Same Sex Marriage Should Be Legal

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.

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Many conservative groups do NOT agree with this decision. The gay marriage debate has been simmering for as long as I can remember. The four articles I have selected give information from four different perspectives including that of liberals, conservatives, homosexuals, and orthodox Jews. With so many differing opinions, one can understand why it's been so hard for the nation to come to agree on this issue.

In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) the United States Supreme Court affirmed that the first amendment and fourteenth amendment gave American citizens certain freedoms, such as the right to privacy. In turn, the Court struck down the Connecticut birth control ban, and forbade the government from making laws that interfere with the personal matters of married couples and their physician. However, more importantly, in the Court’s majority opinion, it relied on decided cases that used the Bill of Rights to validate the right of privacy even though this right is never explicitly written in the Constitution. Even so, the Griswold v. Connecticut decision has served as a precedent for other monumental cases like Roe v. Wade (1973), while upholding a

Hodges, the Supreme Court adjudges the banning of same-sex marriage as violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court clearly establishes that marriage is a fundamental right because marriage is “decisions among the most intimate that an individual can make” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 12) and that individual autonomy should be protected under liberty. The Court also reasons that same-sex couples have the rights to enjoy intimate association that come with marriage. Because the Due Process Clause protects liberty of the citizens and rights to marriage is one of the fundamental liberties, prohibition of same-sex marriage violates the Due Process Clause. For Equal Protection Clause, the Court states that “same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 17). Because it is solely the sexual preference of the same-sex couples that deprives them of these benefits, the Court argues that the prohibition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection

When the government interferes with a fundamental right, the regulation or statute at issue must meet the strictest standard of scrutiny. In order to pass constitutional muster, the regulation or statute must be implemented for a “compelling government interest,” and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The regulations in each of the respective states prevent same-sex couples from marrying, or prevent recognition of legal, out-of-state marriages in their home

As a general rule, constitutional law examination differs depending on the nature of the right that is being asserted in a case. In the Constitution people have various rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Other rights in the Constitution are not presented in the Constitution, but they are arguably stated within its context. In this paper I will agree that the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges was right in affirming the equal rights of same-sex couples based on the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Court’s ruling in this case has an effect on the legal rights of children of same-sex couples, the rights of people who identify as gay, and the states’ sovereign right to enact legislation that defines

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).

A metamorphosis in how the American judicial system perceives same-sex marriage, has developed over the past forty years. In October, 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that: "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”

The legalization of gay marriage has been a controversial issue in many state courts since the mid 1970s. Gay marriage scares many people because it strays from the norms of heterosexual relationships. Traditional American ideals have become a part of culture and society that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, or race, or gender, expect to have as a basic human rights. Several times in history these have been identified as inalienable rights. One of the expected rights of many American citizens is the right to choose who they love, who they marry, and how they live their day to day life. When heterosexual Americans were introduced to the idea of same sex marriage, they became afraid that it would “taint the minds of the young members of the community,” since homosexualty was and still is frowned upon in the community. Thus, the homosexual community’s opportunity to freely choose how to live their life is taken

A hot topic in American politics today is the question of civil rights. While a civil right is defined as an enforceable right or privilege, people still have trouble agreeing what should be counted as a civil right. In a recent event, two civil rights that come into contention with each other were gay marriage and religious freedom. A prime example of the conflict was the case of Kim Davis, who denied same-sex couples marriage licenses based on religious freedom. The case showed us that a civil right needs to have limitations so as to not infringe on other constitutional civil rights. In other words, the state should not allow religious freedom to hinder marriage equality. This is what we will examine throughout the

In Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the Supreme Court abandoned its previous doctrine for ruling upon an individual’s right to privacy. Written by Justice White, the opinion of the Court in this case focused on the morality of sodomy, particularly sodomy between homosexuals, rather than the constitutional question of privacy. The Court made substantial progress in defining the right to privacy in the preceding years, but the decision in Bowers demonstrated that even the “highest Court in the land” is sometimes unable to look beyond stereotypes and prejudices (Banks, 92).

In this article Norman Viera analyses the case of Hardwick vs. bowers. In his opinion, he thinks that the ruling in this case was not fair and that there was lucky of recognizing the right to privacy. In his argument he compares the case of Hardwick with the case of Roe VS wade. Norman states that the court ruling indicated that there is no right to privacy in the cases that does not involve family matters. In other words, the court stated that right to privacy is limited to the matters of family only. He argues that homosexuality is related to heterosexuality and that heterosexuals can enter in a relationship which is like a family too ( 1987). On the same issue of right to privacy compared to the judgment in Roe vs. wade case, Norma states

take a stance on homosexuality, these individuals do have certain liberties, just as all persons have liberties unless a legitimate state interest can be found to say otherwise. The Court’s broad sense of “liberty” has opened the door for the inclusion of same-sex marriage to be included in one’s personal liberties. The denials of the benefits that come with marriage have other impacts in the life of the person as they may face tougher medical, economical and familial situations. Having the right to visit an ailing partner in the hospital, buying property and filing taxes together, and decisions to raise children and have legal equal access over those children are just some of the burdens that unmarried same-sex couples face. The only time a liberty is allowed to be taken away from an individual is if there exists a legitimate state interest. There is no rational state interest in same-sex marriage. The protection of family values would

Same-sex marriage rights have traditionally been legally prohibited in the United States as it was seen as a denigrate to the sanctity of marriage, against the word of God, and is naturally abnormal (Alex King). This law deprives same-sex couples from rights that have been granted for opposite-sex couples, which is clearly a denial of a fundamental freedom and equal rights to same-sex couples. Although same-sex marriage caused no harm to people in society, same-sex couples had to obey this law throughout the past and conform to such unjust laws. This is only one example of people obliged to obey unjust laws. The limits of conformity and law reforming have been a subject brought up repeatedly be new generations, hence it attracted some of the

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The fourteenth amendment tells us that we have a right to our privileges and there can’t be a law that takes those away. If a state requires a license to be married, but also is able to deny people their license, isn’t that making a law that deprives a denies a person their right to be married?