gay marriage-federal level
Gay marriage-federal level
Gay marriage-federal level
In the late 20th century, there were more marriages that had minimal legal requirements. The first law enactment came into being in the year 2001, and this law was passed in the Netherlands. Currently, there are 14 countries that allow for gay marriages across the globe. Gay marriage is marriage by two individuals of the same sex. In the US, gay marriages are now legalized, after the case between Obergfell v. Hodges was found to be unconstitutional. Denial of marriage certificates to same-sex couples is a crime and violates the due process by the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Further, it is currently clear that there is widespread support for same-sex marriages in Australia, some parts of Europe and the USA.
Gay-marriages across the federal level desire the full recognition of marriages between same-sex couples. Such couples are to be given certificates and recognized as part of the society without victimization. However, there are few critics to the issues on gay marriages, but most of them have been silenced by the recent unanimous ruling by the United States Supreme Court of its acceptance (Campbell & Monson, 2008).
Social services in the US are working in partnership with other stakeholders from the region to ensure a smooth transition of the law to the citizens. They do this by informing the majority that the respectability provided to the people by the state has various benefits that will allow the participants to have better futures. The enactment will ensure a reduction in discrimination, and people will be able to embrace each other’s culture with ease. The gay community is also informed by the social services department to consult medical practitioners on a regular basis to ensure good health and reduce their number of partners. All this provisions indicate that the department is in resonance with the provisions of the law on same-sex marriages.
Most nations including the US have come up with a form or civil partnership or marriage where same-sex couples are allowed to marry without any problem. It is currently a law in the US, and those in the same-sex bracket can get married (Sullivan, 2015). There are various health benefits that are associated with heterosexual women and men, and such benefits come as a result of their unions. The institution’s acceptance of same marriages can improve their relationships, reduce levels of discrimination and also ensure better physical and mental health benefits for individuals.
Civil partnership law was first introduced in Denmark in the year 1989, and its recognition brought about various debates around the globe. The concern on the issues of same-sex marriages arose from the fact that the partnerships had not protection in the event of breakup or death. However, there have been various changes currently concerning gay marriages, and people are adopting such relationships around the globe. In the US and many other regions, laws have been set up to defend the rights of such partnerships.
Historical problems associated with same-sex marriages include the lack of full recognition of the partnerships in other states in the US. After it had become law, it is evident that there were some critics who continued to oppose the move and desire that they may be left out of the provisions of the law. It is vital to note that there are still different regions around the US, where gay marriages are not fully accepted, and this has made it impossible to alleviate instances of discrimination and prejudice. The social services have full mandate to ensure that the citizens are comfortable with the law, and reduce the rates of social exclusion of lesbian and gay groups.
Green, (2009) confirms that same-sex marriages came into existence to provide equality among individuals and also to follow after the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides freedom to every individual in the US. The new law was also meant to ensure social security for the people from the US, and also make them follow the provisions of the constitution.
The traditional nature of marriage in the US and around the globe existed on the premise of a man and a woman. The inclusion of lesbian and gay couples brought about heightened debates that were finally put to an end by the Supreme Court in the US. With time, more states started embracing the provisions of same-sex marriages which led to the desire to give them a platform to operate from, through the new law. The enactment of the law did away with a clause in the Defense of Marriage Act, which had definitions of ‘spouse’ and ‘marriage’. According to the law, the two phrases were earlier interpreted as excluding same-sex marriages, but this was later overruled by the Supreme Court. The decision to enact the law was as a result of Obergefell v. Hodges case and other political stands from proponents of the law.
Gay marriages debate has one particular, peculiar fact, and that is most of those against its approval are not affected in any way by the law. People who are affected by the law are individuals in similar relationships, their families, their friends and other people who give them full support. Gay marriage opponents should also be given a chance to put across their views because most of the time they are always defending the majority from the society.
The minority groups were known to support the provisions of the gay marriage policy fully, but currently after it’s the majority are also in full support of the law (Brumbaugh et al., 2008). The consequences of such provisions are that the two groups might clash because of the divergent views they possess concerning gay marriages. The policy might also affect religious groups who are ardent on the issue, with the full support of a man to woman marriage. The religious views were not incorporated in the policy, and this will also create a division between the Christians and those who are not Christians due to their divergent views on marriage. The biggest challenge now in the US is that those who are opposing against gay marriages are in the minority group, a fact that might make their cries elicit no action from any quarter of the federal government.
The introduction of the policy has minimal social costs, but relatively high political costs due to the various debates that have to be run to make changes to the interests of the parties concerned. The law led to unintended effect as most stakeholders did not perceive the outcome of the law after being passed by the Supreme Court. On the other hand, the law favored the minority before it was introduced, but this has currently changed as more individuals embrace its provisions. There was the development of alternative social policies during this period, and their main aims were to ensure a clear backup of the same-sex marriage law. The new policies provided a framework under which the newly enacted law was to operate to ensure equity.
The legalization of same-sex marriages in the US has changed the scope of family law, by clearly indicating that legal parents of an individual can be of the same sex. A marriage that is an institution has drastically changed, and these changes have affected individuals differently. The changes have been necessitated by the emergence of new policies, including same-sex marriages that have brought about varied reactions from critics. Individuals ought to be informed of the need to embrace the new law, as it places the interests of all Americans in one place.
The state through their social services department needs to teach individuals on the need to uphold the law through respecting the rights of people and their choices more so when it comes to marriage. The education sector has a duty to embrace the change while the health sector requires retroactive steps to inform the participants of the need to have regular hospital checkups to avoid diseases. Future research on the issue will be limited because of the already passed law that is being supported by the majority. The policy’s nature to provide a minimal window for debate should be seen as its greatest weakness though it follows the provisions of the Constitution, which is its strength. Future research on the topic could be its evaluation after enactment.
Brumbaugh, S. M., Sanchez, L. a, Nock, S. L., & Wright, J. D. (2008). Attitudes toward gay marriage in states undergoing marriage law transformation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(2), 345-359.
Campbell, D. E., & Monson, J. Q. (2008). The Religion Card: Gay Marriage and the 2004 Presidential Election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 399-419.
Green, M. S., Murphy, M. J., Blumer, M., & Palmanteer, D. (2009). Marriage and Family Therapistsʼ Comfort Level Working With Gay and Lesbian Individuals, Couples, and Families. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 37(2), 159-168.
Sullivan, A. (2015). The conservative case for gay marriage. Time.