Obergefell V. Hodges: 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.

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

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

Lawrence v Texas was the inspiration of changing the gay rights, and if wasn’t for this case gay rights wouldn’t be where it is today . In the case Lawrence v. Texas, which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual consent was invalidated in Texas. John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested for having an illegal type of sex. However this law was only enforced in the state of Texas. Lawrence and Garner's appeal was that what they had been doing was protected the Fourteenth Amendment, which, “prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization.” The court's final decision was 6-3 in favor of Lawrence.

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

For years there have been forbidden love and marriage in the history of the United States, I decided to write a reflection on my thoughts views, fact findings and information regarding biracial marriages and segregation laws that were discriminatory in history. I read the short story about the Loving family and their pursuit to the Supreme Court in 1967, I thought of my own family history and realized that my paternal grandparents would’ve been prosecuted had they lived in Virginia or any other state that prohibited bi-racial marriages in the 1900s.

The Lovings traveled to Washington, D.C. to marry, where interracial marriage was legal, and it was the nation’s capital that they would later return to when they were forced to leave their home. But in 1950s Virginia, their relationship wasn’t that simple. Richard was white and Mildred was black, and in the eyes of the state’s anti-miscegenation laws, they were committing a felony. Find out how a couple in love brought forward the landmark case, Loving v. Virginia, which forever changed the color of marriage in the United

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.

In the case Obergefell v. Hodges, the sixth Circuit recognized that banning same-sex marriage did not violate the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. James Obergefell and John Arthur James, who were legally married in Maryland in 2013, filed a lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio for charging the state’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages on death certificates on July 19, 2013, and the case was assigned to Judge Timothy S. Black. On July 22, 2013, Judge Black agreed a temporary restraining order that required the state to recognize the marriage of Mr. Obergefell and Mr. Arthur on Mr. Arthur’s death certificate. In addition, on September 26, 2013, the plaintiffs

On June 2, 1958 Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving went to Washington D.C. to get married and they went back to Virginia a few days later. But because Mildred was of African-American and Native American decent, and Richard was white they were arrested for violating the state law that prohibits interracial marriage. At the time, Virginia was one of 17 states, including Texas and Alabama, that had laws prohibiting interracial marriage (Wolfe). The Supreme Court Case Loving v. Virginia is an important of part of American history that has had a huge impact on racial equality and has helped change the definition of marriage in the United States forever.

Hodges concluded that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of a person protected by the Constitution. The Court has long afforded the right to marry constitutional protection. But the standard test for identifying a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause is that the right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition (Washington Post)”. However, the majority opinion went further to find that “the liberties implied within the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause have stretched to certain personal choices central to a person’s dignity and autonomy, including their intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs (Washington Post)”. Using this idea, the majority opinion concluded that the liberty interest to marry extends to same-sex couples. The ruling has helped gay rights advocates fight more than a hundred and fifteen pieces of legislation that were introduced in state legislatures that were targeting gay people. The majority opinion agreed that the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change. “In addition to clearing the way for same-sex marriage nationwide, Friday’s decision may help end discrimination against gays and lesbians in other matters, such as adoption and custody rights, legal experts say (LATimes)”. Gay couples can now have no problem matters when wanting to start a family because of the great decision made by the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in the United States v. Windsor, which struck down a federal law denying benefits to married same-sex couples, and exactly twelve years after his majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws making gay sex a crime.“In all his decisions Justice Kennedy embraced a vision of a living Constitution, one that evolves with societal changes (NYTimes)”. Kennedy makes a great point that the generations before wrote and ratified the Bill

Supporters of gay marriage in the United States were a minority group for quite some time. (Green, 2015) The topic of homosexuality and same sex marriage is one that probes the primary question of whether or not same sex marriages are ones fundamental right under both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Lempert, 2015) The case of Obergefell v. Hodges was a case that held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to recognize and grant same sex marriage licenses to couples that have been granted that right in other jurisdictions. This case may be considered a significant decision of the United States

To begin with, not until May 18, 1970 was the gay community involved within the legal system; on May 18, 1970, they were two students from the University of Minnesota their names were Richard Baker and Michael McConnell (“Bahn’s, Angela J. and Nyla R. Branscomb”). They were the first gay couple to ask for a Same-Sex Marriage license. They were denied, accepted of the marriage license base of their sexual orientation. Baker and McConnell sued the state for discrimination; they went to the State Supreme Court and they lost (Bahn’s, Angela J. and Nyla R. Branscomb “). Their case is considered the Baker vs. Nelson case and it’s been used in multiple states as a way to block marriage equality (”Bahn’s, Angela J. and Nyla R. Branscomb).