying the overall case at hand. This includes the pattern of Supreme Court’s rulings, its tendencies towards the over rulings, the cases for it that have been taken to court, along with certain states and their municipal courts allowing the same sex marriage. The paper would also look into the interracial marriages and the patterns being followed by the higher Courts towards it, along with the response of state, senate and other legislative and regulative entities. Keywords: Same Sex marriage, Supreme Court, interracial marriage, Legal considerations Striking analogy: The movers of the bill and movement for same sex marriage draw a relationship with the inter racial marriages which were equally denied in the earlier days, their statements are defended by facts and data from past to the present based on the percentage of people permitted and the percentage and exact number of people who are enrolled in a different race based marriage. This paper will make use of the research papers, and literature reviews by following the proceedings as they have taken place in recent pasts along with an overall historic tracing of how the entire event has unfolded and what has been the response of state pillars from time to time. Interracial Marriage: Historical proceedings over interracial marriages: Inter racial marriages were an issue and non practicing term till the middle of 20th century. One prime example in this regard was seen in 1950s when Richard and Mildred were denied the right to wedlock based on their racial affiliations and differences. The dynamics of inter racial marriage changed in 1967 when the Supreme Court granted permission to inter racial marriages. Hence a co relation and analogy is being drawn between the two forms of matrimonial relationship. Defining of the term marriage in context of inter racial marriage: According to the proponents of the movement of same sex marriage, the inter racial marriage didn’t lead to changing of definition of marriage, in the same manner the same sex marriage does not lead or require changing the definition, and thereby there is no conclusive need for obstruction in its approval. Over period of time, these concepts have totally changed, the interracial marriage trends are on the rise in United States, and according to a finding, one in ten marriages are that of couples hailing from totally different backgrounds. This is seen as over 25 percent increase in the trend the last decade. This is leading to the multi dimensional shape of the society as a whole. As of present standing over 4.8 million (Bell) weddings are between different races, and this figure has risen by multiple proportions in less than four to five decades, comparing to the times when they were not approved by the state. Cultural significance of Inter racial marriages: The inter racial marriages have led to pluralistic society concept with more tolerance and acceptance towards one another. A co relation between inter racial marriages and Gay marriages: According to a finding, at one time the inter racial marriages were barred in 41 states exactly, and the gay marriages were also barred in 41 states, the former has been approved officially and in totality in less than 5 decades (Bell). Central Theme: The overall scenario will be seen in the perspective of the Supreme Court and the states and their local courts that have granted the permission, against those that have denied the grant. For example Washington is one of those states along with Maine that has seen change in the rulings time and again. In order to get a nationwide approval on mass scale, the case has been long debated and contested in the Supreme Court. The most recent development in this regard was that of March 26th hearing, where both the parties, pro and against presented their case through detailed elaborations, the move was seen by massive gathering of people from both sides on that day. The main point of discussion in the prevailing situation is that of Preposition 8 of California that has created quite a stir over period of time. The debate is about the constitutional aspect of move and Supreme Court has been moved time and again to validate its constitutional claim from either side. Historic occurrences: On National Level: The case against it: Those who have moved the court against it and stand in the way of approving it advocate that the entire effort is against the concept of procreation, and against the nature. The case against it: On national level: The same gender issue and interest gained momentum around 1970s, however one particular case that gave impetus to the situation and standing was the Hawaii case. The case and event of same sex marriage came to the lime light as in the early days of 1990s when in 1993, when in Hawaii, the court’s verdict led to the inferring of the fact that there is space and margin for practicing same sex practices in contrast to the one man, one woman practices of matrimonial engagement. The move was taken and treated with a mix response, some finding a foundation for which would serve as a long term debate about the practices of orientation, while others agencies like Defense of Marriage Act (D.O.M.A) came into more active force for the purpose and with intention of protecting the conventional purpose and meaning of the marriage between two opposite genders. Defense of Marriage Act 1996: This act was passed in 1996(Newton 157) that clearly denied and brushed aside any concept and any attempts moved by the same sex unification in socially accepted way. This is one of the major obstacles that stand presently in granting the permit to the same sex couples who have taken the case to Supreme Court. For Supreme Court to do with the same sex it has to annul this move first in legal context, only then can the same sex marriage gets underway. Section 3 of D.O.M.A: D.O.M.A has a clearly defined programmed and principled module which provides guidance over rules and regulations relevant to the married life and spouse definition. Section 3 in this regard is only restricted to the opposite gender, under such rules and sectioning; there is no space and place for same sex marriage. With time, the