Summary: Obergefell V. Hodges Ruling

The history of LGBTQ+ rights in the United States is long and complicated. LGBTQ+ identities that are accepted by people outside that community change with time, as some identities establish themselves as commonplace while others are just being introduced to non-LGBTQ+ people. However, rights and acceptance for the LGBTQ+ community are nearly always tied to legal recognition. Lawrence v. Texas questions whether or not a Texas statute that bans homosexual sodomy is constitutional. Although LGBTQ+ rights issues are controversial, everyone deserves to be equally protected under law regardless of sexual orientation. Likewise, the Fourteenth Amendment’s

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the United States Supreme Court held that same sex couples can now exercise the fundamental right of marriage nationwide. Justice Kennedy reached this result by redefining what marriage is.

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

”since the beginning of civilization, in every known society, governments have recognized a marriage between a man and a woman because it provides the next generation outstanding citizens and is the only means of melding two sexes into a stronger and more complete whole” (Kaufman 164).

simply because, to them, marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman.

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 Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court successfully adopts the 14th amendment and applies both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause to establish banning of same-sex marriages unconstitutional.

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.

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

Hyde v Hyde 1866 defined the term marriage as: “The voluntary union of one man and one woman at the exclusion of all others for life”. This definition is built of the back of a very morally religious country, and in fact prior to the definition it uses the words “in christendom” . The basis of this concept can be traced right back to the creation of religion with the creation of Adam and Eve as Husband and Wife in the bible . This position has stood the test of time and is still to some extent true in today’s society. However the Legislature and Judiciary have over the last forty to fifty years appeared to severely weaken the position and in some instances have gone as far as saying Hyde is no longer relevant .

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

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.

The decision reached at the Supreme Court regarding the case of Obergefell v. Hodges is that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to be allowed to marry each other. To make it plain and simple, my belief is that I agree with the court’s decision. Whether you are a homosexual couple or heterosexual couple, I believe your marriage rights should be equal and not separated due to any religious beliefs and other’s personal feelings. I believe people have a fundamental right to practice their religion, but that right doesn’t grant anyone the power to force said religious beliefs onto anyone. America is the land of the free, you can do what you believe in as long as it doesn’t harm others and is safe for yourself and the people whom are affected

The article I choose was called Supreme Court Rules Gay Marriage Is a Nationwide Right. "The Supreme Court on Friday ruled same-sex couples across the nation have a protected right to wed, a milestone choice that scrapes away state bans on gay unions and tops a fast American change on the importance of marriage" (Bravin, 2015). The 5-4 choice composed by Justice Anthony Kennedy, his fourth real gay rights, administering more than two decades, struck down limitations in power in 13 states and means each of the 50 states must perceive same-sex unions. The court was considering a test to laws in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee that restricted marriage to inverse sex couples. The decision for the situation, Obergefell v. Hodges, takes after a fast move in legitimate and societal acknowledgment of same-sex marriage over the previous decade and reflects all the more by and large how gay rights throughout an area have moved to the forefront from the edges of a national level headed discussion over the importance of balance. Gay rights supporters cheered Friday 's decision, both before the Supreme Court and in unrehearsed festivals across the nation.

Professor Johnson’s lecture sparked conversation about whether or not the Supreme Court ruling accomplished enough for the LGBT community. At the time, I was unaware of how the ruling could be something that wasn’t an all-around win for the community, but after being introduced to queer politics