Affiliated Institution
The purpose of this essay is to discuss the analysis of Mucciaroni`s book about same sex progress success rates in the United States of America regarding different aspects; what are the obstacles that they are facing? What are the supporting factors for their cause? We will also discuss D`Emilio`s essay that tackles certain concerns about the marriage equality movements. We will end this essay with the review of two Supreme Court cases; Windsor VS. US and Obergefell VS. Hodges by highlighting the main legal arguments that support the same sex marriage cause and others that dissent it.
Mucciaroni`s Book.
According to Mucciaroni, there are several factors that affect gay right advocates in achieving progress with their cause; public opinion and policy making stand as the most significant ones. Social movements have a pivotal role too in supporting the cause in some states, as they have the ability to mobilize the public opinion to the polls. The historical background and the demographic composition of the state have an effect too. A state where its population has a high level of education usually supports gay rights. Also, the state`s cultural and ideological directions have a significant effect too; a conservative state with low tolerance towards an abnormal phenomenon will definitely oppose the gay rights cause. Moreover, the policy making and the legislative side has its share too with the progress achieved with this cause. The structure of the decision making process can facilitate achieving progress with the cause or stand as an obstacle in its way; on the state and local level it is easier to achieve progress (Mucciaroni, 2008).
However, not all gay rights get the same attention when discussed as Mucciaroni demonstrated the size of the rights discussed across time using different mediums. In addition, both public opinion and the state have different point of views regarding them according to certain factors as we are about to see later on.
There are areas in the gay rights that are backed up by great support from the public opinion; those areas are mainly related to the discrimination aspects such as supporting homosexuals and lesbians in getting the same rights at workplace and accommodation. In addition, the public support for removing the ban on gays serving in the armed forces has been increasing significantly, justifying that there are hundreds of potential skills that may benefit the US army are wasted due to this policy. Yet, the policies still do insist on banning them even after several attempts of lifting the ban by applying the Don’t Ask Don`t Tell policy (DADT), that we are going to discuss the reason for its rejection later on. Last but not least, policies that apply extra penalties for hate crimes against the homosexuals are also favorable and supported by the public.
On the other hand, another area for those rights don`t find the support from the public as it was expected. Those rights include, legalizing same sex marriage and adoption of children by same sex parents even though both are legalized according to policies in some states. This illustrates another example where the public opinion and the state disagree about certain rights.
Now, after revealing the issues that are cemented with great support, and others that are opposed, what are the main reasons behind both reactions? Mucciaroni stated that issues that are mainly related to sexual conduct and family life, threaten Americans more than issues related to market place, discrimination, military and hate crime which perfectly explains the different reactions that are shown by both the public and the state.
The DADT policy that was debated during the 1990s between the president and the congress was lead to its repeal as the congress that was mainly conservatives had the upper hand. Also, the military individuals back then showed high resistance to lifting the ban, which is not the case nowadays where the Congress is mainly Democrats and younger military individuals show a weaker resistance regarding this aspect.
D`Emilio`s Essay.
In D`Emilio`s essay, he was clear that he was not opposing homosexuality physiologically and he is homophobic. His dissent is for the methodology used to legalize same sex marriage. The most important concern that D`Emilio mentioned is the remove of sodomy laws (that are based on biblical scriptures) while this law was the main reason behind thousands of arrests (Citation). This act resulted in a leap to same sex marriage approval that was supported by multiple courts later on.
Supreme Court Cases.
For the Windsor VS. US case, the support for allowing same sex marriage was to highlight the fact that the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is favoring heterosexuals over homosexuals which makes illustrates inequality and that is against the 5th amendment in the constitution. However, the dissenting stated that removing the DOMA would be totally unconstitutional and can lead to unknown consequences. The court decided to leave this matter to the state court as there ramifications of taking such decision are not clear on the long run and they judges are not applicable professionally to assess this situation.
As for the Obergefell V. Hodges case, the supporting view stated that the strongest union between individuals is the marriage bond. It stated that same sex marriage is constitutional and stressed on the fact that allowing it is a matter of dignity. Yet, the dissenting opinion stated that judges are supposed to have to power the say what the law is and not what is should be. Moreover, it was added that comparing same sex marriage to the ban of interracial sex is totally inaccurate and out of context as the later was based on slavery which is not the case here. The Court ruled that the constitution guarantees a national right for the same sex marriage according to the supporting opinion and arguments.
References
D`Emilio, J. (2007). The Politics of Same Sex. The Campaign for Marriage Equality. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
Mucciaroni, G. (2008). Same Sex Different Politics. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
Shwartz, J. (2015). Highlights From the Supreme Court Decision on Same-Sex Marriage. The New York Times. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/mohanad.makhlouf/Downloads/Obergefell%20V.%20Hodges.html
Singh, T. (2013). Key Experts from the DOMA rulling. SCOTUS Blog. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/mohanad.makhlouf/Downloads/windsor%20v.%20U.S.%20.html
