The Case : Great Promise And Its Impact On The Future

In summary of these, the Obergefell V Hodges has received opposition as well as propositions at different degrees, but the majority of the debaters’ are the proposing side. The main idea here was to legalize the Same-sex marriage which had been prohibited in the previous court rulings (Siegel, 2015). The proposing team was emphasizing on the following factors; the right to personal choices as clarified in the human dignity, the right to intimate association, marriage as a foundation of the American social order and the ability to sustain and safeguard children and families (Siegel, 2015).

In my opinion, this court case gives freedoms to students today when it comes to religious clubs or decisions to participate in religious activities and allows students to make their own choices to determine their path in life.

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

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.

The discrimination against sexual orientation is protected under the analogous ground of s.15 (1) of Charter. In this case, an Act created a distinction on the analogous ground against gays, lesbians and other disadvantage groups and resulted in disadvantage. The s.15 (1) of Charter guarantee equal protection and benefits before and under the law without discrimination but in this case the human right law did not equally benefited or protected the gays and lesbians. Furthermore, if there is any law that discriminate some individuals or groups of people, the equality rights protects them from that discrimination. For instance, without the equality rights, people like Vriend would not have received equal treatment. It is also relevant because the SCC had set the precedents for lower courts and decision prevent further discrimination against

Historically, the same sex marriage movement can be traced back to the early 1970’s, when gay rights activists begun the movement by bringing forward three suits in Minnesota, Kentucky, and Washington, but none of the suits were successful (Rosenberg). Following these actions in 1986, the case of Bowers v. Hardwick was brought before the Supreme Court

Lawrence v Texas was the inspiration of changing the gay rights, and if wasn’t for this case gay rights wouldn’t be where it is today . In the case Lawrence v. Texas, which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual consent was invalidated in Texas. John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested for having an illegal type of sex. However this law was only enforced in the state of Texas. Lawrence and Garner's appeal was that what they had been doing was protected the Fourteenth Amendment, which, “prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization.” The court's final decision was 6-3 in favor of Lawrence.

Society was impacted in a great effect, this was one of the first victories for people of the (then) small group of LGBT, a group that was still not quite as influential as it is today. I believe the court’s ruling was not trying to stir the LGBT movement forward in any sort of specific way, but instead were trying to push for equality in justice, and having specific groups of people (Gay, lesbian, black, hispanic and so forth) is at the end of the day, an injustice to the people of the United States. There was severe involvement by civil liberties groups, as many saw that this court case would set a precedence in many state laws and some groups were concerned with the aftermath of the case. Kelly Shackleford, a Texas attorney, was affiliated with a Fundamentalist Christian group “Focus on the Family” and he argued for the group that Lawrence V. Texas would be used as a trump card for homosexual equality, an “atomic bomb that they could carry around to attack any law that does not treat homosexuality on an equal basis with heterosexuality." He would also argue that marriage laws could become unconstitutional and that all marriage laws were in potential danger from a Lawrence win. These concerns were put aside and had little weight in the case, other claims that the case would make polygamy and bestiality legal in the bedroom were criticized for being outlandish and inherently insulting to the court. Professor Laurence Tribe wrote that Lawrence v. Texas “may well be remembered as the Brown v. Board of Education of gay and lesbian Americans.” What this case did do was make the roadway to equality for gay, lesbian and bisexual people. The landmark case of Obergefell V. Hodges that made same-sex marriage a fundamental right was a possibility because

Before this case, a number of states had anti-miscegenation statues in place, criminalizing love in the name of racism. This case brought an end to the acceptance of scientific racism in the realm of marriage in that showed such legislation not as sound or logical but as hateful and unconstitutional. Loving’s legacy is strong even today, as it played a pivotal role in the groundbreaking same sex marriage case, Obergefell V. Hoges, paving away for the legalization of gay marriage. Without this case and the intervention of the federal government, states could have very well continued their practice of anti-miscegenation policies. The atrocities committed upon the Lovings and the millions of couples affected by such hateful policies are an embarrassment to our nation’s history. This case acted as a federal resolve to past and future Americans fighting for the right to love. Loving V. Virginia led the nation away from its dark past and towards a more equal future, filled not with “scientific” defenses for racism but with scientific defenses against

Another reason this case was an improvement to the country in general is “free to practice religion.” Many of the religious cases had an impact on Jehovah’s Witnesses. There had been a lot of charges on people of this religion because of their practice. It had been ruled that preventing Jehovah’s Witnesses from “exercising their belief system” was unconstitutional.

The article goes time by time laying out the case for the common reader. It make it very understandable and easy to follow helping the reader get a better sense of the case being presented. The article is a “play-by-play” of the justices, attorneys and all persons involved in the case speaking. It shows how many parts of gay rights were not completely understood by the justices and therefore the case turned into both a case and an gay rights educational study. One of the many concerns of the case came up shortly after this host of questions was asked. If same-sex marriage was deemed legal by the Supreme court, then would this lead the way for other groups trying to gain the same rights like polygamous (Barbash)? In return this also lead to concerns about the Supreme Court overstepping its jurisdiction and abusing its power. By some it was felt that since the State had the legal power over marriages, that the Supreme Court could not rule whether same-sex marriage had to be allowed or not (Barbash). After a few more questions are discussed in the article, it goes on the events of the hearing itself, like how a protester broke out in chant against same-sex marriage (Barbash). Overall this article is a good source because it shows the entirety of the case and not just one-point of view on the

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

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).

For the mock trial I was assigned to be one of the prosecuting attorneys. After being presented with case materials which included facts of the case, statements from both prosecuting and defense witnesses, penal code for the alleged charges, and map of the crime scene, we as a group decided to create one Google Drive document. There we would upload our parts of the case and help other group members with their assignments.

By deconstructing the common comparison of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage, she intends to defend her view that interracial marriage is not a slippery slope decision that will roll down hill in an out of control manner and head for the worst like, she claims, same-sex marriage will. Opposing Barber’s views, Quindlen wrote an essay in 2008 entitled: “The Loving Decision” where she sets forth her support for same-sex marriage by constructing a comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. She uses this comparison to suggest that same-sex marriage will, too, be validated by the courts because “the world only spins forward” (258). Even though Barber and Quindlen stand on opposite sides of the debate with views clashing on fundamental concepts like the meaning of marriage, the nature of homosexuality, and the applicability of the Loving v. Virginia court case to the issue, in various areas the two authors have common ground.