The Fight For Equal Marriage

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).

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.

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court removed the ban on same-sex marriage nationwide. On July 15, 2015, Kenneth Jost published an article named “Will there be more gains after marriage ruling?” In this article, Jost discusses the viewpoints of the general public and argues that there may still be a struggle to gain full rights and respect for lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. The article covers the reaction of the public on June 26, along with politicians stand-points on the subject, and the Caitlyn Jenner controversy. Jost’s main argument is that LGBT people are not being protected by the government, even though they have gained the right to marry.

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 Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court successfully adopts the 14th amendment and applies both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause to establish banning of same-sex marriages unconstitutional.

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.

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

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 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).

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 overall basis of the case Obergefell V Hodges has to do with two men by the name of James Obergefell and John Arthur and these two men filing a lawsuit to challenge the state of Ohio and its refusal to recognize the fact that the two were in a same-sex marriage and that it should carry over to the death certificate. The two married in Maryland in 2013 where it is legal. Mr. Arthur, suffered from an illness that eventually took his life two months after litigation began. Due to the laws in Ohio, and

The petitioners were two men whose same-sex partners had died and fourteen same-sex couples who all brought cases in their respective District Courts challenging either the denial of their right to marry or the right to have their marriage performed elsewhere recognized in their own state. The cases were heard in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, each of which defines marriage as between a woman and a man. In each case, the relevant District Court found in favor of the petitioner. Each of the respondents, who were state officials responsible

The case that shocked the nation this past summer Obergefell v. Hodges has made big waves. This landmark case decided that gay marriage cannot be made illegal. This verdict shocked and disgusted many while just as many cheered for the victory they had been fighting for, for so long. The fight for gays to be able to marry has been a long road and culminated at this Supreme Court case. The problems were not even close to being over sadly. While there were plenty of people that celebrated this decision those who opposed gay marriage chose to oppose anything the Supreme Court said dismissing them and any power they have. This has led the way to many people opposing the Supreme Court and causing major legal issues all across the nation claiming that obeying this verdict would mean violating what they believe. The main question that needs to be answered is does the verdict of Obergefell v. Hodges make people cast aside their beliefs to follow the law?

In April 28, 2015, the Obergefell v. Hodges case was conducting an oral argument about two and a half hours in US Supreme Court. The core issue is whether the rights of same-sex marriage should be protected by The Fourteenth Amendment.