clause under section 3 has become dilute and the states practices have become relevantly dominant thereby making it less effective with regard to the same sex marriage prohibition. The moves and sections of D.O.M.A are endorsed by Congress and they were initially brought about with aim and declaration of protecting the institution of marriage intact without any changes such as the one of same gender which according to them, not only runs against the moral values but also in contrast and conflict to the procreation aspect of mankind. Proposition 8: Proposition 8 is of high significance in the overall scenario and is being held strongly by the group that advocates the practices of same sex marriage. It was originally initiated by the California court in its ruling. Edith Winsor case: A case came to forth in 2007 when Edith Winsor protested against the Section 3 of D.O.M.A, terming it clear and open violation and denying of the equal rights of individuals. Edith Winsor was provided shelter and support by the court at district level terming it contradiction in the equal rights provision to the individuals. However this raised serious questions pertaining to the jurisdictions of district court and Supreme Court It was Edith Winsor’s case that allowed Supreme Court to investigate its level of authority about the dealing of similar cases. Supreme Court has also handled and been faced with similar cases in prior in form of INS vs. Chadha case On state level: Starting off in a chronological order, the updates and development can be traced to as recent as May 2nd when two states enrolled into the race of allowing for same sex marriage, these two are namely Delaware and Rhodes Island. This is nothing new in its pattern and various other states have been on the same path, Vermont can be termed as one of the pioneer states in this regard to have granted the same sex approval as early as 2000. Legal aspect of same sex marriage: There are numerous ambiguities and differences over the definition of marriage in various states. This difference comes in form of definition of marriage by the Federal administrative units and the state’s legislative structure, each defining the marriage in its own context. As a result of this certain states are found to have permitted the same sex marriage, while others, sticking to the old rules have categorically stood against any such move. A case in form of Baker v. Vermont came to the floor of Vermont legislative platform where the ruling was passed in favor of same sex marriage. The court also facilitated the ruling by asking the administrative authority in form of the local government seeking protection and facilitation of the people with this orientation. The court stressed for facilitating the members through an alternate system or possible facilitation within the system. The case against it: Those who have moved the court against it and stand in the way of approving it advocate that the entire effort is against the concept of procreation, and against the nature. Those against it believe that the mere definition and concept of marriage pertains to procreation, and the same sex marriage lies in total contradiction to the concept of procreation thereby should not be granted social status on any level. The case for it: Those who are advocating the case are of opinion that equal human rights should be provided to everyone and based on their personal inclination and orientation; they should be given liberty to live their life according to their wishes. Supreme Court is unable to provide any clear ruling due to the reason of states courts over ruling on many cases, along with the referendums on either side of the decision. Literature review: The Vermont General Assembly’s response: In reply to the state court’s ruling the general assembly gave it legal protection by making it part of the legal and local framework that would allow for a socially accepted relationship between “a man and a man”. Massachusetts court ruling: In contrast to the recent developments in other states, Massachusetts court exhibited a totally different stance and approach in this regard. In 2003, the court passed a decree against the same sex marriage and declared it unconstitutional. The court did not even facilitate the same sex civil union which was requested by the Senate in response to the cancellation of request about legal protection of the court. New Jersey: New Jersey, joining in on the bandwagon, decided in the favor of the move and gave the same sex marriage a place in the constitution and legal frame through a court order. This took place in 2006. The court asked the administrative unit to endorse the move through facilitation and providing of a legal framework which would enable the same sex members practicing and living their life in a legally accepted manner. California’s contribution: The move towards permitting the same sex marriage has seen a twist over number of occasions in California where approvals are being granted and rejected over period of time. For the first time, California joined in the ranks in 2008 when it formally declared the same sex marriage as legally accepted and that they should be given equal rights as per social spectrum of society pertaining to a person’s status and orientation in the society. The new move was accommodated through the Proposition 8. However the ruling was in practice for a short while, lasting only a few weeks. Being approved in November, the ruling was overturned next year in May. In California alone, there are over thirty to forty thousand young ones who are being adopted by the same sex parents and they do not enjoy a clear declaration of their parents being in an officially recognized and declared matrimonial relationship, and it is for this reason that the case has been taken to Supreme Court, with hopes of getting a clear answer regarding the declaration. Being unable to decide about the permanent outcome of the case, and with number of over turns either way, it has finally been directed to the Supreme Court of United States to provide a final verdict over its ruling and decision pertinent to the permission or declining once for