Prohibit gay couples from obtaining a marriage license Research Paper

Prohibit gay couples from obtaining a hymeneals license - Research Paper fountThe Equal Protection Clause, which forms part of the 14th amendment, prohibits the states from making a legislation that flowerpot deny the citizens constitute protection under the law (Newton 34). The 14th amendment only mentions the state governments but non the federal government. In this case, the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 cannot gay couples the ripe to marriage in the nine. Accordingly, the 1996 Defense of Marriage ferment has not conclusively denied the states the right to grant gay marriage license since it only grants the states the right to not recognize gay marriages performed n other states. In addition, the Defense of Marriage Act1996 legally implied that States has the option of recognizing same-sex marriage. In Massachusetts Supreme Court decision of 2004, the jurists adhered with the equal protection clause since banning gay marriages denied the citizens the right to benefit fro m various federal government programs and right to be treated equally in the society regardless of the sexual orientation. Jurist activists have observed that equal protection clause of the 14th amendment in demand(p) to protect some groups from subordination and thus sexual orientation should be strictly safeguarded (Cahill 165). Strict social systemist jurists maintain the making on laws on the bench since they prefer a conservative approach when issuing judgments on gay marriages. Strict constructionist jurists argon of the view that law-making duties should be left to the executive and legislators and judges should never operate judicial decisions under the influence of their personal political or policy agenda (Newton 78). The jurists are bank by the original intent of the applicable law and exercise judicial restrain in disputable public agendas such as legalization of gay marriages and granting of gay couples a license. These jurists are opposed to the caprice of state s granting marriage license to gay couples. They argue that the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is the underlying law that guides marriages in the constitution. The jurists would argue that the Act prevents the federal government from recognizing every gay marriages. Accordingly, the jurists strictly observe the Act since the States are protected from recognizing gay marriages that have been executed in other states (Cahill 67). Accordingly, the Act conclusively defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman and does not mention the possibility of any gay unions. Strict constructionist jurists argue that Supreme Court of Minnesota in the case of Baker v. Nelson (1971) smooth that any marriage occurs between a man and a woman and entails the possibility of procreation and frequent of children. In addition, the opponents of gay marriage license argue that marriage is not a right akin the right to life or fair trial since it is a privilege and only heterosexual marriages ca n procreate and serve the purpose of the society (Cahill 265). Although the US is a secular society, a majority of the individuals give away with a particular religion such as Christianity, Islam or even Baptism. All the religions claim that marriage is sacred and involves the union of a man and woman with the aim of procreation (Merin 87). According to strict construction