The Amendment Of Same Sex Marriage

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

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.

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

The advancement of the Fourteenth Amendment, as indicated by Eric Foner in “Our Living Constitution”, speaks on how to concede a protected right to security and to keep the administration from forcing on that privilege is the foundation to this decision. Granting without acknowledging that society has considered same sex relations as immoral it does not follow that this is a sufficient

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.

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

The United States Constitution protects certain liberties in the Bill of Rights and rights deemed “fundamental” that are “traditionally protected by our society.” (Michael H. v. Gerald D.). The liberty at issue in this case is the right to marry, which has been deemed fundamental by this Court in Loving v. Virginia, where we stated that “[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” (Loving v. Virginia). The petitioners in the case at bar seek that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages be equal to traditional, opposite-sex couples.

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

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).

The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by racial discriminations. Under the United States Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state (Lexis 10). On June 12, 1967 the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court, which had affirmed the Loving’s convictions and held upheld the constitutionality of the statutes. The Court rejected the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications was enough to remove the classification from the U.S. Constitution Amendment Fourteen. The amendment proscription of all invidious racial discriminations and held there was no legitimate overriding purpose which justified the classification. The Court found that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violated the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause and deprived appellants of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment.

The Scotus asks two key questions in the case of Obergefell V Hodges after the petition is granted on the 16th of January 2015. The first question is “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?” and the second question is “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed

In defense of marriage by John Corny, President Bill Clinton and the government were able to approve the defense of marriage act (DOMA). DOMA is defined as the union of a man and a woman which it was what mostly of the people consider to be right. The main question is if people should continue this or change? The answer is that many activists have been trying to change that definition. This changes has already begun in many states of the country , and those who supported DOMA long time ago, are not able to support marriage today. There is one thing that has never become different, it is how people think a kid is best raised by a woman and a man. However, today marriage appears to be in a general agreement that is being complicated.

The fourteenth amendment states that “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 life, liberty, or property”. This is a social constitutional issue because the fourteenth amendment should allow to have the same rights as any person does. The right to marry should be allowed to gay couples because it’s allowed for people who aren’t gay. In the case United States v Windsor the gay couples didn’t have the same benefits as a “regular” couple would, because the gay couple weren’t given the same rights, they had to pay taxes that weren’t necessary for a married couple. The Supreme Court says that all people are treated equally they have to go through a test called Lindsley Test. This tests checks out the standards of the case and what classifications they fall

Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment gives us the right to marry as it is viewed as personal liberty. In Meyer v. Nebraska the court stated that “without doubt…denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized…as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Therefore if someone wants to get married it's their decision and the state cannot interfere with that. This makes that denying anyone the right to marry unconstitutional