Justice Roberts Argumentative Analysis

In The Gay Marriage Case, Obergefell v Hodges, the United States Supreme Court decided that a state may not prohibit same-sex marriage. Instead, it emphasized that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to the gay society through the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment of the United States of America Constitution. The involved decision maker in the case was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who gave four primary reasons for his decision.

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

In this case, Chief Justice Roberts determines the role of the Court in his opinion. Roberts argues that the point of the Court is not to say whether a law is good or bad, if the people do not like the bill, it is their fault. Roberts says, “the responsibility of this Court is to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down the acts of Congress that transgress those limits” (Roberts, pg 6). He also says, “we must determine whether the Constitution grants Congress powers it now asserts, but which many States and individuals believe it does not possess” (Roberts, pg 2). To do so, the Court must examine the limits on the Government’s power and their own limited role in “policing those boundaries” (2). In this case, Roberts says the Court must uphold its constitutionality and the fundamental will of the people.

I join the opinion of the court in favor of Hodges and offer these accompanying thoughts. In order to determine if the state is required under the Fourteenth Amendment to license a marriage of same sex, we must establish a foundation in regards to marriage and its entitlements. The court argues that marriage “is not a fundamental right,” and with this conclusion, the state is not be required to legally recognize any marriage it does not see fit. Fundamental rights are due strict scrutiny, but issues of liberty interest only require rational basis. There is a significant difference between the two approaches with ‘rational basis’ only requiring that the law be related to a government interest. “Rational basis” review is generally used in cases where fundamental rights are of issue and is thus fitting for this case under these assumptions.” The constitution does not specifically list marriage as a fundamental right in the Bill of Rights or any of its additional amendments and thus leaves ample room for interpretation of is significance. The defense attempts to use the Fourteenth amendment in their defense as it asserts,

Chief Justice Burger and Justice Powell also shared the same opinion, as Justice White read the opinion of the Court. Chief Justice Burger's view was that there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy in constitutional terms. Although Chief Justice Burger had a concurring opinion with the Court, he went back in history to support the laws against sodomy. Justice Burger talked about the condemnation of homosexual practices is firmly rooted in Judeas-Christian moral and ethical standards, and that homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. Justice Powell also joined the opinion of the Court.

The 14th Amendment is more towards supporting Kenndey's view than Scalia. The amendment states, "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" which should not go against gay marriage, but defend it. It claims the law cannot simply take away rights or presume any kind of misjudgement of a person.

The executive branch agreed upon the DOMA being unconstitutional about how they took this situation of same-sex partnership & spouses. Although the Court has considered whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case, it is important to certify the federal laws to other states on same-sex spouses as the constitutional decisions of the citizens of the United States have, relating to our civil

Scalia says that we are in a "culture war" between the homosexual activists and those who wish to criminalize homosexual behavior. The government says laws like Bowers discriminate against homosexuals and should not be in effect, therefore, according to Scalia, they are taking sides in this "culture war." The court tells Americans that it is wrong to discriminate, but most states uphold laws that "mandate" and uphold such behavior (discharging persons in the military who engage in homosexual activity and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.) Scalia says that "many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as schoolmasters for their children's schools, or as boarders in their home." He thinks that the majority of Americans are against homosexuality and the court does not realize it. I agree with Scalia when he points out that there are laws that invite discrimination against homosexuals, but I feel that the government is taking a step in the right direction by overturning Lawrence v. Texas. Our laws may not be consistent yet, but I believe, in time,

Although Scalia does not hold the majority opinion of the court, he does bring up a valid argument, in which there is a law already that bans discrimination for the general public, which includes homosexuals. This notion is valid because it shows why homosexuals do not need a separate law that states there can be no discrimination of homosexuals. However, this brings up the question as to whether or not there is need for an amendment that states there can be no laws that ban the discrimination of homosexuals, where the only group that is specifically affected is the homosexual community. This then, is a flaw in his argument, because if there is a law that bans discrimination in general, then there is no need to create more laws that specifically say there can be no discrimination of

