My current event talks about the Supreme Court appearing ready today to strike down a central part of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. After considering a challenge to California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments today in a case looking to overturn the 1996 law signed by President Bill Clinton that defined marriage as heterosexual and prevented gay couples from receiving federal marriage benefits. The four liberal justices expressed similar concerns over federal power, as well as other concerns about equal protection of gay Americans under the law. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked about a marriage that is recognized by the state but not the federal government. She pointed out that a couple who is legally married in their state might be denied marital deductions and Social Security benefits. That means, for instance, if a spouse is sick, you can’t get leave. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who most likely holds the decisive vote, kept restating that the theme that deciding who is married is a matter for the states. The federal government, he said, should respect “the historic commitment of marriage and questions of the rights of children to the states.” There were very interesting viewpoints from the justices. During the argument, many of the questions from the justices suggested that they were looking for a way to duck the central issue. The justices dedicated 50 minutes to two questions regarding whether the case has properly come before the Supreme Court. DOMA has enraged gay-rights activists, some of whom have harbored resentment at Clinton for signing it into law in the first place.
There are a lot of different opinions and standing views on gay marriage. The argument regarding gay marriage should be legalized or not is extremely controversial. I think that it is about time for the government to legalize it. Our civil rights and the Constitution...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document