Supreme Court Case Romer v. Evans

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

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 1960, the Oceana Supreme Court, in State v. Fenny, refused to the extend the 1803 statute to protect "homosexual marriage". This case is not applicable to Clark because the matter involves a homosexual act not a homosexual marriage.

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

As a result the case arrived to United States Supreme Court and the petition was filed on 16 July 2002. A huge number of organizations have filed briefs on the side of petitioners as well as respondents. A lot of public attention was attracted to the case. Petitioners were represented by Paul Smith, an openly gay lawyer. The arguments were heard on the 26th March, 2003 and the decision was declared three months later on the 26th June. These arguments did put some questions into people’s mind. The first question presented was, “whether the complainant's conviction for having sexual intercourse, which is the criminal action under the Texas law, was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of the equal protection by law.” As it was already mentioned above, the homosexual conduct law made the sexual activity between the same sex individuals a crime, while the same behaviour of the different sex couples was completely legal. The second question was, “whether the petitioner's activity in their home violated the rights for liberty and privacy which are protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” And finally, the third question presented was, “whether the Bowers v. Hardwick should be overruled.” All of these questions were discussed and answered throughout the

Facts: In 2008, the California Supreme Court held that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the California Constitution. In response, California voters passed Proposition 8, amending the State Constitution such that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.” The California Supreme Court held that Proposition 8 was properly enacted under state law. Respondents (Perry et al.) are two same sex couples who wish to marry, and filed suit to challenge Proposition 8 in Federal Court. The suit named various state officials as defendants, yet they did not defend nor appeal any subsequent ruling in court. The federal district court allowed the official proponents (Hollingsworth et al.) of the Proposition to intervene

The 14th Amendment is more towards supporting Kenndey's view than Scalia. The amendment states, "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" which should not go against gay marriage, but defend it. It claims the law cannot simply take away rights or presume any kind of misjudgement of a person.

The judges based their decision on the principle of equality of all before the law. The 14th Amendment requires a state to celebrate a marriage between two persons of the same sex. According to US constitutional law, each US state has its own Constitution, but it is above all the US Federal Constitution. To date 37 of the 50 American states, as well as the District of Columbia, recognized gay marriage. Now, the 14 American states that still refuse to unite two persons of the same sex will not only have to marry

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy stated in the majority opinion: "The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them." Many conservatives are completely against gay marriage and they have stated that they will fight to have the Supreme Court ruling overturned.

Despite that, it has been upheld in favor of, every single time by the Supreme Court. One of the major justices in both decisions was Roberts, for that purpose he has been criticized by liberals and conservatives for voting politically. There was another key court case in the same time frame, same- sex marriage. In this particular case, Roberts voted in discord, although the law still passed with a 5-4 majority. So why did Roberts vote for the one that restrains people and against the one which gives people more freedom? Well, there is an explanation for that. According to Rosen, Roberts attributes his decisions to an idea called “purposivism”; it holds that judges should not limit themselves to the word of a law, rather determine its’ extensive purpose. And due to this idea, Roberts has been able to base his decisions impartially rather than base it on political

Justice Scalia opened his dissent by claiming he had no personal opinion of the concept of gay marriage, rather he felt he had to write his own dissent in order to “call attention to the Court’s threat to American democracy.” In almost every sentence of his dissent he derides his colleagues, using expressions such as, “ludicrous, absurd, irrational and preposterous.” His opinions were nasty, and personal even though he states same-sex marriage isn't a personal matter to him. Scalia blames the Court for creating a fundamental right that does not exist, yet the Constitution does not state specific fundamental rights. The dissent was written with such hatred towards not only the ruling, but also the Justices who made up the decision. Whether

In June of 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same sex couples. This landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges was met with much resistance. The majority of Americans voted for the constitutional amendment, which is a ban on gay marriage. Some of these Americans, ironically believe in providing equal rights to the gay community. These rights including no