# data[].attributes.headline
Same-Sex Marriage Benefits Society In Many Ways. By.KaiYao Xie

# data[].attributes.subject
Same-Sex Marriage Benefits Society In Many Ways. By.KaiYao Xie

# data[].attributes.body
This article is talking about the Same-Sex Marriage for human Society. The author introduced seven benefits about Gay Marriage. The first one is that Gay Marriage promotes Non-Discrimination and equality in Society. Because supporting Gay Marriage can help to reduce intergroup prejudice and supporting cultural diversity. Second one is Gay Marriage can further physical and psychosocial well-being. The author also believe Gay Marriage can encourage family stability, provides business opportunities, freedom of Religion, assists with the De-politicization of LGBT Rights and Strengthens National Identity and International Reputation.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Supreme Court taking action on same-sex marriage. By Shahmir Qureshi

# data[].attributes.subject
The Supreme Court taking action on same-sex marriage. By Shahmir Qureshi

# data[].attributes.body
For so many years there has been a huge discussion going on whether to legalize gay marriages or not. This has been taken to the Supreme Court, Gay marriage has been legalized in about 37 states now but it is still illegal in 13 states as for now. There has been a total of 379 big American corporations that have been in favor of gay marriage. There has been a few argument against gay marriages but the points are not strong enough for the court to accept their argument.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
HOW will the Supreme Court decide this term's two biggest cases? One slightly cynical prediction floating around forecasts a split decision: the justices will announce a constitutional right to gay marriage, a huge victory for liberals, while voting to upend the Affordable Care Act, a dream of conservatives. According to some iterations of this hypothesis, the chief justice, John Roberts, will broker such a compromise-and vote accordingly-in order to maintain his image as the even-handed "balls-and-strikes" caller he claimed to be a decade ago in his Senate nomination hearing. By giving both liberals and conservatives something, but not too much, to cheer about, the chief will save the court from charges of an ideological tilt. As Noah Feldman wrote a few months ago at Bloomberg View, the chief seems loth to have "a court associated with his name...come to be seen as the most activist conservative court since the 1920s and 30s."

Supreme Court predictions in close cases are notoriously unreliable, as almost everyone but the Nostradamus-worthy Will Wilkinson , a fellow contributor to this blog, saw three years ago when Mr Roberts voted with the Court's liberals to save Obamacare. However, I will sketch a plausible scenario: Mr Roberts may vote in the liberal direction in King v Burwell, the Obamacare case, Obergefell v Hodges, the same-sex marriage case. The "conservative's best friend" could deliver not one but two gut-punches to his biggest fans.
Get our daily newsletter
There is already a sea of speculation about the chief's relative quiet in last week's oral argument in King and Justice Anthony Kennedy's concern that the challengers' reading of the ACA poses a "serious constitutional problem" involving the "dynamics of federalism". Laurence Tribe, a law professor at Harvard and author of "Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution", thinks Mr Roberts shares Mr Kennedy's concern that "the states are being told either create your own exchange, or we'll send your insurance market into a death spiral". That's a coerced and unfair choice, Mr Kennedy seems to think, and the chief's previous rulings on the balance between federal and state power are consistent with this perspective.

But leaving aside federalism concerns, there is the matter of the potential disruption to the entire health-care industry that upending Obamacare would entail. Consider how well health-insurers have done under the law. They are enrolling millions more customers, resulting in rising profits and soaring stock prices. Cancelling subsidies for Americans in 34 states who buy insurance on federal exchanges could price up to 8m people out of the market, which will in turn send prices higher and make health-care less affordable for everyone else. The subscriber pool will continue to contract, costing the health-insurers dearly. An amicus brief from America's Health Insurance Plans, the trade association of America's health insurance industry, makes the companies' position clear:

Premium tax credits (and the related shared responsibility payments) are essential components of an actuarially-viable marketplace because of their integral relationship to the ACA's market reforms. There is no practical reason to distinguish between State- and federally-operated exchanges in this regard. The ACA's shared responsibility obligation and eligibility for premium assistance tax credits are governed by nationally-established standards with payment from the federal treasury, regardless of which sovereign administers the particular exchange.

Mr Roberts has long been sensitive to the effect that laws have on American business. A recent study by Lee Epstein, William Landes and Richard Posner published in the Minnesota Law Review that when it comes to business-friendly justices, John Roberts was second only to Samuel Alito over the nearly seven decades from 1946 to 2013. In recent cases such as Burwell v Hobby Lobby and McCutcheon v FEC, the chief justice has sided with corporate America.

