Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Quizlet equal protection
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Quizlet equal protection
Marriage and the union of couples regarding their sex has been a nationwide issue in the United States for quite some time. The Supreme Court case now known as Hollingsworth v. Perry took place in California but is very well known nationally. Naturally California, as well as the rest of the country, has battled with their marriage laws for many years but events leading up to this specific case did not begin until around 2000. On the March 7, 2000 ballot in California, voters approved Proposition 22. Proposition 22 legally stated that marriage was a union between one man and one woman (Oyez). This proposition seemed to serve well for the state of California until 2008 where the California Supreme Court required that marriage included the union of same-sex couples as well, which invalidated Proposition 22. Citizens whom did not seem to agree with the invalidation of Proposition 22 sought to do something about their opposing views. Only a few months later, California citizens passed Proposition 8, overturning the court’s ruling from earlier that year. In the California elections of November 2008, ballot initiative Proposition 8 was passed. This California state constitutional amendment stated, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This proposition did not affect the state’s same sex marriages or domestic partnerships performed before November 5, 2008 (Martin). It wasn’t long before the state started experiencing arguments based on the validity of Proposition 8. Two same-sex couples responded to the proposition, which eventually led to the well-recognized case Hollingsworth v. Perry (formally known as Hollingsworth v. Perry). In May 2009 attorneys Ted Olson and Davis Boies filed on behalf... ... middle of paper ... ...unconstitutional. It was not an issue of federal preemption because no federal laws were broken; rather it was a relatively common legal issue with controversial views. In the case Hollingsworth v. Perry it was ruled that California’s Proposition 8 violated the equal protection and due process of homosexual individuals under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the powers of the states rather than the federal government, stating that no state shall deny any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Therefore, the Constitution forbids any level of government, federal or state, from prohibiting the marriage of same-sex couples.
The opinion of the court was held by Justice Kennedy, in that the Colorado amendment was held unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment on the United States Constitution. Kennedy argued the amendment singles out a specific group in which, it would make it so only homosexuals cannot receive the protective rights that are available to anyone else. This idea makes homosexuals unequal to everyone else because they are not guaranteed the same protection that anyone else could get if they needed it. Furthermore, the amendment burdens the homosexual community by not allowing them to seek protection against discrimination though the use of legislation. Additionally, Kennedy claims “In and ordinary case, a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest…” (632) By this he means that a law will be considered valid as long as it has a ...
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
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 except that the justices will vote along party lines. When the 5-4 ruling was reveled by the following statement. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right (Corn,2015).” written by
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.
In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public attention and quite a large number of briefs were filed in the cases.
Texas can be attributed to the angle from which the defendant and justices approached the case. Instead of focusing solely on due process, from which the petitioners’ right to “engage in their conduct without intervention of the government” is derived, attention was also given to equal protection under the law. By criminalizing “sodomy” and thus homosexuality, Texas made it “more difficult for homosexuals to be treated in the same manner as everyone else,” thus legally sanctioning “discriminations against [homosexuals] in a variety of ways unrelated to the criminal law.” [footnote O’Connor, concur] The fear was that the law would set a precedence for discrimination in various fields of everyday life, ranging from family to employment and housing. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor points out in her concurrence, although the criminalization of sodomy (most broadly defined in American law as non-procreative sex) itself may not be unconstitutional, the way the law is implemented was, as only homosexual sodomy was banned (as opposed to heterosexual sodomy). Therefore, under the Equal Protection Clause, the law represents a “bare desire to harm the group.” [footnote ibid] Although Texas invoked the moral argument, as government had done in the past when regulating marriage and family and other forms of intimate relationships, O’Connor found such arguments to be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Thus, (judicial) government
Proposition 8 was a piece of legislation formally called the California Marriage Protection Act which was an amendment to the Constitution of the State of California. The amendment was voted on and passed during the state elections of November 5th, 2008. The new legislation added to the constitution reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The issue was prompted in May of 2008, when the California Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples had a right to marry one another according to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States. This overruled earlier legislation known as Proposition 22, which was in fact the same as Proposition 8, but was a part of California’s Family Code, and not written into the constitution. Because the Constitution was given precedence over the Family Code in the Supreme Court’s ruling, Proposition 22 was rendered obsolete. Many people who shared conservative views about the meaning of marriage took exception to that and took action to create Proposition 8.
