Obergefell Vs. Hodges

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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 aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

The decision reached at the Supreme Court regarding the case of Obergefell v. Hodges is that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to be allowed to marry each other. To make it plain and simple, my belief is that I agree with the court’s decision. Whether you are a homosexual couple or heterosexual couple, I believe your marriage rights should be equal and not separated due to any religious beliefs and other’s personal feelings. I believe people have a fundamental right to practice their religion, but that right doesn’t grant anyone the power to force said religious beliefs onto anyone. America is the land of the free, you can do what you believe in as long as it doesn’t harm others and is safe for yourself and the people whom are affected

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.

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

On June 4, 2008, the plaintiffs in this case include fifteen same-sex couples who wish to marry in California and support groups for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Californians. They were denied many times; however, now before the California Supreme Court, they argue that “California has long led the nation in recognizing that constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal protection, privacy, due process and freedom of association and expression require that lesbian and gay people, like all people, be treated fairly under the law.” Nonetheless these protections, California has denied same-sex couples the right to marry. That denial, they argue, violates the California Constitution.

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).

Supporters of gay marriage in the United States were a minority group for quite some time. (Green, 2015) The topic of homosexuality and same sex marriage is one that probes the primary question of whether or not same sex marriages are ones fundamental right under both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Lempert, 2015) The case of Obergefell v. Hodges was a case that held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to recognize and grant same sex marriage licenses to couples that have been granted that right in other jurisdictions. This case may be considered a significant decision of the United States

Both sides of legalizing same sex marriage have many reasons why this legislation should or should not pass. Proponents for marriage equality want the state government to pass laws that allows same sex marriage and gives homosexuals equal rights. As stated in the Gay Marriage Pros and Cons website, the proponents believe that same sex marriage bans are discriminatory and unconstitutional in that they are not given rights for what they believe in. They argue that same-sex