What, then, of same-sex marriage? What just a couple of decades ago seemed wildly counter-cultural is now mainstream. That may be one reason why Chief Justice Roberts could switch gears from his dissenting position in United States v Windsor, the case that dismantled the heart of the Defence of Marriage Act in 2013. With more than 70% of Americans living in 37 states where same-sex marriage is now legal, the tide of history is unmistakable. Chief Justice Roberts argued two years ago that there are legitimate reasons to define marriage along heterosexual lines. He did not wish to "tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry", he wrote in his Windsor dissent. The claim that opposition to same-sex marriage is invariably based on "animus", then, appears to be a non-starter. But the hatred-of-gays argument is merely one path circuit courts have taken to nullify state bans on same-sex marriage. Chief Justice Roberts could turn to other justifications, including some form of heightened scrutiny for discriminatory treatment of gays and lesbians under the 14th amendment's equal protection clause, the idea of marriage as a fundamental right, or-maybe most promisingly-the contention that the bans represent discrimination on the basis of sex.

Whatever the doctrinal path, Mr Roberts must have noticed that social mores have changed. To understand how much, consider the fact that 379 big American corporations have filed an amicus brief in favour of gay marriage. In it, they that a "fractured legal landscape" marked by a patchwork of laws regarding marriage equality is bad for business:

Discriminatory state laws force amici to implement inconsistent policies across the various jurisdictions in which we operate, our stated corporate principles of diversity and inclusion notwithstanding. Our ability to grow and maintain our businesses by attracting and retaining the best employee talent is hindered. The patchwork of state laws applicable to same-sex marriage thus impairs our business interests and employer/employee relations. If the Court were to affirm the decision below, the costs and uncertainty imposed by inconsistent state marriage laws will only continue. In contrast, reversal will reduce current costs, administrative burden, and diversion of resources from our core businesses.

This is hardly the strongest argument in favour of gay marriage. Unequal marriage laws probably make very little difference to the bottom line. And even if they did, that would be irrelevant to this case, which is about equality before the law, not dollars and cents. What is interesting here is not what corporate America is saying but the fact that it is speaking out at all. Companies usually steer clear of contentious social issues-when was the last time you heard the boss of a Fortune 500 company opine on abortion? Yet signatories to this brief include Amazon and Apple, Barclays and Bristol-Myers Squibb, Citigroup and Coca-Cola. It includes airlines and giant retailers, bookstores and banks, cafes and software companies.

The list is a who's-who of American capitalism. And that is a sign that gay marriage is swiftly becoming so mainstream that even risk-averse big companies are happy to embrace it. The bosses who signed the brief not only think that gay marriage should be legal. They also assume that their customers will not punish them for saying so. Whether Mr Roberts ultimately votes for same-sex marriage-he may or may not drop hints as to his position at the oral argument coming up on April 28th-he will surely take this social revolution into account.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
HOW will the Supreme Court decide this term's two biggest cases? One slightly cynical prediction floating around forecasts a split decision: the justices will announce a constitutional right to gay marriage, a huge victory for liberals, while voting to upend the Affordable Care Act, a dream of conservatives.

# data[].attributes.headline
Same-Sex Parenting Is Beneficial. By KaiYao Xie

# data[].attributes.subject
Same-Sex Parenting Is Beneficial. By KaiYao Xie

# data[].attributes.body
Author think not only do children raised by same-sex couples fare as well as those raised by heterosexual couples, but also that gay parenting offers several advantages

Gay and lesbian parents may be more committed and motivated than heterosexual parents, considering the accidental birth rate

Pappas continues that same-sex couples are more likely to adopt children who linger in the foster system

He provide a unique environment that promotes open-mindedness, tolerance, and gender equality

# data[].attributes.headline
CHANGING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ATTITUDES IN AMERICA FROM 1988 THROUGH 2010. By Gao Xiang

# data[].attributes.subject
CHANGING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ATTITUDES IN AMERICA FROM 1988 THROUGH 2010. By Gao Xiang

# data[].attributes.body
This research talks about the attitude of American people to the same-sex marriage over time. The writer, Dawn Michelle Baunach, did research on individual’s attitude to the same-sex marriage from 1988 to 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010, and found that there were a lot differences in the changing of the group of people who hold the view of the same-sex marriage should be banned, like the ages, races, religions or educations, with the data from the General Social Survey.

# data[].attributes.headline
Gay people going against same-sex marriage. By Shahmir Qureshi

# data[].attributes.subject
Gay people going against same-sex marriage. By Shahmir Qureshi

# data[].attributes.body
Although Gay marriage has been legal in 37 states but still

there are many gay people who won’t get married being gay as they have reasons to believe it is against their religion or it is just plain weird when getting married to the same gender in front of everyone. Some lesbians are opposed to same-sex marriage as because they are feminist. But the support of gay marriage has been risen more than 50 according to Gallup.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After France's first same-sex marriage, and a vote in the UK Parliament which puts England and Wales on course for gay weddings next summer, two US Supreme Court rulings expected soon could hasten the advance of same-sex marriage across the Atlantic. But some gay people remain opposed. Why?

"It's demonstrably not the same as heterosexual marriage - the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn't the same."

Jonathan Soroff lives in liberal Massachusetts with his male partner, Sam. He doesn't fit the common stereotype of an opponent of gay marriage.

But like half of his friends, he does not believe that couples of the same gender should marry.

"We're not going to procreate as a couple and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions," says Soroff.

The two rulings...

Whether the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) which bans recognition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional

Whether voters in California were entitled to enact Proposition 8, which overturned a State Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex marriage

Q&A: Same-sex marriage in the US
Until the federal government recognises and codifies the same rights for same-sex couples as straight ones, equality is the goal so why get hung up on a word, he asks.

"I'm not going to walk down the aisle to Mendelssohn wearing white in a church and throw a bouquet and do the first dance," adds Soroff, columnist for the Improper Boston.

"I've been to some lovely gay weddings but aping the traditional heterosexual wedding is weird and I don't understand why anyone wants to do that.

...and how they affect benefits

Twelve states plus the District of Columbia recognise same-sex marriage, but the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 banned federal recognition of same-sex marriage

So same-sex married couples only get state benefits such as family medical leave and becoming executor in the absence of a will - but heterosexual married couples also get federal benefits covered by more than 1,000 statutes on tax, immigration and social security

Source: Emily Doskow, lawyer

"I'm not saying that people who want that shouldn't have it but for me, all that matters is the legal stuff."

The legal situation could be about to change within days, as the nine Supreme Court judges are considering whether a federal law that does not recognise same-sex marriage - and therefore denies them benefits - is unconstitutional. A second ruling will be made on the legality of California's gay marriage ban.

Arguments against gay marriage, used by some gay people

Rights are more important than a name

It's a heteronormative institution that has historically marginalised homosexuality

Marriage is "between man and woman" and that's the best environment for children

It's a patriarchal, flawed institution

In countries that have civil partnerships, some gay people say that's enough

But while favourable rulings will spark celebrations among pro-marriage supporters across the US, some gay men and women will instead see it as a victory for a patriarchal institution that bears no historical relevance to them.

Some lesbians are opposed to marriage on feminist grounds, says Claudia Card, a professor of philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, because they see it as an institution that serves the interests of men more than women. It is also, in her view "heteronormative", embodying the view that heterosexuality is the preferred and normal sexuality.

"It's undeniable that marriage has historically also discriminated against same-sex couples," Card says.

As a result, she thinks the issue of marriage is a distraction.

"Gay activists should instead put their energies into environmental issues like climate change, because there's a chance to make a morally more defensible and more urgent difference."

Others in the "No" camp oppose marriage more broadly because, they say, it denies benefits to people who are unmarried, or because they say it simply doesn't work.

More pro-marriage voices

"A civil partnership lacks the cultural and social capital of marriage," writes Patrick Flanery in the Guardian

Three reasons why I'm voting for gay marriage, by Lord Browne in the Financial Times

David Blankenhorn writes in the New York Times how his position on gay marriage changed

Same-sex couples in New York tell of their wedding joy to Laura Trevelyan for BBC News

Legba Carrefour, who describes himself as "radical queer", calls it a "destructive way of life" that produces broken families.

"We are only one or two generations away from children coming from gay marriage that are also from broken homes," he says.

When we were slaves we couldn't marry, then we couldn't marry outside our race
Stampp Corbin, LGBT Weekly

He believes a more important priority for the gay community is the rise in violence against transgendered people.

"I'm not concerned about whether I can get married but whether I will die in the street at the hands of homophobes."

Support for gay marriage among Americans in general has risen above 50% according to Gallup, but what the figure is among gay people is harder to quantify. Neither Pew Research Center nor Gallup has conducted any such polling.

A community made up of millions of people is bound to hold a range of views on any subject, but it will surprise many that some of the people who on the face of it stand to gain the most from gay marriage should oppose it. And these contrary views are not often heard.

In the UK, Daily Mail columnist Andrew Pierce says that for speaking out against gay marriage in the past, he has been attacked as a homophobe and Uncle Tom, despite a long history of championing gay rights.

Previously on this website
The gay airman who took on the US military The straight couples that want civil partnerships Online activism and gay marriage You can follow the Magazine on Twitter and on Facebook
He strongly believes that civil partnerships - introduced in 2005 to give same-sex couples equal legal rights - are enough.

"We've got marriage, it's called a civil partnership and I rejoice in the fact that people like me who are different from straight people can do something they can't. I relish that."

He thinks there are more gay people in agreement with him than people may think - at a dinner party he hosted for 11 gay friends, only one was in favour of marriage, one was undecided and the rest were against, he says.

In France, gay men and women joined the protests that preceded and followed this year's introduction of same-sex marriage. A website called Homovox featured 12 gay men and women opposed to it, with some of them citing a belief that children benefit most from opposite-sex parents.

For many years, the conservative institution of marriage was never on the gay campaign agenda, says activist Yasmin Nair, who co-founded a group provocatively named Against Equality. But it became an objective in the early 1990s - regretfully, in her view - when the movement emerged from the seismic shock of the Aids epidemic, depleted of political energy.

But gay people who are in favour of same-sex marriage believe anything short of marriage is not equality.

You rarely hear arguments against it by gay people themselves, says Stampp Corbin, publisher of magazine LGBT Weekly, who sees strong parallels with the civil rights movement.

"I'm African American and there were many things society stopped us from doing. When we were slaves we couldn't marry, we couldn't marry outside our race and most notably, we couldn't share facilities with white people.

"So when I hear LGBT people saying the same thing: 'I don't think gay and lesbian people should get married', is it different from slaves saying: 'I don't think slaves should have the ability to get married'?

"It is internalised hatred, bred by oppression. Why would you want to deny someone of your own sexual orientation the ability to get married? No one [will be] forcing you to get married."

Civil partnerships do not provide equality, says Corbin, who was the National Co-Chair of the LGBT Leadership Council during the 2008 Obama presidential campaign. And in the US, the notion of "separate but equal" rekindles memories of segregation and the creation of second-class facilities.

With so many different points of view on a subject that has long divided America, perhaps the debate just underlines the obvious - gay people are like everyone else.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After France's first same-sex marriage, and a vote in the UK Parliament which puts England and Wales on course for gay weddings next summer, two US Supreme Court rulings expected soon could hasten the advance of same-sex marriage across the Atlantic. But some gay people remain opposed. Why?

# data[].attributes.headline
Same-Sex Marriage Does Not Impact Religious Freedom. By Kaiao Xie Alex 

# data[].attributes.subject
Same-Sex Marriage Does Not Impact Religious Freedom. By Kaiao Xie Alex 

# data[].attributes.body
This article talk about Same-Sex Marriage not impact religious freedom and a Same-Sex Marriage bait and switch. The opponents of same-sex marriage simply don't think homosexuals deserve the same legal rights that they do. The church discriminate Same-Sex Marriage and doesn't help them. Those states that have adopted same-sex marriage have instituted strict protections for the right of churches to refuse to recognize or support such marriages.

# data[].attributes.headline
37 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 13 States with Same-Sex Marriage Bans. By Gao Xiang

# data[].attributes.subject
37 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 13 States with Same-Sex Marriage Bans. By Gao Xiang

# data[].attributes.body
This is the big overview and history of the gay marriage in US, including the of Same-Sex Marriage Bans and Legalizations by Effective Date of Laws, who judge if the same-sex marriage is illegal or not in different states, and the states where the gay marriage bans have been overturned, but where appeals are in progress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
State-by-State History of Banning and Legalizing Gay Marriage, 1994-2015 - Gay Marriage - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Details about which states had legalized or banned gay marriage before the US Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal nationwide.

