Summary Of Same-Sex Marriage : Obergefell V. 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.

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.

government by using the “right to privacy” argument for many other court cases and not just for married couples. Griswold v Connecticut has influenced other cases’ decisions like Eisenstadt v. Baird to take it one step farther and let unmarried couple use contraception also. Similarly, Roe v Wade also used Griswold v Connecticut to help decide their case as well. This case was also quoted in linked cases that led the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision to allow same sex marriage in the court case Obergefell v. Hodges.

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

Same-sex couples in the states of Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan challenged those states’ refusal to recognize same-sex marriage that occurred in other states that recognize same-sex marriage. The conflict between the states and same-sex couples brought up conflicts that were then taken to the court. The question of the Obergefell v. Hodges case was “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex” (“OBERGEFELL V. HODGES”). The second question of the Obergefell v. Hodges case was “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state” (“OBERGEFELL V. HODGES”). The most prominent issues that the case presented were that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendement and Due

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

James Obergefell and John Arthur married in Maryland in 2013. They lived in Ohio, which did not recognize same sex marriage. When John Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, the couple sued to have Obergefell’s name placed on the death certificate as a surviving spouse. The U.S. District Court overturned Ohio’s law banning same-sex marriage. The respondents appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On appeal, the decision was reversed; therefore, Arthur’s death certificate could not have Obergefall’s name on it. The case was brought to the Supreme Court and consolidated with three similar cases.

In The Gay Marriage Case, Obergefell v Hodges, the United States Supreme Court decided that a state may not prohibit same-sex marriage. Instead, it emphasized that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to the gay society through the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment of the United States of America Constitution. The involved decision maker in the case was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who gave four primary reasons for his decision.

As a result, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, a House of Representative’s committee, attempted to uphold the bill’s constitutionality. They appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the lower courts’ decision, but the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts’ decision and deemed the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in 2013. Then, Obergefell vs Hodges officially stated that same-sex marriage is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause in 2015 (“Same Sex Marriage, 2017).

Unlike gender, race, age, religion or ethnicity, sexual orientation anti-discrimination still vary by state. Until 2009, a 1969 federal law defined hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, religion, or ethnicity. In October 2009, Congress passed the Matthew Shepard Act, which expanded the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. In 2013, in United States v Windsor, The Supreme Court invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), stating that it violated the equal protections in the Fourteenth Amendment. In a 5-to-4 decision by Justice Kennedy, The Court stated, “Careful consideration” had to be given to “discriminations of unusual character.” On June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker and required all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriage throughout out the United States. This case actually made Missouri's Constitution null and void, because Missouri's Constitution directly stated that marriage is between a man and a woman, discriminating against same-sex

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.

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

In our nation, the battle still continues over marriage equality. In 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples had the right to get married. 18,000 same-sex couples were married throughout the state. Six months later, voters passed Proposition 8, a ballot initiative, which defined marriage as between one man and one man in California. In the article published by Marriage Equality USA, Prop 8 Hurt My Family – Ask me how, discusses Proposition 8 before it was overturned. Marriage Equality USA describes their selves, as: “A national organization whose mission is to secure legally recognizes civil marriage equality for all, at the federal and state level, without regard to gender identity or sexual orientation” (p. 69). Marriage Equality USA illustrates that Proposition 8 caused Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) individual, family member and straight allies experiences homophobia, verbal abuse and physical abuse. Marriage Equality USA decided to write this essay in hopes that the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8.

Advice to a U.S. State Senator on whether natural law might determine whether passing a statute prohibiting same-sex marriage is an appropriate legislative act?