1 5 Same Sex Marriage Political science is an important body in the system of government since it offers an analysis of activities and behaviours that are being portrayed in the society. It is out of this that this body has the credibility to focus on human nature and the moral purpose of political issues. In addition, the right of human being ought to be fostered in an appropriate way for that will enable the citizen of a certain country to feel that they have the freedom in doing what they feel is . Hence the rulings that are given out are entrenched in the constitution; this is after a bill has been passed in the parliament and becomes law hence it becomes constitutional for people to practice. On the other hand, if citizens violate the constitutional rulings that are set by the government some consequences tend to be faced. Moreover, a ruling might be illegal or legal this implies that setting of a ruling that is offered by the Constitution indicates that it is not right to do certain behaviours. On the other hand, the structure might implement a law that gives that credibility of certain behaviours to be legal hence; citizens can be in a position to practice them without any restrictions. The bill of rights in the constitution of USA sets the basis for people to practice their intellectual, biological and even spiritual orientations freely that makes same sex marriage legal. In this case, we are obliged to determine whether same-sex people should be able to marry in California. Same sex people is the aspect of the same gender having intimacy and marrying. It is out of this that people who feel that they have the right to express their moral issues in a different way practice same-sex marriage. To begin with, California Supreme Court offered ruling on certain matters that the citizens of California felt that they should be addressed hence the legislative action on same-sex marriage was addressed. It is out of this declaration that was made legal that same-sex should marry, by this the people from the same-sex would not have violated the law if married. This is because a law was passed in the year 2008 and was constituted in Article 1 of The Declaration of Human Rights. In addition, the article declares that all human being should be nature free and independent with this, it offers people the right to do what they feel is right for them since the constitution states that people should have privacy, enjoyment, and happiness. On the other hand, the Constitution contradicts itself by declaring only married women and man is allowed in California. However, this did not stop the people of California from practicing what they feel is right it is out of this that the bill passed by people of same-sex should marry and they will not have violated the law this is as stated in Article 1 declaration on human rights in Section 8 of the constitution. Same people should be able to marry one another since it is practicing their rights, by thi ...

1. 1
5
Same Sex Marriage
Political science is an important body in the system of
government since it offers an analysis of activities and
behaviours that are being portrayed in the society. It is out of
this that this body has the credibility to focus on human nature
and the moral purpose of political issues. In addition, the right
of human being ought to be fostered in an appropriate way for
that will enable the citizen of a certain country to feel that they
have the freedom in doing what they feel is . Hence the rulings
that are given out are entrenched in the constitution; this is after
a bill has been passed in the parliament and becomes law hence
it becomes constitutional for people to practice. On the other
hand, if citizens violate the constitutional rulings that are set by
the government some consequences tend to be faced. Moreover,
a ruling might be illegal or legal this implies that setting of a
ruling that is offered by the Constitution indicates that it is not
right to do certain behaviours. On the other hand, the structure
might implement a law that gives that credibility of certain
behaviours to be legal hence; citizens can be in a position to
practice them without any restrictions. The bill of rights in the
constitution of USA sets the basis for people to practice their
intellectual, biological and even spiritual orientations freely
that makes same sex marriage legal.
In this case, we are obliged to determine whether same-sex
people should be able to marry in California. Same sex people
is the aspect of the same gender having intimacy and marrying.
It is out of this that people who feel that they have the right to
express their moral issues in a different way practice same-sex
marriage. To begin with, California Supreme Court offered

2. ruling on certain matters that the citizens of California felt that
they should be addressed hence the legislative action on same-
sex marriage was addressed. It is out of this declaration that
was made legal that same-sex should marry, by this the people
from the same-sex would not have violated the law if married.
This is because a law was passed in the year 2008 and was
constituted in Article 1 of The Declaration of Human Rights. In
addition, the article declares that all human being should be
nature free and independent with this, it offers people the right
to do what they feel is right for them since the constitution
states that people should have privacy, enjoyment, and
happiness. On the other hand, the Constitution contradicts itself
by declaring only married women and man is allowed in
California. However, this did not stop the people of California
from practicing what they feel is right it is out of this that the
bill passed by people of same-sex should marry and they will
not have violated the law this is as stated in Article 1
declaration on human rights in Section 8 of the constitution.
Same people should be able to marry one another since it is
practicing their rights, by this, it means that people should be
happy with the constitution’s state in Article 1 in the
declaration of human rights in section 1. This can be achieved if
people are given the right to practice what they feel is good for
them, and this can be achieved if two people in the same-sex
feel that they are compatible and can start a relation the
constitutional should not restrict them. It is out of this that same
people should marry in California. On the other hand, the bill of
people in the same-sex getting intimate was passed and
published in the constitution mainly because people felt that
they should practice their right in an appropriate manner
without any restrictions. Since the people of California felt that
the constitution should not grant preferential treatment to any
individual that is a citizen of California. The main reason as to
why the constitution does not specifically state if the people of

