Supreme Court Cases: The Obergefell V. Hodges Case

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

Obergefell v Hodges is the case to know when it comes to gay rights in the United States of America. It started in Maryland were Jim Obergefell and his partner, John Arthur were legally married in 2013 (ABC news). Later the couple moved to Ohio where their marriage license was not recognized by the state (ABC news). This hurt the couple and made them feel like they had been denied their basic rights as U.S. citizens. A few months after the case went to trial in the Federal case, John Arthur passed away of ALS or Lou Gehrig disease (ABC news); This led to a whole new cluster of legal issues. When the state went to file Mr. Arthur’s death certificate, Jim realized that his name was not written on the spouse line and would not be due to same-sex marriage prohibition laws in the state (ABC news). Not only did this infuriated Mr. Obergefell, it meant that he wouldn’t be able to receive John Arthur’s social security or receive any of the benefits spouses receive after losing a partner (ABC news). After fighting with the offices for weeks, Obergefell decide to take this issue to court not only to gain the respect his marriage deserved but to fight for all same-sex couples affected

Hodges, because the US Supreme Court case brought equal marriage rights to same-sex couples in every state. Fourteen same sex couples, with two individuals whose same sex partners were deceased, filed suits in federal districts courts of their home state’s, arguing that respondents’ state officials violated the 14th Amendment denying the individuals the right to marry or lawfully marry in another state given full recognition. One of the petitioners, Obergefell, had established a lasting commitment together with John Arthur but unfortunately Arthur was diagnosed with Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Due to that Obergefell and Arthur wanted to marry before Arthur died. The two married in Maryland but when Obergefell and Arthur came back to the state of Ohio where they encountered

Obergefell v. Hodges was a case where quite a few same sex couples went to court because their state refused to acknowledge their marriage from other states. It was raised from lower courts to the supreme court because their rights kept being denied. When the supreme court looked at it the issue was if the 14th amendment can force states to recognize same sex marriages from other states. It was a five to four vote ruling that their marriages must be recognized due to the due process clause which states that states cannot arbitrarily withhold rights. The dissenting argument was 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

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 Due Process Clause grants citizens their rights to “life, liberty, or property” and the Equal Protection Clause guarantees citizens equal treatment from the government. In Obergefell v. Hodges, James Obergefell married John Arthur in Maryland, where same-sex marriage is legal. After Arthur died, Obergefell filed a lawsuit, arguing that Ohio state’s restriction on Obergefell’s identification as Arthur’s spouse violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The states’ prohibition on same-sex marriage violates both clauses of the Fourteenth amendment as it not only deprives people from their fundamental liberty to marriage, but also discriminates them from their

Out of five key Supreme Court rulings, Obergefell v. Hodges was selected to be evaluated in this piece. The ban on same sex marriage is the law being challenged in the case. According to the case study, “groups of same-sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states' bans on same-sex marriage…” (Oyez, 2014).

In the summer of 2015 the U.S supreme court ruled in favor to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 countries in the United States. This all occurred because of the Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) case. This very important case involved “14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased” and the couples argued that the “state officials violated [their] 14th amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another state given full recognition and also violated their equal protection Clause. The supreme court ruled for this case because in the 14th Amendment it clearly declares that all people should have “equal protection under the law”, regardless of race or ethnicity.

In the court case Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. It was hardly an overwhelming vote; the majority vote was 5-4. The court case was on the subject of same sex marriage. The court ruled that the right to same sex marriage was protected under the constitution. At first, I did not really disagree with the ruling; I do not believe same sex marriage is right, but if that is what they want then it is their choice. After reading about the case, however, I have changed my mind. After reading the dissents of the Chief Justices that did not agree, my stance changed.

Let us start with Brown v. Buhman as the first example for why the average citizen should care about the supreme court. This case covers an issue with the Brown family a group of polygamists regarding a statute in Utah. This case brings up a few important things to be recognized. Primarily the case regards standing and mootness of a case, these are both important aspects of law to understand. For a case to continue and take place it has to be relevant and there has to be a reason for the case to be brought up. In the case of Brown v. Buman if part of the statute was deemed unconstitutional then the case would no longer be needed as it would solve the issue. Now although most people may feel that on the outside an understanding of this case is irrelevant to them as it handles a case of polygamy it holds many important considerations. One of which is free exercise

James Obergefell and John Arthur married in Maryland in 2013. They lived in Ohio, which did not recognize same sex marriage. When John Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, the couple sued to have Obergefell’s name placed on the death certificate as a surviving spouse. The U.S. District Court overturned Ohio’s law banning same-sex marriage. The respondents appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On appeal, the decision was reversed; therefore, Arthur’s death certificate could not have Obergefall’s name on it. The case was brought to the Supreme Court and consolidated with three similar cases.

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

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.

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