Difference between revisions of "Homosexuality laws"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
−
The world's '''homosexuality laws''' are currently diverse.  For example, while the [[Netherlands]] recognizes same-sex marriages, under [[Saudi Arabia]]n law a person might face the death penalty for homosexual acts, although other penalties may be used instead of the death penalty.<ref>[http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=156&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport Media Cry ‘Marriage’ As Homosexual Couples Tie the Knot in Germany  ]</ref><ref>[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm Homosexuality and Islam]</ref>
+
The world's '''homosexuality laws''' are currently diverse.  For example, while [[Denmark]] law recognizes same-sex marriages, under [[Saudi Arabia]]n law a person might face the death penalty in regards to [[homosexuality]] although other penalties may be used in lieu of the death penalty.<ref>[http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=156&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport Media Cry ‘Marriage’ As Homosexual Couples Tie the Knot in Germany  ]</ref><ref>[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm Homosexuality and Islam]</ref>
 +
== American Homosexuality Laws ==
 +
''For more information please see'': [[America and homosexuality laws]]
  
−
==In the United States==
 
 
[[Image:Antonin.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[Antonin Scalia]]]]
 
[[Image:Antonin.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[Antonin Scalia]]]]
−
In [[Homosexuality and American Law]], treatment of homosexuals by the law has increasingly suggested that discrimination based on homosexuality employs a "[[suspect classification]]" subject to "[[strict scrutiny]]" under modern [[Fourteenth Amendment]] [[jurisprudence]], with judges and scholars employing language to equate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with already forbidden [[racial discrimination]] practices.<ref>Pamela S. Karlan, "Loving Lawrence," available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=512662</ref> Where federal law forbidding discrimination against homosexuals remains scant, the several states have more than taken up the burden, and many have made sexual-orientation based discrimination actionable at law and equity.<ref>See, e.g., N.Y.C. Admin. Code, s 8-107</ref> Perhaps this can be seen as an example of the robustness of the [[United States]]' [[federal system]], as the states are acting just as Justice [[Oliver Wendell Holmes]] and [[Justice Brandeis]] expressed hope that they would, as "laboratories" of experimentation on the border of developed federal law.<ref>Brest, Levinson, et al, "Processes in Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases and Materials," Fifth Edition.</ref>
+
Treatment of homosexuals by the law has increasingly suggested that discrimination based on homosexuality employs a "[[suspect classification]]" subject to "[[strict scrutiny]]" under modern [[Fourteenth Amendment]] [[jurisprudence]], with judges and scholars employing language to equate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with already forbidden [[racial discrimination]] practices.<ref>Pamela S. Karlan, "Loving Lawrence," available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=512662</ref> Where federal law forbidding discrimination against homosexuals remains scant, the several states have more than taken up the burden, and many have made sexual-orientation based discrimination actionable at law and equity.<ref>See, e.g., N.Y.C. Admin. Code, s 8-107</ref> Perhaps this can be seen as an example of the robustness of the [[United States]]' [[federal system]], as the states are acting just as Justice [[Oliver Wendell Holmes]] and [[Justice Brandeis]] expressed hope that they would, as "laboratories" of experimentation on the border of developed federal law.<ref>Brest, Levinson, et al, "Processes in Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases and Materials," Fifth Edition.</ref>
  
 
The [[Supreme Court]] recently overturned a [[Texas]] law banning sodomy. The majority opinion, written by [[Justice Kennedy]], suggests that all forms of discrimination, including that based on sexual orientation, are now subject to [[rational basis review]], and will be frowned upon unless a legitimate state interest in the discrimination is expressed. Justice Kennedy also held that the need to legislate morals by the states' [[police power]] is no longer a legitimate state interest, absent specific physical harms being proven. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote a blistering dissent, characterizing the opinion as including phrases which will become the "dicta that ate the [[Rule of Law|rule of law]]."<ref>See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558</ref>
 
The [[Supreme Court]] recently overturned a [[Texas]] law banning sodomy. The majority opinion, written by [[Justice Kennedy]], suggests that all forms of discrimination, including that based on sexual orientation, are now subject to [[rational basis review]], and will be frowned upon unless a legitimate state interest in the discrimination is expressed. Justice Kennedy also held that the need to legislate morals by the states' [[police power]] is no longer a legitimate state interest, absent specific physical harms being proven. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote a blistering dissent, characterizing the opinion as including phrases which will become the "dicta that ate the [[Rule of Law|rule of law]]."<ref>See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558</ref>
  
−
==State Legislative Action in the United States Concerning Homosexuality==
 
−
 
−
In 2008, conservative groups in the [[United States]] had a major victory.  [[Proposition 8]] passed in [[California]].  Proposition 8 was a voter-approved state Constitutional amendment that stated “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”<ref>http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3558</ref>  The Proposition 8 amendment passed with the support of over 7 million voters, which accounted for approximately 52% of the vote on November 4, 2008."<ref>http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3558</ref>
 
−
 
−
The [[Traditional Values Coalition]] has stated the following regarding state legislative action in the United States concerning homosexuality:
 
−
{{cquote|Homosexual power extends into state legislatures as well.  The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a homosexual group based in Washington, DC, issued a 34-page summary of state legislative activities in June, 2003.
 
