background preloader

Gay Marriage ProCon.org

Gay Marriage ProCon.org

Same-sex marriage in the United States Same-sex marriage is legally recognized in some jurisdictions within the United States and by the federal government. Seventeen states[a] and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage. Eight Native American tribal jurisdictions[b] issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Oregon recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Limited recognition has been granted to out-of-state same-sex marriages in Ohio,[2] Missouri,[3] and Colorado.[4] Utah recognizes for 2013 income tax filings all pre-2014 same-sex marriages, but offers no further recognition.[5] Recently, U.S. district courts in Utah,[6] Oklahoma,[7] Virginia,[8] Texas,[9], Michigan[10] and Ohio[11] have declared state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional under the Constitution of the United States. Legal issues[edit] Federal law[edit] DOMA was challenged in the federal court system. State laws[edit] Same-sex marriage allowed1 Statute bans same-sex marriage

Social issue A social issue (also called a social problem or a social ill) is an issue that relates to society's perception of peoples' personal lives. Different societies have different perceptions, and "normal" behavior in one society may be a significant social issue in another society. Social issues are distinguished from economic issues; however, some issues (such as immigration) have both social and economic aspects. There are also issues that don't fall into either category, such as wars. In Rights of Man and Common Sense, Thomas Paine addresses man's duty to "allow the same rights to others as we allow ourselves". Personal issues versus social issues[edit] The line between a personal issue and a public issue may be subjective; however, when a large enough sector of society is affected by an issue, it becomes a social issue. List of social issues[edit] Caste system[edit] The caste system in India resulted in most of the oppressed Untouchables for the past 3,000 years. Economic issues[edit]

Tony Nicklinson euthanasia 'right to die' case: Mr Justice Charles shouldn't have given request the time of day By Kathy Gyngell PUBLISHED: 10:33 GMT, 13 March 2012 | UPDATED: 10:54 GMT, 14 March 2012 “The only way to relieve Tony’s suffering will be to kill him,” “…because he can’t do anything for himself he needs to be killed”. These were the chilling words spoken by Jane Nicholson, wife of Tony, the ‘locked-in’ syndrome sufferer, in response to Sarah Montague’s questioning on the BBC’s Today programme. I cannot have been the only listener to have felt, instinctively and instantly, profoundly worried by them, not least by Mrs Nicklinson’s unadorned and brutal use of the word kill. Plight: Has our obsessively rights oriented culture made this appalling case possible? In the hours since she spoke these words legalised killing has moved a step closer. If they win, it will establish, without any proper debate or discussion on this most fundamental of moral and legal issues, the right of a doctor ‘to end anyone’s indignity' (a wonderfully euphemistic phrase for killing). They want their day in court.

Tony Nicklinson euthanasia: 'My life is miserable and undignified' says locked-in syndrome sufferer A man who is physically unable to commit suicide yesterday took his 'right-to-die' case to the High Court. A stroke in 2005 left Tony Nicklinson with 'locked-in syndrome' – mentally sound but paralysed from the neck down and unable to speak. At the High Court in London, he described his existence as 'dull, miserable, demeaning, undignified and intolerable' as he began his landmark case that challenges the law on murder. Court plea: Tony Nicklinson, 58, pictured with his wife Jane, suffers from 'locked-in' syndrome. His case will be heard at the High Court today He wants the three judges to rule that if, and when, he decides he wants to die, a doctor will be immune from prosecution if they help him. Mr Nicklinson, 58, who communicates by blinking or with limited head movement, described having no 'privacy or dignity left' and said his right to choose life or death had been taken away, And a recent Twitter campaign urging him to live has only reinforced his resolve.

Pro 1- This statements explains how homosexuals should be allowed to publicly express themselves the same as heterosexuals. This relates to sweet grass basket because at the residential schools, they are not allowed to publicly show any signs of their old culture. by homosexuals Oct 31

Related: