Examples Of Non Violation Of The Constitution

Justice Scalia argued that the question of whether same-sex marriage should be recognized is one for the state legislatures, and that for the issue to be decided by unelected judges goes against one of the most basic precepts of the Constitution: that political change should occur through the votes of elected representatives. In taking on this policymaking role, the majority opinion departed from established Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence to create a right where none exists in the Constitution. Justice Thomas joined in the dissent. Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent in which he argued that the majority opinion stretched the doctrine of substantive due process rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment too far and in doing so distorted the democratic process by taking power from the legislature and putting it in the hands of the judiciary. Additionally, the legislative history of the Due Process Clause in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments indicates that they were meant to protect people from physical restraint and from government intervention, but they do not grant them rights to government entitlements. Justice Thomas also argued that the majority opinion impermissibly infringed on religious freedom by legislating from the bench rather than allowing the state legislature to determine how best to address the competing rights and interests at stake. Justice Scalia joined in the dissent. In his separate dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. wrote that the Constitution does not address the right of same-sex couples to marry, and therefore the issue is reserved to the states to decide whether to depart from the traditional definition of marriage. By allowing a majority of the Court to create a new

In detail, by the states restricting same-sex marriages, they have breached constitutional rights of gays which is the fourteenth amendment – the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. The Petitioner, James Obergefell and other same-sex couples, further argues that same-sex couples are nonetheless than heterosexual couples. While the Respondent, Richard Hodges and state official argues that “the Constitution does not address it, and therefore it is beyond the purview of the Court to decide whether states have to recognize or license such unions.” (Oyez, 2014).

Supreme Court stated that the “Homosexual Conduct” law of Texas was unconstitutional and the law violated the 14th Amendment Due process Clause. This Clause protects  the right to personal freedom in intimate decisions. The issue wasn’t "the right to engage in homosexual sodomy" but  "the right to privacy in the home" and another is "the right to freely engage in consensual, adult sex."

Despite that, it has been upheld in favor of, every single time by the Supreme Court. One of the major justices in both decisions was Roberts, for that purpose he has been criticized by liberals and conservatives for voting politically. There was another key court case in the same time frame, same- sex marriage. In this particular case, Roberts voted in discord, although the law still passed with a 5-4 majority. So why did Roberts vote for the one that restrains people and against the one which gives people more freedom? Well, there is an explanation for that. According to Rosen, Roberts attributes his decisions to an idea called “purposivism”; it holds that judges should not limit themselves to the word of a law, rather determine its’ extensive purpose. And due to this idea, Roberts has been able to base his decisions impartially rather than base it on political

McCreary County, one of two small counties in Kentucky involved with this case, displayed a copy of the Ten Commandments in their court house which was later deemed unconstitutional. A major factor is this dealing was an earlier case in which the "Lemon Law" was created setting the framework for any religious case thereafter. The counties claimed that the documents were merely in place to describe to civilians the effect that religion had on modern law and the constitution; however, the ACLU felt that this failed to pass the "Lemon Test" and acted accordingly. After losing the case, the county took the document down and later reposted the document along with several others such as, the Star Spangled banner and the Magna Carta, with the intent to maintain their secular position on the situation. This was, again, deemed unconstitutional and eventually taken to the Supreme Court where McCreary County was forced to remove any documents that had any religious affiliation whatsoever.

I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, and ever since the recognition of marriage in all cultures, it has been that way. A lot of people have been trying to look at it as a right of the people protected under the Constitution. I say that it is being examined completely wrong. Marriage is, by my definition, the union of a man and woman recognized by the state. I do not think it is the union of two people. Regardless of what I believe, I do not think it was legally right for the Court to require all of the states to recognize gay marriage. According to Chief Justice Roberts,

The Supreme Court’s decision finalized the questions of whether states have the right to pass laws treating marriages differently based upon sex, and if states have to acknowledge the marriage of same-sex couples who were married in another state. On a 5-4 decision, the Court determined that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because they cannot be treated differently than opposite sex couples. The court also determined that states have to recognize same-sex marriages the same way they do with opposite-sex. However, the Supreme Court did not create a law about same sex marriage, it just stated that