−
 
−
Homosexual activists and their political allies have introduced 41 bills in 24 states that provide special legal protections for “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” (code for cross-dressers and transsexuals). A total of 146 pro-homosexual bills are under consideration in state legislatures in 2003. Only 31 pro-family bills have been offered in 2003 — and only two have passed. Homosexuals are clearly winning and pro-family forces are losing.<ref>http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf</ref>}}
 
−
 
−
==In the European Union==
 
−
[[Image:European Union.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|Laws in EU member states vary, but in general are less anti-gay than in most countries.]]
 
−
Laws protecting the rights of homosexuals in the [[European Union]] are more extensive than in the United States. All 27 member states have decriminalised homosexual acts, and have laws against anti-gay discrimination: seven ban some types of discrimination, four ban most types, and sixteen ban all discrimination based on sexuality. Twenty-four members (all except [[Cyprus]], [[Greece]] and [[Latvia]]) allow openly gay individuals to serve in the military. [[Belgium]], the [[Netherlands]] and [[Spain]] recognise [[same-sex marriage]] ([[Sweden]] will in 2009), ten recognise [[Civil union|same-sex unions]], and two recognise [[Domestic partnership|cohabitation]]. The issue is under consideration in [[Greece]], [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], [[Italy]] and [[Romania]]; Cyprus does not recognise any form of union, and [[Latvia]], [[Lithuania]] and [[Poland]] have a constitutional ban.
 
−
 
−
Same-sex couples can legally adopt any child in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the [[United Kingdom]], and can adopt the children of one of the partners in [[Germany]] and [[Denmark]]. In Ireland, both partners can foster children, but only one can adopt, and in [[France]], a single homosexual person can adopt. The other eighteen member states do not allow same-sex couples to adopt any child. Forty-four percent of EU citizens agreed that same-sex marriages should be legal across the EU; more than half agreed in Belgium, the [[Czech Republic]], Denmark, Germany, [[Luxembourg]], the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden; and less than 15% agreed in [[Bulgaria]], Cyprus, Greece, Latvia and Romania.<ref>[http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14203 Eight EU Countries Back Same-Sex Marriage]</ref>
 
−
 
−
==See Also==
 
−
*[[Homosexuality]]
 
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
{{reflist|2}}
  
−
{{homosexualityb}}
 
 
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
 
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
 
[[Category:Law]]
 
[[Category:Law]]

Revision as of 16:54, July 25, 2011

The world's homosexuality laws are currently diverse. For example, while Denmark law recognizes same-sex marriages, under Saudi Arabian law a person might face the death penalty in regards to homosexuality although other penalties may be used in lieu of the death penalty.[1][2]

American Homosexuality Laws

For more information please see: America and homosexuality laws

Antonin Scalia

Treatment of homosexuals by the law has increasingly suggested that discrimination based on homosexuality employs a "suspect classification" subject to "strict scrutiny" under modern Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, with judges and scholars employing language to equate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with already forbidden racial discrimination practices.[3] Where federal law forbidding discrimination against homosexuals remains scant, the several states have more than taken up the burden, and many have made sexual-orientation based discrimination actionable at law and equity.[4] Perhaps this can be seen as an example of the robustness of the United States' federal system, as the states are acting just as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Brandeis expressed hope that they would, as "laboratories" of experimentation on the border of developed federal law.[5]

The Supreme Court recently overturned a Texas law banning sodomy. The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, suggests that all forms of discrimination, including that based on sexual orientation, are now subject to rational basis review, and will be frowned upon unless a legitimate state interest in the discrimination is expressed. Justice Kennedy also held that the need to legislate morals by the states' police power is no longer a legitimate state interest, absent specific physical harms being proven. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a blistering dissent, characterizing the opinion as including phrases which will become the "dicta that ate the rule of law."[6]

References

  1. ↑ Media Cry ‘Marriage’ As Homosexual Couples Tie the Knot in Germany
  2. ↑ Homosexuality and Islam
  3. ↑ Pamela S. Karlan, "Loving Lawrence," available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=512662
  4. ↑ See, e.g., N.Y.C. Admin. Code, s 8-107
  5. ↑ Brest, Levinson, et al, "Processes in Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases and Materials," Fifth Edition.
  6. ↑ See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexuality_laws&oldid=893238"