In October the U. This legislation declared that same-sex marriages would not be recognized for federal purposes, such as the award of Social Security benefits normally afforded to a surviving spouse or employment-based benefits for the partners of federal employees. We, the Catholic bishops of the United States, offer here some basic truths to assist people in understanding Catholic teaching about marriage and to enable them to promote marriage and its sacredness. Broadly reflecting the community-benefit rhetoric noted above, many American legal scholars and same-sex marriage advocates developed arguments that the equal protection clause of the U. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which had upheld the same-sex marriage bans in all four states in its geographic reach.

Same sex marriage the moral and legal debate


New Zealand became the first country in Oceania to do so. Douglas argued that the federal government should not take a stand on the controversial question of slavery. The decision nullified bans on same-sex marriage as well as bans on official recognition of such marriages performed outside a state. Kennedy read a summary of his opinion in a calm voice, laying out a series of liberty principles that led to the conclusion. The department posits three legislative rationales for prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying: Why is a same-sex union not equivalent to a marriage? However, as created, they are different from but made for each other. Virginia, supra at In many cultures the exchange of some form of surety, such as bride service, bridewealth , or dowry , has been a traditional part of the marriage contract. This legislation declared that same-sex marriages would not be recognized for federal purposes, such as the award of Social Security benefits normally afforded to a surviving spouse or employment-based benefits for the partners of federal employees. Do you agree with Lincoln? The federal government would be taking a stand, one way or the other. It did not create a new right, but opened a long-existing one to those partners. While it is certainly true that many, perhaps most, married couples have children together assisted or unassisted , it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage. Man and woman are equal. It has failed to do so. Persons in same-sex unions cannot enter into a true conjugal union. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap. On the other hand, the Netherlands —the first country to grant equal marriage rights to same-sex couples —was religiously diverse , as was Canada , which did so in Soon, even true but unpopular beliefs would be suppressed. Nonetheless, some states moved toward the legal recognition of same-sex partnerships. This kind of reflection, using reason and faith, is an appropriate starting point and framework for the current debate. By their voice and their vote, they should contribute to society's welfare and test its public life by the standards of right reason and Gospel truth. The state has an obligation to promote the family, which is rooted in marriage. Barack Obama , who during his initial years in office had endorsed only civil unions for same-sex couples, in May became the first sitting U. As an indirect consequence, same-sex marriage was soon legalized by U.

Same sex marriage the moral and legal debate

Video about same sex marriage the moral and legal debate:

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 12: "DEBATING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE"





SyntaxTextGen not activated

Same sex marriage the moral and legal debate

3 thoughts on “Same sex marriage the moral and legal debate

  • Gardagul
    06.05.2018 at 15:17
    Permalink

    Some people believe that the purpose of marriage is procreation and that, therefore, same-sex marriages should not be permitted. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law.

    Reply
  • Tegul
    12.05.2018 at 21:30
    Permalink

    We conclude that it may not.

    Reply
  • Vugis
    16.05.2018 at 21:56
    Permalink

    As leaders of their family—which the Second Vatican Council called a "domestic church" Lumen Gentium, no.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

1752-1753-1754-1755-1756-1757-1758-1759-1760-1761-1762-1763-1764-1765-1766-1767-1768-1769-1770-1771-1772-1773-1774-1775-1776-1777-1778-1779-1780-1781
Sitemap