3. the same-sex should marry is that it is a moral issue to the
people of California. It is of this that people of same sex should
not be able to marry.
The issue of same sex marriage has however received a balance
of victories in court battles for opponents just as for
proponents. There are cases where courts determined that gay
practiced could not be solemnized by law. In other cases, courts
emphasized the civil rights guaranteed by the constitutions and
nullified legal objections to same-sex marriage to legalize gay-
ism. Give the diversified facets of the legal issues around same-
sex marriage, court cases on the controversy have entirely
remained subjects of state constitutional interpretations as
opposed to the federal constitutional interpretation. This has
been the reason why the Supreme Court is yet to subject the
same-sex case to review. Most of the legal support that
proponents of gay-ism cite is in the right to privacy. This is
where federal and state constitutional frameworks are in
dilemma. The question has been whether both the state and
federal constitutions expressly and in clear ways protect a right
to privacy. “Privacy” is word that is not anywhere in the federal
constitution. However, the constitution has many provisions that
relate to privacy such as when it states, in the fourth
amendment, that the need for citizens to feel “secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects” prevents government
operatives from performing “unreasonable searches and
seizures”. There even is a broader possibility in the ninth
amendment that the federal constitution guarantees a solid
privacy right that is not defined in clear-cut terms in the bill of
rights but implied and that is “retained by the people”. This
means that there are various aspects of the constitution that in
fact allow room for gays to pursue happiness without being met
with deterrent legal obstacles. The extent to which such federal
constitutional tenets intertwine with states ones is the bone of
contention.

4. On the other hand, there are fundamental social stakes that the
constitution took keen concern of by declaring gay-ism illegal.
It as such was keen on marriage being about procreation and
ensuring that children had a healthy and moral environment in
which to grow. It therefore portrays same-sex marriage in the
negative moral light as having the potential to degrade societal
value system. However, this is a disapproval of the lifestyle of
gay people and merely disliking this lifestyle is not a reason
constitutional enough to make courts to deny marriage rights to
lesbians and gays. The constitution provides a better
understanding of the people and their rights since same-sex
marriage right is practiced and people feel better. As stated, the
Supreme Court supports every right that human beings feel it is
appropriate for them hence it protects the rights of the people
who feel their right should not be discriminated. Though the
Supreme had passed the law, a referendum was brought out that
removed the same-sex marriage, but on the other hand, marriage
has a right civil aspect that allows an individual to choose what
is best for them. In addition, the constitution tries to portray a
sense of equality, respect, dignity, and a sense of belonging to
the people of California. It is out of this that people are in a
position to practice their rights because their values are upheld
by the constitution. In addition, rights being apprehended and
the people in the community treating individuals in a different
form can affect the same-sex marriage. This implies that the
community plays a big role in ensuring the same sex people can
be able to marry in California.
The fourth (fourth or fifteenth? He said it is wrong. Please fix
and explain it) Amendment does not support same-sex marriage
thought it guarantee people of equal protection under the law
that is amended by the Constitution. It is out of this that it
interprets that all people regarding their gender or sexual
orientation should be protected in their right that they feel

5. appropriate for them. On the other hand, equal protection of
public benefits of marriage ought to be practiced by the
constitution, so the people will not be in a position to feel
discriminated. In addition, the constitution explains how it shall
deprive any person that violate law unless the right enumerated
in the bill of rights. The federal law offers more benefits
regarding marriage couples since marriage is a civil institution
since California has the protected bill of rights (Newton, 2010).
In addition, the constitution recognizes then same-sex relation
in a concise way since the right of privacy, which is
constitutional. On the other hand, the court strongly relies on
making its decisions on how the past practices are carried out
and based on legal precedents. With this, they are in a portion
to come up with some conclusion on certain matters that will
make the law be fully implemented in the constitution. In
addition, the progress interpretation issue on how people
understand the Constitution by this they are in a position to
follow the condition term, with this better description calls for
people to practice the expected rights. On the other hand, if
people misunderstand the constitution they will do the opposite
of what is amended in the constitution. It is out of this that
California is law state clearly it supports and recognizes human
privacy but does not state in any article about the support of
same-sex marriage.
In addition, the federal government is more concerned
about the moral issue but the other hand; it is not ethically
right. It is out of this that the Supreme Court passes a bill that
apprehended that right of every individual. On the contrary,
every person in California has the right to practice his freedom
in different ways without violation of the law. However,
marriage for same-sex is not yet banned in California because
the constitution understands and respects that right of every
individual. In There are different ways that can be brought out
so as to take away the rights of same-sex marriage, for instance,

