Obergefell Vs. Hodges: 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).

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 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

In this case, Perry, the plaintiffs compiling of Kristen Perry and Sandra Stier, a same- sex couple, filed suit in federal court after being denied the right to marry under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. They named the defendants Hollingsworth which consisted of California’s governor, attorney general, other state and local officials responsible for enforcing the California’s marriage laws. For the reason that Governor Schwarzenegger, and other officials not wanting to defend Proposition 8 that amended the California Constitution the federal District Court allowed ballet proponents to defend it. After it was deemed unconstitutional the original defendants decided not

The advancement of the Fourteenth Amendment, as indicated by Eric Foner in “Our Living Constitution”, speaks on how to concede a protected right to security and to keep the administration from forcing on that privilege is the foundation to this decision. Granting without acknowledging that society has considered same sex relations as immoral it does not follow that this is a sufficient

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

…this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the

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

On June 4, 2008, the plaintiffs in this case include fifteen same-sex couples who wish to marry in California and support groups for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Californians. They were denied many times; however, now before the California Supreme Court, they argue that “California has long led the nation in recognizing that constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal protection, privacy, due process and freedom of association and expression require that lesbian and gay people, like all people, be treated fairly under the law.” Nonetheless these protections, California has denied same-sex couples the right to marry. That denial, they argue, violates the California Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the highest judicial court in a county or a state and it is the highest federal court in the United States today. Today I will be reviewing the case of Obergefell v. Hodges which was a Supreme Court case about same sex marriage. I will review the justice who wrote the opinion of the court and the justice who wrote the dissenting opinion for this case.

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).

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the plaintiffs, including fourteen same-sex couples, argued for their marriages performed legally in another state to be recognized in their state of residence. They were asking that the privileges and responsibilities of marriage be granted to them as they would to any opposite-sex couple. The plaintiffs gave examples of how unequal protection negatively affects them to convince the judges that they should have their marriage recognized. Obergefell was denied being included in his spouse’s death record. DeBoer was disallowed adoption with her spouse, which could cause issues should one of the children become sick or one of the parents die.

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 overall basis of the case Obergefell V Hodges has to do with two men by the name of James Obergefell and John Arthur and these two men filing a lawsuit to challenge the state of Ohio and its refusal to recognize the fact that the two were in a same-sex marriage and that it should carry over to the death certificate. The two married in Maryland in 2013 where it is legal. Mr. Arthur, suffered from an illness that eventually took his life two months after litigation began. Due to the laws in Ohio, and

Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. wrote a dissent in which he argued that, while same-sex marriage might be good and fair policy, 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. Instead, this issue should be decided by individual state legislatures based on the will of their electorates. The Constitution and judicial precedent clearly protect a right to marry and require states to apply laws regarding marriage equally, but the Court cannot overstep its bounds and engage in judicial policymaking. The precedents regarding the right to marry only strike down unconstitutional limitations on marriage as it has