Obergefell V. Hodges: A Case Study

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.

James Obergefell and John Arthur married in Maryland in 2013. They lived in Ohio, which did not recognize same sex marriage. When John Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, the couple sued to have Obergefell’s name placed on the death certificate as a surviving spouse. The U.S. District Court overturned Ohio’s law banning same-sex marriage. The respondents appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On appeal, the decision was reversed; therefore, Arthur’s death certificate could not have Obergefall’s name on it. The case was brought to the Supreme Court and consolidated with three similar cases.

The research that I chose to elaborate my topic on is the Roe v. Wade court case which is about abortion. The case history is about a woman who was single and pregnant; she decided to bring a stimulating challenge suit to the constitution of Texas laws. The laws that Texas made were given to prohibit mothers from aborting children because it was a crime. They could not do it without medical advice for the reason that it was to save the life of the unborn child. As I begin to go into detail about the court case. First Dr. Hallford, a medical doctor who faced criminal prosecution for violating the state abortion law. Second, you have the Does. They are a married couple with no children who were against Jane Roe and her decisions. Lastly, you have District Attorney Wade. Roe and Hallford had a portion of controversies and declaratory that was warranted. The court ruled a decision relief that was not warranted and the Does criticism was not justiciable. This is a brief synopsis of what the court case will expand on later on in the research paper. I will be utilizing reviews to test what male and female dispositions were towards fetus removal and how they feel about it. The study will extremely differ and I will be getting a broad gender preference perspective of the subject that I decided to do the review on. It will all tie once again into the Roe v. Wade court case. As you are perusing my examination paper; the researcher made an investigation on Chowan University

Facts: In 2000, California voters adopted Proposition 22, defining marriage as a relationship only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22 and California began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Proponents of Proposition 8, who opposed same-sex marriage, collected signatures and filed petitions to get Proposition 8 on the ballot. In November 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, "which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman" (Santoro & Wirth, 2013). Two same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses and were denied, then brought suit under 42 U.S.C.S. ยง 1983, based on the idea that Proposition 8 violated equal protection. The State of California refused to argue in favor of Proposition 8 and the original proponents of Proposition 8 sought to defend the law. In May of 2009, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a California District Court, which held that it violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision. The case then came before the Supreme Court. However, the State of California is not defending Proposition 8; instead, a mix of private parties is defending the law. This has led to questions about standing as well as the constitutional issues in the case.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

As a result, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, a House of Representative’s committee, attempted to uphold the bill’s constitutionality. They appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the lower courts’ decision, but the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts’ decision and deemed the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in 2013. Then, Obergefell vs Hodges officially stated that same-sex marriage is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause in 2015 (“Same Sex Marriage, 2017).

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,

In Obergefell v. Hodges, two men, Arthur and John, travelled from Ohio to Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal, to get married before Arthur who was sick died. Arthur died shortly after and

In the historic ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges declaring same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states, four justices voted against the majority, each giving his or her own reason for dissenting. This momentous decision arose many controversial questions, many believing our justice system was faulty in the decision making process for an issue of such gravity and lasting implications.

The Supreme Court ruled in Obergerfell v. Hodges that States are required to grant a marriage license to same-sex couples and recognize the licenses of same-sex marriages from other states. In the oral arguments leading up to the June decision, the Obama’s Solicitor General, Donald Vierilli admitted before the Justices that religious institutions may lose their tax-exempt status if they continue to affirm that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

A group of gay couples sued their various relevant state agencies in the states of Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and also in Tennessee. The lawsuits challenged the constitutionality of the bans perpetrated by the states on same-sex marriages or the states’ refusal for the recognition of such legal marriages that occurred within their jurisdictions. The plaintiffs in Obergefell v. Hodges argued that the statutes in their states violated the clause of equal protection. It also violated the clause of Due Protection of the fourteenth amendment. One of the plaintiffs brought an issue with the claims of civil rights. In all the circumstances, the trying courts found favour for the plaintiffs. However, the court of appeal for the 6th Circuit reversed the rulings and held that the ban on same-sex marriages by the states never violated the couples’ 14th amendment rights. The following article will, therefore, give a description and summary of the case Obergefell v. Hodges. It will give its current argument and later take a position so as to argue for one side of the case.

The argument brought before the Supreme Court was to eliminate the ban on same sex marriage that was still held by thirteen states. This was done as part of a lawsuit called Obergefell versus Hodges. Court documents outline that, “14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased, filed suits in Federal District Courts in their home States, claiming that respondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another State given full recognition.” (United States Court of Appeals)

The Obergefell vs. Hodges case originated with a same sex couple in Cincinnati, Ohio who faced the grueling facts of a terminal illness. John Arthur,

1. How, if at all, can you distinguish Greber from other instances of payment for professional services? Suppose the percentage Dr. Greber paid to the physicians had not exceeded Medicare’s guideline? Would that payment still amount to prohibited remuneration in this court’s eyes?

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.