Good Example OF Essay On Ban On Marriage By The Same-Sex Couples

It was passed in the Virginia statutes that persons of the same sex are not permitted to marry. It was also passed that marriage and civil unions made up by same-sex couples in the other states are not allowed too and referred to as “void and unenforceable”. In the year 2006, there was a vote on the referendum that was passed in order to enshrine the discrimination in the state constitution. Bostic and London, who lives in Virginia, wanted to get married, but they could not do so because of the discriminatory laws of Virginia. Furthermore, DeBoer also wished to marry a fellow man but he could not be allowed because of such laws that prohibited such marriages.
In the case involving Bostic v. Rainey, the plaintiffs, who are Timothy B. Bostic and Tony, are the two men who wanted to get married, but were unable to obtain a marriage certificate that could be used as a legal document for their marriage in Virginia. This is simply because of Virginia’s Marriage Laws. This case was filed on July 18th 2013 by Mr. Bostic and Mr. London who filed the complaint against the former Governor Robert, the former Attorney General Kenneth T and George E who was the official and held a capacity of Clerk of the Court in Norfolk Court.
The complainant sought declaration and the injunctive relief that was regarding the treatment of the same sex marriage in the Virginia that was under the Virginia’s Constitution and Virginia Code. In the case, a defendant was Ms. Janet Rainey, who was in an official capacity as the State Registrar of Vital Records.
In similar way, the case of DeBoer V. Snyder was a federal court challenge that was presented in the Michigan Laws. The Michigan Laws also had prohibited the state from recognizing and permitting any form of marriage that was other than the marriage between a man and a woman. The plaintiffs; DeBoer and Jayne both, who had adopted children, in January 2012, filed a complaint in the Michigan, Eastern District that sought to challenge the state’s ban on the adoption that was done by the same-sex couples. In the Michigan, there was a restriction against the adoption to the second parent in the married couples that was done by the same sex couples, simply because the state does not allow such marriages to be allowed.
After further argument, the Judge Friedman made a court ruling on 21st March 2014 that the Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional and thus it violets the plaintiffs’ right for the equal protection of the law. Following the court ruling, the state appealed to the States Court of Appeal for the pending appeal of the Judge Friedman’s ruling. It was argued that the court should allow equality of rights for all the classes of people and the groups. This included the gay men and the lesbians. In the case, Framers recognized the equal rights to marry that were a basic civil right of all people. This was done to prohibit any kind of prohibition, which was done as discriminatory marriage laws that was done in such a case.
As per the case of Bostic v. Rainey, Mr. Bostic, and Mr., London had applied for a marriage certificate from the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk. They fully completed the application procedure, and they affirmed that they are over the age of eighteen years and that they are not related in any way.
This was the basic requirement for the issue of the marriage license that was the document that allowed the marriage to take place between the two individuals. All the requirements were met despite the fact that they are of the same gander. Because they were of the same gander, the Courts’ Clerk denied their marriage license.
The Virginia’s Laws prohibited same-sex unions, and this was amended in the Virginia Constitution. The Laws were clear that any form of marriage between two individuals who were of the same gander was prohibited and thus was unconstitutional. It was, therefore, likely for the United States Supreme Court will completely deny such marriage. The Supreme Court will base their argument to the constitution of Virginia. The Virginia’s constitution clearly states that any marriage other than that of between a man and a woman. It was, therefore, clear that the plaintiffs’ complaint will not be allowed and listened to since it was unconstitutional.
About the case involving DeBoer, it was clearly defined by the state that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. This was observed since its territorial days. This law was affirmed in the year 1996 after enacting a law that declared marriage as being “inherent and unique relationship that was between a man and a woman”. Furthermore, the Commonwealth also had a prohibition on the same-sex marriage.
In both the cases, the court will not allow both the marriages since they were between the persons of the same sex. As an analysis on the court’s decision to ban the marriage of the two couples, the court will base on the constitution. The Virginia’s constitution does not allow marriage between people of the same gender.
Based on the Virginia’s constitution, such a marriage could not be allowed since it is against the constitution. Anything, that goes contrary to the constitution, was regarded as invalid. It was, therefore, clear that the marriage between Mr. Bostic and Mr. Landon could not be allowed, and thus their marriage license could not be issued by the court because it was unconstitutional.
Similarly, the marriage between DeBoer and Jayne could not be allowed either. Furthermore, their act of adopting children could also not be allowed by the Supreme Court. Despite the fact that there where laws that were to protect the rights of all individuals which was to give equal rights to all persons. These laws were meant to protect the rights of the groups such as the gays and the lesbians. It was clearly defined in the Michigan’s constitution that a marriage was between a man and a woman. This means that any form of marriage, that was contrary to the one stated in the constitution, was invalid. It then clearly prohibits the marriage of the same sex nor the adoption of children by both the parents. The Supreme Court will, therefore, not allow the marriage between DeBoer and Jayne basing on the Michigan’s constitution and the Commonwealth’s view.
There are several constitutional theories that the Supreme Court relies on while making a ruling in some of the most conflicting cases such as the ones presented in the court, which were to allow the marriage between the people of the same gender. Such theories are the violation of Equal protection and an abridgment of the Fundamental Rights.
The Equal Protection was amended in the United States Constitution. It prohibits the state from denying any person within the jurisdiction of the country the equal protection of the laws. In this context, the constitution was to treat each person in equal way and in the same manner as the others in the similar circumstances and conditions.
A violation of this clause was in such a way when the constitution prohibits the individuals from the getting married because they are of the same gender. The clause was to have equal protection to all the individuals and give them equal rights in making any decision about their life.
On the other hand, the Fundamental Rights of the United States gives individuals same rights and freedom under the law and the dignity to the individuals. It thus should be expected to protect the rights of individuals in any way based on their choice of their decisions. This included the right to make choices on whom to marry.
Despite these theories of the constitution, the Supreme Court did not allow the freedom of choice of whom to marry regardless of the gender. It thus based its choice on the violation of Equal Protection. This was because the constitution is the supreme rule, and any clause, that goes contrary to some clauses in the main constitution, is nullified.

Bibliography

Mayer, David N. 2011. Liberty of Contract Rediscovering a Lost Constitutional Right. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Pub. Group.
United States, Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company, and LEXIS Law Publishing. 1956. United States Supreme Court reports. Rochester, N.Y.: Lawyers Co-operative Pub. Co.
United States. 1754. United States reports. Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court.