The Supreme Court 's Constitutional Bonds Essay

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 Obergefell v. Hodges, the United States Supreme Court held that same sex couples can now exercise the fundamental right of marriage nationwide. Justice Kennedy reached this result by redefining what marriage is.

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.

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,

The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.

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.

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).

Supreme Court case of 1824. The issue was federal power to regulate interstate commerce. The case was about how Aaron Ogden had a license from the state of New York to run steamboats between New York and New Jersey. Thomas Gibbons had the licence but from the federal government to run steamboats in the same area. But a NY court ruled that Gibbons had to stop running his boats but Ogden could continue to operate his boats. So, Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court. Gibbons argued that the commerce clause of the Constitution gave Congress exclusive right to regulate business between states. The decision was that the court sai that the State of New York law did not apply because the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Court

The dissenting opinion held a different interpretation of the case than the majority opinion. The Justices that dissented were Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Chief Justice Roberts stated that although same-sex marriage is fair, it is not specifically stated in the Constitution, so the Supreme Court cannot make the decision for the entire population of the United States. He concluded that the decision is beyond the Supreme Court’s powers and should be left to the individual states to decide (“Opinion”). In his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia noted that the Court would be overstepping its boundaries by exercising legislative power and agreed with Roberts that the decision should be left for the states to decide. Justice Thomas whole-heartedly

Judge Moore informed probate judges on the eve of the historical same-sex marriage decision that the federal ruling did not apply to them. Later on, in a separate ruling, it was ordered that the many of the counties that were holding back from marrying same-sex couples were to start issuing licenses to same-sex couples. Still Judge Moore says he stands firm in that while the court can authorize same-sex marriages but they cannot force a constitutional officer to disobey his oath by doing so (Elliott, 2015). Federal district judges held the law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman unconstitutional (Eastman, 2015). However, the United States Supreme Court met and ratified Chief Justice Moore’s stance.

The proposed legalization of same-sex marriage is one of the most significant issues in contemporary American family law. As a heavily campaigned development currently discussed in law assessment; these extremely confrontational and debatable political questions are facing present day American courts. If same-sex marriage is legalized, its affect on the parents, children, same sex couples, families, and the social and political world will be astronomical. The arguments surrounding the issue though confrontational nonetheless are easily seen from a wide array of perspectives. One of the perspectives states that marriage is a promise to a spouse to stay loyal and faithful in all

Same sex- marriage is still the topic of many peoples conversation across the country. Citizens, divided by politic party, are very passionate about how they feel about it. The president didn’t approve of it at first, but now he finally accepts same- sex marriage, the Judicial System uses its power to dictate to the States, forcing them to accept same- sex marriage. Both houses of Congress continue to debate what marriage means.

The Supreme Court has had many different places where it was located over the years. There has been a struggle to find a permanent home for the most powerful court of law. At first, the meetings were in the Merchant Exchange Building in New York City. The court then followed the nation's capitol to Philadelphia in 1790. In 1800 the court again relocated to Washington DC. At first they spent their time meeting in various places. The place to find the Supreme Court now is in Washington DC, on First Street located in Northeast.

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.