Multiple groups of same sex couples sued their state agencies in four different states Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky to challenge the constitutionality of those four states ‘ban on same sex marriage. The plaintiffs of each case argued that the states’ statues violated the Equal Protection Clause and their Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. One plaintiff group also brought up claims under the Civil Rights Act. The Trial court found in favor to all of the plaintiffs cases. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed and held that the states’ ban on same sex marriage and refusal

This being said the court could have taken another route to answer a completely different question, “if the Constitution doesn't require states to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, does it at least require every state to recognize same-sex marriages consecrated in another state? (Teicholz 1)”. This questioned seemed to have more fluidity to it instead of granting total upscale domination to states not yet pardoning same sex marriage. If the officials were to have gone this route, couples of same sexes orientation who married in a state that allowed for a legal marriage yet lived in one that didn’t, the state of residence would at least have to acknowledge the marriage as binding and legal. With time this idea would have allowed for slow acceptance for conservative based states to come to terms with the idea of legal marriage between same sex partners. It would also give Obergefell the ability to be placed on his deceased husband’s death certificate. With the gravity of both answers the court still dragged

Chief Justice Roberts made a principal dissent, claiming that in just one day, the court has transformed the societal institution of marriage that has banded humanity together for millennia. Roberts made clear that no consensus is worth a decision he feels completely overstepped the Supreme Court’s constitutional bonds, stating “Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner…but do not celebrate the constitution”. Roberts repeatedly insists that history and tradition must be drawn on to come to a conclusion, and judges ought not to rely on his or her own moral judgement concerning the morality of whether denying the fundamental rights would be unjust in light of the constitution. Although Roberts’ does agree that same-sex couples who have previously challenged state laws excluding them from marriage “make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness” , he ultimately believes that the Constitution cannot decide what is fair and what is just.

The Constitution of the United States does not define what marriage is, thus supporters of this act believe that each state should have the choice whether to recognize marriage between same-sex couples. Furthermore, in the tenth amendment it states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved

Local Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) are controversial in nature, because while they pretend to use the excuse to protect the free exercise of religion, intrinsically it is an avenue to attack same sex marriages which have been ruled constitutional by most circuit appellate courts in the United States. Currently the Supreme Court is hearing the cases that might ultimately decide the faith of marriage equality. United States v. Windsor opened the door for most federal appellate jurisdictions and some states to rule that prohibiting same-sex marriage was constitutional, on the basis of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. Despite this decision, the right to marriage is not an explicit protection addressed by the Constitution, and is often seen as a right delegated to the States under the 10th Amendment. On the other hand the free exercise clause is part of the First Amendment, and protects people from doing things that violate their religious principle, for example a Christian doctor from performing an abortion.

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Many conservative groups do NOT agree with this decision. The gay marriage debate has been simmering for as long as I can remember. The four articles I have selected give information from four different perspectives including that of liberals, conservatives, homosexuals, and orthodox Jews. With so many differing opinions, one can understand why it's been so hard for the nation to come to agree on this issue.

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy stated in the majority opinion: "The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them." Many conservatives are completely against gay marriage and they have stated that they will fight to have the Supreme Court ruling overturned.

According to DOMA, “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife” (sec 3). Until recently 2013, the US Supreme Court finally delivered the verdict that declared section 3 of the DOMA, which is the rejection of right to gay marriage is unconstitutional (Shapiro 208). In “Gay Marriage Is A Fundamental Right” by Nathan Goetting, “The right to many, and to marry the person of one's choice, is a fundamental right and a necessary aspect of human happiness. This has been an explicitly stated abiding principle since the Court used its power of judicial review to strike down as unconstitutional a legislature's definition of marriage in 1967.” Currently, 17 states in the United States have legalized the right to same sex marriage. The realization of DOMA is unconstitutional has further evidenced that gay marriage is one of the civil right that should not be taken away by the government, and it is an inevitable changes that open doors for equality and equity.