all. The point of debate is the Preposition 8, and it has been decided that the court would look into it in a month’s time from now- June 2013 and decide about the future outcome. The case of Maine: Maine’s efforts were marred by the discontent of the rivals to the idea and despite the early approval of the legislative entity and the governor incumbent, the overall move was annulled and Maine stands outside the race of states that have enrolled in the grant of same sex marriage. New Hampshire: New Hampshire did not have any hurdles regarding its approval and it was able to endorse the same sex marriage without any major obstacle from the rival bench and it is one of the first few states to have formally granted a grant to this practice. Washington’s approval: Washington too had a turn and twist of tale regarding its approval, being approved first, and planned for practical implementation by June 2012, the rivals managed to gather sufficient signatures impeding the approval, however the counter act has been seen since then and December 2012 was set as the date for formal approval and grant of allowing for its practices and making it part of the local legislative entity (NCSL). Supreme Court’s March 26th proceedings: The March 26th proceedings were inconclusive and both parties knew that they could not get a clear and loud answer from Supreme Court. A clear ruling would be on sight in June 2013, and that would clear the stance of Supreme Court. As of March 2013, a clear gulf existed between the judges on either side and no clear majority could be seen in favor or against the case. D.O.M.A sections are to be reviewed critically in order to get a clear answer regarding the ruling for or against, the case of D.O.M.A has to be settled once for all. Those for the same sex have constantly pressed the case by criticizing the power and authority of D.O.M.A regarding its section 3 and have asked for state control over such decisions rather than Congress who have endorsed the moves by D.O.M.A. The case stresses for reduction of power and authority of Congress and D.O.M.A over the declaration of the cancellation of same sex marriages as it is being seen as double standards by the gay and lesbian community who want free expression and protection of their orientation. The direction of wind and its interpretations: Although the final decision is due for June 2013, experts are of the few that the Court might just show a green signal to the same sex marriage party and allow it for practices, this can be done so by reducing the authority of the D.O.M.A and Congress with regard to the declaration and definition of marriage which as of present stands as one man one woman relationship. The court’s stance: Court has to look deep into this case before making any final decision, according to one of the Judges, the case must be taken and dealt with extremely cautiously as the entire history has been defined and has existed in form of one man one woman relationship, declaring and allowing for same sex to be in a matrimonial relationship is a totally different concept and would open new horizons, thereby all factors must be taken into account and critical evaluation should be done of every aspect before granting it a legal social status and permit. These views were expressed and stressed for by Justice Kennedy who is part to the entire hearing proceeding that took place on March 26th 2013. President Barack Obama’s Stance: President Obama has finally expressed his views over this act and has asked the Supreme Court to investigate the overall matter on merit and give it a chance if it is legally valid. These views were expressed in an interview and it can be inferred that the government is also inclined towards granting the permit to such practices, the final decision is still subject to the Supreme Court’s ruling. Mr. Cooper’s stance: Mr. Cooper raised the question of its validity and how would the factor and aspect of procreation be protected if this move was granted a legal status and standing. This came in response to the question raised by Justice Elena Kagan who stressed that there was no major damage posed by permission of this decision and it would rather allow for equal rights, equal protection and equal expression of personal orientation regardless of what the long term trend has been in practice. (LIPTAK). Getting further into the details of the case of procreation, the point of sterile couples was also raised and the point was pressed that all over, there are millions of couples of opposite gender who are unable to have children due to the sterility factor, this was used as one of the point in the defense against the point raised by the opposition party regarding the procreation aspect. However this point was rebutted by the defending party who put a case of old people getting married. Conclusion: Eyes are all set for June 2013, challenges are faced on either side, however seeing the public orientation, the states approval on many cases, an overwhelming grant by over forty states over practicing of same sex marriage, it can be inferred that sooner or later this move will be given a legal status, with other nations permitting for practicing of same sex marriage. This is not a new concept, the 20th century can be investigated deep to find out that the traces of such movements trace back to as early as 1930s and 1940s,yet it is only now that the case and situation has gained momentum and come to the higher floor in form of Supreme Court hearing. With recent inclination of the judges showing that they want to pave a way for legally allowing the practices, the day might not be far where same sex marriages would have a socially and legally accepted place just like the opposite gender marriages that are in practice and accepted for centuries. References: BELL, DEBRA. As the Supreme Court Weighs Gay Marriage, a Look at Its Last Major Ruling. 28 Feb 2013. 18 May 2013 . LIPTAK, ADAM. Justices Say Time May Be Wrong for Gay Marriage Case. 26 March 2013. 15 May 2013 . NCSL. Same Sex Marriage Laws. 9 May 2013. 15 May 2013 . Newton, David E. Same-Sex Marriage: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Read More