Hollingsworth vs. Perry: Case Study

In summary of these, the Obergefell V Hodges has received opposition as well as propositions at different degrees, but the majority of the debaters’ are the proposing side. The main idea here was to legalize the Same-sex marriage which had been prohibited in the previous court rulings (Siegel, 2015). The proposing team was emphasizing on the following factors; the right to personal choices as clarified in the human dignity, the right to intimate association, marriage as a foundation of the American social order and the ability to sustain and safeguard children and families (Siegel, 2015).

For centuries same sex marriage has been a dispute, especially in Texas because of how powerfully Texas believes in the bible and how extremely “old fashioned” it is. The debate has been over LGBT equality, just like the black civil rights movement and the women’s movement in the 1960’s. Due to the traditional and common law, Texas does not allow same sex marriage. Actually, the state banned same sex marriage a decade ago or more. The issue was during the 2004 presidential election when Missouri and Louisiana voters approved same sex marriage and eleven states placed amendments. Everyone held their word and continued to protect the laws of Texas. The constitutional amendments that banned same sex marriage well-defined marriage as a union between

Perry v. New Hampshire 10-8974 US (2012). This case is before the Supreme Court of the United States of America following an appeal by the defendant, Barion Perry.

Historically, the same sex marriage movement can be traced back to the early 1970’s, when gay rights activists begun the movement by bringing forward three suits in Minnesota, Kentucky, and Washington, but none of the suits were successful (Rosenberg). Following these actions in 1986, the case of Bowers v. Hardwick was brought before the Supreme Court

Facts: In 2008, the California Supreme Court held that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the California Constitution. In response, California voters passed Proposition 8, amending the State Constitution such that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.” The California Supreme Court held that Proposition 8 was properly enacted under state law. Respondents (Perry et al.) are two same sex couples who wish to marry, and filed suit to challenge Proposition 8 in Federal Court. The suit named various state officials as defendants, yet they did not defend nor appeal any subsequent ruling in court. The federal district court allowed the official proponents (Hollingsworth et al.) of the Proposition to intervene

Proposition 8 was placed on a ballot in California which made same- sex marriage illegal, and was also deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Once the elected officials of California chose not to defend Proposition 8 once it was deemed unconstitutional the case should have been dismissed, and the petitioners shouldn’t have been allowed standing for appeal. DOMA was purposed that if States recognized same- sex marriages they were to be classified as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law. The definition of marriage between a man and a woman is a religious ideology. To deny a person their right as a citizen of the United States of America to marry whomever they choose is illegal, and the Courts have agreed. Since the U.S. Supreme Court rendered the decision in the Loving v. Virginia (1958) which deemed the laws of banning interracial marriages unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment. Justice Earl Warren noted “Under the Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, the person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.” This has opened up many discussions that because the ban of interracial marriages was deemed unconstitutional the laws that marriage is only between a man and a woman is a gendered based classification. Restricting marriage on the foundation of a person’s gender is just as unconstitutional as laws restricting marriage on the basis of a person’s

McCulloch vs. Maryland (1819), the constitutional questions asked were: Did congress have the right to establish a bank? Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally with the congressional powers? In 1816, congress chartered The Second National Bank of the United States. In 1818, Maryland passed legislation to tax the bank and cashier of the Baltimore branch bank James MucCulloch refused to pay the tax. This court case took place in the Marshall court, under federalist, Chief Justice John Marshall who ruled this case in favor of MucCulloch. The court’s decision was unanimous in favor of MucCulloch and, the courts held that Congress had the power to establish a bank but Maryland could not tax the bank and that the power to tax is the power to destroy.

The first spark to set flames to the waging war on marriage equality happened on October 15, 1971. In the Supreme Court case of Baker v. Nelson on October 15, 1971, one of three cases brought forth by same-sex couples, Richard Baker and James Richard McConnell were denied a marriage license by a county court clerk in Minnesota in May of 1970 (Minnesota Legislature, 1971, Richard John Baker and Another v. Gerald R. Nelson). The initial trial court dismissed their claim, declaring that the clerk had the power to refuse the right of marriage to gay couples. The couple lost again in the Minnesota Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court followed by confirming the ruling. For the next twenty four years, basic human rights were continuously denied nationwide in cases similar to Baker v. Nelson and in anti-gay attempts to restrict homosexual marriage. Eventually, there showed signs of hope such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in May, 1996 and Massachusetts becoming the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in December, 1996. In relatively recent news, the LGBTQ community celebrated a monumental win as the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage a constitutional right for Americans nationwide. On the 25th of June, 2015, many rejoiced this new ruling. Unfortunately, just as many were disgusted at the new legislation. The topic of marriage equality is a unique controversy due to the fact that it gathers so many strong opinions to the cause from many different walks of life.

The case Obergefell vs. Hodges reached the United States Supreme Court in 2015 (Oyez). This case dealt with the rights of same-sex marriages and became important case in our nation’s young history and in our society in general. The problem was groups of same-sex couples were being told that their marriage licenses were not being upheld to the same legal standards as those of heterogeneous couples. Therefore same-sex couples in Ohio, Tennessee , Kentucky, and Michigan went and sued these agencies in challenge of their constitutional rights (Oyez).They took their issue to court because they believed that the states were denying them their 14th amendment rights without due process. They couldn’t understand why their marriages license were not

MARSHALL, Texas – The Ladies came back from a two-set deficit, but the Maroon and White could not recover from a strong start in the deciding set by the Tigers as Centenary (2-3) fell to East Texas Baptist (4-1) 25-23, 25-22, 22-25, 25-27, 15-7 Tuesday night, September 5.

Out of five key Supreme Court rulings, Obergefell v. Hodges was selected to be evaluated in this piece. The ban on same sex marriage is the law being challenged in the case. According to the case study, “groups of same-sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states' bans on same-sex marriage…” (Oyez, 2014).

The SCOTUS gets requests to take on over 7000 cases each year and only accept about 80 of those to actually hear. The arguments they choose to hear address constitutional issues or federal law in most cases. The Obergefell V Hodges case in the eyes of most people is that about legalizing Gay Marriage, but it is a much deeper case rooted in death benefits for a Mr. Obergefell from the passing of his partner Mr. Arthur.

The government has changed through the years, from when our country first decided to make actions till now. People have more rights, there are more laws, and we are all treated equally to an extent. We tend to ask ourselves, how the government started. In this essay I will discuss implied powers, the 10th amendment, and the McCulloch vs. Maryland case.

I select the Beckles v. United States location U.S. court of Appeals for Eleventh Circuit, A case in which the Court will decide whether it’s holding in Johnson v. United States. The Facts of the case: “On April 11, 2007, Travis Beckles was arrested because a sawed-off shotgun was located in his residence, and he had previous felony convictions, mostly for drug possession and sales. Beckles was convicted, and during the sentencing phase of his trial, the district court determined that Beckles was an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) who had been in possession of a firearm and was therefore subject to sentencing enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines. Pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines, Beckles was eligible

Supporters of Proposition 22 say it advocates not prejudice or discrimination just merely closing a "legal loophole". Although the main point of the proposition does ensures that gay and lesbian marriages are not recognized in California if couples decide to get married in another state.