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.
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...
On 2013-JUN-26, Section 3 of that act was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in a famous lawsuit Windsor v. United States. Overnight, legally married same-sex couples whose marriages were recognized where they lived suddenly were recognized by the federal government. They gained access to 1,138 federal programs, benefits, and protections that had previously been denied them. Perhaps of even greater importance, the majority ruling in Windsor contained arguments that other federal courts and state courts could use to justify the legalization of marriage equality. Within months, there were lawsuits seeking marriage equality in every state where gay marriages were
Throughout the recent history of America, gay marriage has always been an issue. With the different views and morals everyone has on the subject, it makes it hard for individual states to determine what side they should be on. In 1983 a Harvard Law School student, Evan Wolfson, wrote a thesis stating the rule of marriage equality. Justices concluded that gay couples were entitled to the legal benefits of civil marriage; and most crucially in the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts, whose favorable ruling, in a suit by lawyer Mary Bonauto and the Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocated and Defenders, led to the nation’s first bona fide same-sex marriages…” (“Gay Marriage turns 10 and Credit Should Be Spread around- The Boston Globe). On May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriages. In June of 2013, California legalized gay marriages, which helped their large LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered) community. (“History and Timeline of the Freedom…”). When this finally happened, it was seen as a great achievement by Karmala Harris, a California Attorney. “This is a profound day in our country, and its just the right thing: ‘Justice is finally being served’” (“Court Gives OK for California Gay Marriages”).
Going beyond just legalizing same-sex marriage everywhere, the debate is interesting and both sides have valid points. It goes from being against God’s will, to gay couple raising children, and the contradictions of openings the doors to the unknown relationships of others. Also not letting two individuals get married to whom they desire is taking ones civil rights away. Lastly, standing up for themselves and wanting to get married is huge because coming out is probably the hardest thing for them.
...oters approved Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, thereby overturning the state Supreme Court decision that gave gay couples the right to wed.
In March 2005, a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled on consolidated cases regarding same-sex marriage in California. The court held that the California ban on same-sex marriage violated the state constitution. The California Supreme Court unanimously agreed to review the decision of the appellate court, and it took its time in doing so. On June 3, 2008, the California secretary of state certified ballot proposition 8, which provided simply that: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Because of the court 's ruling, the State of California began legally performing same-sex marriages on June 16, 2008.In November 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled that state law did allow Prop 8 's supporters to defend it in court. Now only some states are Plowing gay marriage to be legal (Hanson). The defense of marriage act does not prohibit states from issuing same-sex marriage licenses, it set out to accomplish two key issues in regards to marriage. In its ruling, the Hawaii Supreme Court stated that a Hawaii law prohibiting same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and sent the case to a trial court in order to find out if the law could be upheld through compelling state interest. When the...
Marriage is a commitment between two individuals. The definitions for commitment differ from cultures to cultures, but in America, marriage and commitment means that it is a contract and binding between two people together providing them with benefits. The question that is raise in America today is that is whether or not these rights to these benefits and commitment should be extended to the people of the same sex. This topic in widely debated in many countries not only in America alone. It is an important issue because it involve basic human moral and human rights. The first case of same sex marriage was Baker v. Nelson that was dismissed by the U.S Supreme Court was in 1972 when a Minnesota couple were denied marriage license by the Hennepin County District Court’s clerk in May 1970. “The couple loses again in the Minnesota Supreme Court decision ruled in a five page opinion that the Constitution does not protect a fundamental right for same sex couples to get married” (Denniston). A few more case was brought up during the 70’s but many of movements for same sex marriage was more in the 90’s and the 2000’s. There were a lot of states that fight for same sex marriage and win but in a lot of other states it was not successful.