Because the Constitution is a living and mutable document, it reflects the structure and values of the current government and guarantees personal liberties in the present. Thus, Justice Kennedy was able to use the Constitution in a fluid way to interpret DOMA: “While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law [DOMA] does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved” (Kennedy’s June 26, 2013 Supreme Court decision). By striking down DOMA’s third Section, Kennedy removed an unjust limitation put forth by Congress and the President, and simultaneously, protected personal liberties. By interpreting the constitution in this manner, Kennedy preserves the union by preventing violence and protest that might otherwise occur if DOMA had been upheld. This smart political move, though it may have offended some deep-seated conservatives, pleased the 57 percent of Americans who support homosexual unions (Pew Research Center 2015 poll) and did not impose upon the right of heterosexuals to get married and enjoy the benefits of legal unions; au contraire, it expanded the number of people who were allowed access to marriage benefits. The government became

The dissenting opinion held a different interpretation of the case than the majority opinion. The Justices that dissented were Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Chief Justice Roberts stated that although same-sex marriage is fair, it is not specifically stated in the Constitution, so the Supreme Court cannot make the decision for the entire population of the United States. He concluded that the decision is beyond the Supreme Court’s powers and should be left to the individual states to decide (“Opinion”). In his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia noted that the Court would be overstepping its boundaries by exercising legislative power and agreed with Roberts that the decision should be left for the states to decide. Justice Thomas whole-heartedly

In the book, Dr. Gerald Rosenberg names three different constraints on the court’s actions, based on social science research, and each of them apply in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges. Rosenberg’s first constraint states that there needs to be “established legal precedents”. The second constraint is that the courts “depend on political support” to make reforms. His third constraint is that courts are ineffective when producing change due to the fact that they do not have the power to implement or enforce the changes they make. (Rosenberg, 420-421) While the previous paragraph detailed the first constraint, the second and third constraints apply as well in this situation. According to a poll by Gallup, by May of 2015, a bit more than a month before the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, 60% of Americans supported same-sex marriages. (McCarthy). It is clear that by the time the court made the decision, they knew that they would have the political support for the reform. With the third constraint, the Court’s action came about during the administration of a President who supported their decision, ensuring that the executive branch would enforce the decision. With a court that is constrained and must wait for a perfect storm of a supportive Executive Branch, a general that is in favor of the change, and the right legal precedents, it is clear that it would be easier for the interest group to work through a Congress that can pass reform quicker than the reform can get through the

I don’t believe that Judicial supremacy isn't compatible with the constitution. The constitution was written over a hundred years ago for a society that was completely different! Judicial review is arguably one of the only things keeping our society afloat. Now a days there issues present that the writers of the constitution couldn't have possibly dreamed of, yet they established the supreme court to deal with this. For certain issues that the constitution directly addresses, they should be inarguable, yet for others that may be touched upon but addressed it is up to the supreme court to address via Roe v. Wade. The gay marriage debate should be over at this point, the Supreme court as the deciphers of the law of the land ruled that it must

Judge Moore informed probate judges on the eve of the historical same-sex marriage decision that the federal ruling did not apply to them. Later on, in a separate ruling, it was ordered that the many of the counties that were holding back from marrying same-sex couples were to start issuing licenses to same-sex couples. Still Judge Moore says he stands firm in that while the court can authorize same-sex marriages but they cannot force a constitutional officer to disobey his oath by doing so (Elliott, 2015). Federal district judges held the law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman unconstitutional (Eastman, 2015). However, the United States Supreme Court met and ratified Chief Justice Moore’s stance.

I enjoyed reading “How To Say Nothing in 500 Words” by Paul Roberts. He pointed out many writing techniques that I use when writing that I need to stop using. As I read through the sample of a college students essay, I was telling myself that this sounds like something I would write. Not only did I find a few writing errors that I need to stop using, I also found some things that Roberts showed that were good techniques to do in writing an essay.