# data[].attributes.headline
13 States in which Gay marriage is illegal. By Shahmir Qureshi

# data[].attributes.subject
13 States in which Gay marriage is illegal. By Shahmir Qureshi

# data[].attributes.body
In many states Gay marriage has been legalized but there are about 13 states in which Gay marriage is still illegal such as Georgia, Michigan, Nebraska and many more. Not like these states will never allow same-sex marriage but the U.S Supreme Court will settle this issue f or good when it comes into being in power this year but for now gay marriage will be illegal in these 13 states. In a few states same-sex marriage is under review so it might be legal in the coming months.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
But since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 ruling invalidating part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex marriage rights have surged forward nationwide.

In some cases, such as in Illinois, Hawaii, Minnesota and New York, lawmakers opened the doors voluntarily. In others -- most recently Alabama -- it's been state or federal judges forcing the toehold long sought by gay rights advocates and bitterly contested by those who argue marriage is an institution reserved solely for one man and one woman.

As the dominoes fall in favor of same-sex marriages, the question now seems to be which state will be the last to allow such unions? That's assuming, of course, that the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't get there first by this June, when it is expected to issue its ruling on such bans in four states this spring.

Here's the situation in the 13 states that currently ban same-sex marriages, including eight in which court rulings in favor of allowing same-sex marriage are under review:

The state's constitutional ban on gay marriage, passed in 2004, was struck down twice last year -- once by a state court judge and again by a U.S. District Court judge. Local officials issued some 400 marriage licenses following the state court decision, but the state Supreme Court blocked the issuance of more licenses pending its review of the case. A decision could come soon.

Georgia is one of just three states with no legislative action or pending legal decisions whatsoever on same-sex marriage. The others are North Dakota and Nebraska. However, lawsuits are pending to overturn the state's 2004 ban.

The state's ban is being challenged in state court, where a judge last year ruled the law is unconstitutional, and in federal court, where a U.S. District Court judge took the rare step, for a federal judge, of backing such a ban. The ban remains in place pending Louisiana's appeal of the state court ruling. On the federal level, a ruling is pending out of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which heard arguments in the case in January.

Last year, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the state's constitutional amendment banning gay marriages had no "legitimate purpose." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit later overturned the ruling, reinstating gay marriage bans in Kentucky and four other states. The Kentucky ban is part of the U.S. Supreme Court case scheduled for arguments in April and a decision by June.

A U.S. District Court judge ruled last year that the state's same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional, resulting in the issuance of more than 300 marriage licenses. That ended when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted a stay. The court later reinstated Michigan's ban in the same ruling that reinstated Kentucky's ban. Its fate will be decided by the Supreme Court decision due by June.

A state court judge ruled in November that Missouri's 2004 constitutional ban on gay marriage was illegal. Attorney General Chris Koster appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court. But that court has indicated that it will not rule on the case until after the U.S. Supreme Court decision. Just a few days after that state court ruling, a U.S. District Court judge struck down the state's marriage ban, but that decision has been stayed pending appeals. While the state ban is in effect, officials in the St. Louis area have issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Mississippi

A U.S. District Court judge granted an injunction last year against the state's same-sex marriage ban, describing it as unconstitutional. The judge, however, postponed his ruling from going into effect to give the state time to appeal. A federal appeals court heard arguments in the case in January. In the meantime, the same-sex marriage ban is still in effect.

A decade ago, a federal court ruled than an amendment banning same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. But the decision was short-lived. An appeals court reinstated the ban. Rights groups have filed legal challenges.

North Dakota

Same-sex couples are challenging the state's ban in U.S. District Court, but a federal judge issued a ruling on January 20 delaying the proceedings until after the U.S. Supreme Court rules.

South Dakota

U.S. District Court Judge Karen Schreier struck down the state's same-sex marriage ban in January, but blocked enforcement pending an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The state's ban was struck down in January 2014 by a federal judge who said it serves "no legitimate governmental purpose." But, as in many other states, enforcement was delayed pending appeals. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard the case last month and a ruling is pending.

A federal appeals court judge upheld a ban last year on same-sex marriages in the state. That decision is part of the U.S. Supreme Court case expected to be finalized this summer.

In November 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the state's ban. That decision also will be part of the U.S. Supreme Court case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
the 13 states that still ban same-sex marriage - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 13 states that still ban same-sex marriage - CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
But since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 ruling invalidating part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex marriage rights have surged forward nationwide. In some cases, such as in Illinois, Hawaii, Minnesota and New York, lawmakers opened the doors voluntarily.