Marriage an integral component within the society and the community. However, debates exist on who should manage and control marriage through formulation and implementation of legislations that makes the entire process legal. In United States of America, there is the federal government and state government (Barkacs 43). The federal government is the legal entity that oversees the operations of the entire country while the state government oversees the operations within the county. These two entities operate and support each other to obtain identified objectives. The aim of this essay is to state that the state government should legislate and manage marriage rather than leaving the entire requirement to the federal government.
Same sex marriage and other forms of marriage should be left to state governments. The United States of America constitution has no clear reference to marriage and the powers that are not within the constitution should be managed by the state since it is the prerogative of the citizens to decide what is wrong and what is wrong (Corvino and Gallagher 93). In addition, marriage is not taxation, war or even commerce but marriage brings into consideration social requirements. Therefore, the federal government should not legislate over marriage but should leave this responsibility to the state government.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Same Sex Marriage".
A part from the fundamental of federal operations, the states originally had different forms of marriage laws in which each of them were different from the other. Numerous disparities exist between and among these states and allows the federal government to manage marriage abolishes these important legality or state identity (Gerstmann 32). Our ancestors understood the difference in regional marriage requirements and decided not to include this information in the constitution. This means that the constitution gave two options, which were either returning marriage to communities, churches, families or individuals or allowing the state to regulate marriage.
Through such permissions, same sex marriage is acceptable in some states such as Maryland. The Congress lacks the power to prohibit same sex marriage and they do not have the rights to establish it, either. However, the Supreme Court is required to answer to whether the issue of same sex marriage is matter that can be contained within the civil rights law. Until the conclusion or future directives, it is important for the state governments to continue managing marriages.
Moreover, the states across America have different cultures and traditions. The culture and traditions differ from one state to other in which one state may see an issue as ethically and morally wrong while other states may support the issue (Campbell 57). For example, Maryland has passed and advocates for same sex marriage, but there are other states that are against this component. This means that if the federal government had been given the permission to oversee the marriages, it would have created major misunderstandings across these different states. Therefore, it is important to consider the traditions and expectations of the region before implementing legislatively.
Same sex marriage has introduced different views and stakeholders view the issue differently. This may be attributed to differing cultural and traditional aspirations. Leaving the entire process of legislating and managing marriages to the federal government would create numerous challenges and this can be avoided through allowing each state to decide what is appropriate and what is wrong. Therefore, marriage should be the responsibility of the involved persons and the region should contribute in understanding why the process should continue in the stated form.
- Barkacs, Linda L. “Same Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Employee Benefits: Unequal Protection under the Law-When Will Society Catch Up with the Business Community?.” Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues 1 July 2008: 102. Print.
- Campbell, Glenn. Scotland’s same-sex marriage bill is passed. 4 Feb. 2014. http://www.bbc.co.uk
- Corvino John and Gallagher Maggie. Debating Same-Sex Marriage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.
- Gay marriage. Dir. Glen Stephano. Perf. Glen Stephano. Films Media Group, 2011. DVD.
- Gerstmann, Evan. Same-sex Marriage and the Constitution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print.
- Langbein, Laura, and Mark Yost. “Same-Sex Marriage and negative Externalities.” Social Science Quaterly 90.2 (2009): 292-308. American University. Web. 6 Apr. 2010.
- Lerner, Alicia Cafferty. Marriage. Detroit, Mich.: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Print.
- McCaffrey, Carlyn. “Same-Sex Marriage Cases-Planning Opportunities and Pitfalls.” Mondaq Business Briefing [New York] 24 July 2013: 72. Print.
- Meezan, William, and Jonathan Rauch. “Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, And America’s Children.” The Future of Children 15.2 (2005): 97-113. Print.
- Perez, Evan. U.S. expands legal benefits, services for same-sex marriages. 10 Feb. 2014. CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/
- Sterngass, Jon. Same sex marriage. New York: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark, 2012. Print.
- Sullivan Andrew. Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con. London: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2009. Print.