6. there is that aspect of amending the constitution through the
legislature which is difficult since this bill ought to be approved
by different members from different houses in the legislation. In
addition, the amendment must be prevailed by a minority vote
of the people, which make it hard for the law to fight against
the same-sex marriage. Sex marriage is an issue that cannot be
determined by the federal level since it does not have the
credibility to offer the jurisdiction certain matters. On the other
hand, different issues tend to be brought out according to people
views and understanding of the constitution. Hence, this makes
it be a legal issue since different people feel that it is their right
to practice what is rightfully for them this is the reason as to
why the issues of same-sex vary from state to state.
In the Massachusetts case where same-sex marriage was allowed
by the court, the dissenting judges argued that it was more of
the legislature’s prerogative tan the judiciaries to recognize
non-fundamental rights such as the right to same sex. They
asserted that the court in hearing issues on same sex had to
understand the interests of the legislature and the bearing that
has on the ban on same-sex marriage. They explained how the
legislature had rational basis for citing reasons to effect the
legal ban and to which the court has to play a deferential role.
Such interpretation means that only by the legislative channel
can changes on the ban on same-sex be altered and not the
courts. However, California base the fact of same-sex marriage
to the government since they have the concept of equality that
should be given to every individual in the state of California.
The president who is the head of judiciary allows same-sex
marriage would eliminate the pain and injustice of
discrimination were the only way that would allow people
practice their rights, support, and protect non-traditional
families. Freedom being the key point that the judicial youth to
offer by fostering bills that respect the rights of human being.
As a result, the same-sex have the freedom to marry one

7. another. There is a connection between marriage and pursuit for
happiness which constitutions, both states and federal,
acknowledge. People look forward to making some unions and
perceive it as associated with some fulfilment in life. The
constitution does not offer a channel to happiness to just some
but to all. This is because gay and lesbians are law-abiding
citizens, who obey traffic rules, pay tax and contribute to nation
building. A sexual orientation cannot be reason enough to
preclude them from accessing channels to happiness and
fulfilment.
This right is well evident in the modern society perform same-
sex ceremonies in the state of California. Gays are seen on the
streets protesting or demonstrating and they are known to exist.
They are covered on the news that everyone watches. It is not
like banning the practice has will stop people from having the
orientation. Legal bans are only a denial of behaviour,
orientation and a practice that is all over the place now. Same-
sex is practiced because it the society that people live needs
more commitment which is made from love, besides then
society is strengthened by the same-sex since people who are
married are firmly attached. Moreover, laws are made by the
people in the society and are approved by people in the same
society hence they are in a position to allow same-sex marriage
since people who interpret the law come in a community of
gays. They are part of the society and the population. They have
to be acknowledged because it does not make any difference not
recognizing it other than denying people their right to happiness
and limiting their freedoms. It is out of this that limitation in
the homosexual is not allowed serve the citizen’s right to marry
must be based on protecting the society itself, a society that
puts together people of different sexes, religions, races, gender
and ethnicities. This is what translates too equality.
Sexuality is a core component of a human being, and
that is the reason as to why the Constitution does not set any
restriction by offering laws that will make a human being feel

8. discriminated. Practicing Same-sex is a factor that helps people
achieve satisfaction since it is a core component in public
acknowledgment and committed relationship with respect to
one’s sexual orientation. Hence the federal government does not
have other option than to let people navigate their life since the
court believes marriage needs to be with equality as with all
other civil rights such as voting.
The federal government assures same-sex people who are
intending to marry assurance of federal protection, which will
recognize the marriage. On the other hand, LGBT individuals
have constitutionally assured equality in practicing their rights
just as any other citizens in California. This is the main reason
as to why same-sex has to be made legal in California, as this
will ensure that there are no violation of laws if equity and
remove discrimination that emanate from legal injunctions over
marriage. As a result, people who are of the same-sex are
allowed to marry by the constitution of California and this has
various backings in the federal constitutions too. The laws that
are followed by the state of California ensure that every right is
enjoyed by every citizen who feels to pursue their happiness
through different practices as long as they are constitutional and
gay marriage is. Additionally, the constitution envisaged a
society where protection of rights is accorded to all and this can
be achieved if only the laws that are amended and published in
the constitution portray reflect this.
References
Newton, D. (2010). Same-sex marriage : a reference handbook.
Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO.
Shaman, J. (2008). Equality and liberty in the golden age of
state constitutional law. New York: Oxford University Press.