The supreme court case of Obergefell v. Hodges is one huge reason why we have same-sex marriage as of today. Richard Hodges is the defendant while James Obergefell is the plaintiff. As a result of this case, states are unable to pass laws that limit marriage of same-sex couples. It requires all states to license marriages between these couples, and makes states recognise marriages made outside of said states. Before this case, there were several other cases that supported similar, but not exact situations, which will be briefly covered in this essay. However, the Obergefell v. Hodges case is what officially made same-sex marriage undeniable by all states in the union.
Initially, the Supreme Court disagreed and/or did not wish to deal with
…show more content…
Opposers say that it was not implied to be used in this way, but intended for African Americans back when the 14th amendment was enforced in the year 1868. Although the opposers may seem to simply dislike the idea of same-sex marriage, some were only against the idea due to the lack of clarity in the writing of the amendment. They are more concerned in accurately reviewing the Constitution and its amendments, rather than for the benefit of the people. These people may argue that the decision should be left to the Legislative branch, rather than having the Supreme Court review a document which does not specify such a thing. This is not a fault of the Constitution, as it is unclear to leave room for interpretation. In the end, though, the Supreme Court ultimately decided the outcome in a 5-4 vote, with supporters of same-sex marriage in the majority by only one single justice. The leader of the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, stated that the Constitution clearly provides information in the 14th amendment, which says it is not possible to deny these marriages. Justice Scalia, on the other hand, still believed that same-sex marriage should be left to the states, not the federal …show more content…
As it has only been two years since the case was heard, there is not much we know about the influence it has created. But, it has finally overruled the outcome of the Baker v. Nelson case and sets a precedent for future cases regarding sexuality and gender identity. Americans of the same sex are now able to freely marry in all fifty states, compared to the previous number of thirty-seven states. However, only twenty-two states have protection for workers who are homosexual. Even the ideas the case covers are still debated today, and can even be reverted if the Supreme Court changes its opinion. Because of this, it is rather important for American people, especially same-sex couples or couples to-be married to be informed of this. Even though the court case was made only recently, there is still room to theorise about what is to be next. Perhaps in the future, cases will be created defending gay workers from being fired for their sexuality. Another possibility that is quite likely to occur sometime soon in the future is the nationwide recognition of people who have a different gender identity. As times continue to change, people are changing their beliefs and becoming more accepting of one another. Personally, I would love to live in a world where no one is judged for the colour of their skin or
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
Abstract On June 26, 2015 a divided Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples could now marry nationwide. At the time of the split ruling there were 9 supreme court justices, 5 of the justices were Republicans, and the remaining 4 were Democrats. In high profile cases, it is expected that the justices will vote along party lines. When the 5-4 ruling was revealed, the following statement. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage.
In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the court determined gay marriage to be a constitutional right, striking down several dozen state laws against SSM. While there has been some residual pushback against this decision, overall there has been broad complacence due to a high level of public support for the decision. Little scholarship has been done on how this decision has been implemented because the discussion was made so recently, but some measures show that “99.87 percent of the U.S. population [lives] in a county where same-sex marriage licenses are available” ("Local Government Responses to Obergefell v. Hodges." n.d.). While there are some pockets of resistance it is clear that there is broad local compliance with this decision, likely because of its broad popularity. Instances in which local bodies choose to disregard the Obergefell decision are highly publicized, and generally receive a great deal of public criticism. Thus, the SSM marriage example has fulfilled the two conditions for successful policy, as interest groups were able to use the courts to accomplish a set of aims, and local support has allowed for the implementation of the policy. While there has been some pushback along the way, this pushback has only served to further raise awareness of issue in the minds of the American people, and helped this cause gain
Overviewing the case of Snyder v. Phelps it could be easily misconstrued about who was at fault morally rather than coming to a conclusion according to federal law. From thoroughly investigating the case it is infact accurate that Fred Phelps and his following a Westboro Baptist Church based in Topeka,Kansas focus and actively execute their ideas about God’s supposed hatred for the United States,and their tolerance of homosexuals.Particularly, the congregation focuses on homosexuality within the military and exercises their opinion by protesting their public opinion alongside military funerals to get their point across.
On June 26, 2015, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right in the decision on Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al. This controversial decision overturned the law of more than 17 states. In the 5-4 decision, Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan voted with the majority and Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito were dissenting. At the heart of the controversy is the philosophy of judicial restraint and judicial activism. Was the Obergefell decision an example of judicial activism? Certainly, because it declared state laws banning same-sex marriages as unconstitutional. The Court’s decision, which was based on precedent and interpretation of the Constitution, was just.
For some background, this case escalated to the Supreme Court since several groups of same-sex couples from different states, sued state agencies when their marriage was refused to be recognized. As it escalated through appeals, the plaintiffs argued that the states were violating the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection, according to the Constitution refers to the fact that, “any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (23). The opposition of this case was that, 1) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage as a policy, and 2) The sovereignty of states regarding the decision. Ultimately, and according to the Oyez project, the Court held that “[the Amendment] guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples,” and therefore, same-sex marriage is a fundamental liberty.
Declared in the U.S. Constitution every American or should it be person, is guaranteed civil rights. Civil rights did not just consist of “freedom of speech and assembly,” but as well as “the right to vote, the right to equal protection under the law, and procedural guarantees in criminal and civil rights,” (Dawood). It was not until 1791, that the Bill of Rights was appended to the constitution, which helped clarify these rights to citizens. “Rights were eventually applied against actions of the state governments in a series of cases decide by the Supreme Court,” Dawood stated. In previous years (1790-1803), the Supreme Court had little say in decisions being made by government. As time went on the Supreme Court took on more responsibility and started making additional decisions, which in time helped minorities gain their civil rights. It took a couple of years, as a matter of fact till the 1900’s for the Supreme Court to get out of the “ideology of white supremacy and the practice of racism,” (Smith). Though the decisions of the Supreme Court were not all that appreciated in the beginning, following the 20th century the court really facilitated in the advancements of civil rights.
Sanchez, Ray, and Miguel Marquez. "Arizona Lawmakers Pass Controversial Anti-Gay Bill." CNN.com. Cable News Network, 21 Feb. 2014. Web. 7 Mar. 2014.
Associated Press, . "New York Becomes the Sixth State to Legalize Gay Marriage." (2011): 4.
Nagourney, Adam. "Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California." New York Times. N.p., 7 Feb. 2012. Web.
"Jane ROE, Et Al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE." LII. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2013.
The ruling of Baehr vs. Lewin was a victory for gay rights activists, hope for other states searching for the same freedom, and disappointment for opponents of same-sex marriage. Yet this victory was short lived (until complete legalization in November 13, 2013) since the state appealed the lower court’s decis...
Note: This paper has a very long Annotated Bibliography. In recent years, same-sex relationships have become more encompassing in US society. State legislation is changing such as accepting gay marriages, enforcing anti-discrimination laws, and legal gay adoptions; the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community is becoming public. Gay-headed families, like heterosexuals, are diverse and varying in different forms.
Shulman, Sam. "Sam Shulman -- Gay Marriage -- and Marriage." OrthodoxyToday.org |. Commentary Magazine, Nov. 2003. Web. 31 May 2010. .
"Milestones in the American Gay Rights Movement." PBS. WBGH Educational Foundation, n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.