Summary Of Same-Sex Marriage : Obergefell V. Hodges

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.

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

The controversy between marriage equality and the exercise of religious freedom is a confliction between nondiscrimination laws and religious freedom laws. Religious freedom seemed to be an important aspect of an American citizen, after all it is the very first amendment to the constitution. With each American citizen being granted equality by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination made against an individual based on his/her sexual preference may seem to violate this act. In history, religious organizations typically been immune from state and local laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, with the cases of Obergefell v. Hodges and Kim Davis this stance is challenged.

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 the case of Barron v. Baltimore in 1833, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights are just restrictions on the federal government alone. To prevent the states from limiting rights granted to the citizens in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment was passed. The 14th Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves after the American Civil War. It was severely contested, especially by the states of the Confederacy that were defeated and were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment’s first section includes many clauses, but one important one is the Equal Protection Clause. This clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. The clause has also been the basis for many decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups. Eventually, selective incorporation occurred in which the civil liberties granted in the Bill of Rights were applied to the states on a case-by-case basis through the 14th Amendment. Now, the same liberties that were granted to the federal government, were now enacted with the state governments. Same-sex marriage is one of these fundamental rights, rights that require a high degree of protection from government

Supreme Court stated that the “Homosexual Conduct” law of Texas was unconstitutional and the law violated the 14th Amendment Due process Clause. This Clause protects  the right to personal freedom in intimate decisions. The issue wasn’t "the right to engage in homosexual sodomy" but  "the right to privacy in the home" and another is "the right to freely engage in consensual, adult sex."

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

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)

Unlike gender, race, age, religion or ethnicity, sexual orientation anti-discrimination still vary by state. Until 2009, a 1969 federal law defined hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, religion, or ethnicity. In October 2009, Congress passed the Matthew Shepard Act, which expanded the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. In 2013, in United States v Windsor, The Supreme Court invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), stating that it violated the equal protections in the Fourteenth Amendment. In a 5-to-4 decision by Justice Kennedy, The Court stated, “Careful consideration” had to be given to “discriminations of unusual character.” On June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker and required all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriage throughout out the United States. This case actually made Missouri's Constitution null and void, because Missouri's Constitution directly stated that marriage is between a man and a woman, discriminating against same-sex

Same sex marriage has always been a sore spot in American Politics. Republicans used the religion card as the stanzas for disapproval, while Democrats fought to allow the freedom to love who we love in this world. The Obergefell vs. Hodges case legalized same sex marriage throughout all fifty states. The fight to legalize same sex marriage had been ongoing since the early nineties. With the right to for lasting legal bonds until and after death do them part, questions remain. What made this case so much more effective than those that proceeded it? In what ways are the right to marry whom we want being protected? And with the current elected officials, will this ruling stand or be overturned?

Same-sex couples in the states of Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan challenged those states’ refusal to recognize same-sex marriage that occurred in other states that recognize same-sex marriage. The conflict between the states and same-sex couples brought up conflicts that were then taken to the court. The question of the Obergefell v. Hodges case was “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex” (“OBERGEFELL V. HODGES”). The second question of the Obergefell v. Hodges case was “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state” (“OBERGEFELL V. HODGES”). The most prominent issues that the case presented were that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendement and Due

Advice to a U.S. State Senator on whether natural law might determine whether passing a statute prohibiting same-sex marriage is an appropriate legislative act?