From the New York Times article “‘Millennia’ of Marriage Being Between Man and Woman Weigh on Justices”, one can easily identify the many issues presented. First of all, for thousand of years, the word “marriage” had always been defined as the union between male and female only. This means that the Supreme Court Justices have to change a historical definition of a word if they were to legalise same-sex marriage. The second issue involves whether or not the nine Supreme Court Justices, who are not elected by the people, should have the ultimate say in deciding on such an important decision that will effect millions of people all over the United States. The third issue at hand is the discussion on whether the legalisation of same-sex marriage should be decided on a federal level, meaning that the decision will be binding to all 50 states or it should be decided on a state level, meaning state cultures will be respected and states will decide for themselves.
There are several course concepts that are related to the issues discussed in the article. The article clearly involves the question of judicial restraint and judicial activism in whether justices should stick strictly to the precedents or should change the definition of marriage. The concept on precedent is also mentioned in the article when discussing the history of same-sex relationship in Greece. This topic also involves the concept of federalism because there’s the issue of whether the decision should be made on a federal level for the entire country or on the state level separately.
I believe in equal rights and do I believe in the legalisation of same-sex marriage. However, I do recognise that there are conservative states in the U.S. where people consider homosexuals are wrong or a crime, so I thought it be the best for the legalisation of same-sex marriage to be decided on the state level so that the state cultures will be respected. I also agree that the nine Supreme Court Justices should have the power to make such a big decision because citizens are often irrational and have their perspectives clouded by their personal reasons, so I believe in the system and in how the Justices can make this decision for the all of us, for better or for worse.
I believe in equal rights and do I believe in the legalisation of same-sex marriage. However, I do recognise that there are conservative states in the U.S. where people consider homosexuals are wrong or a crime, so I thought it be the best for the legalisation of same-sex marriage to be decided on the state level so that the state cultures will be respected. I also agree that the nine Supreme Court Justices should have the power to make such a big decision because citizens are often irrational and have their perspectives clouded by their personal reasons, so I believe in the system and in how the Justices can make this decision for the all of us, for better or for worse.