Case- Obergefell v Hodges

Introduction

In case Obergefell v Hodges the United States Supreme Court ruled that with respect to the constitution a national wide privilege is granted to same-sex marriage. This occurred in a 5 to 4 ruling where 5 Supreme Court judges wherein the majority position while four of them dissented with the ruling[1]. The decision of the majority held that LGBT people are protected by the constitution and should thus be permitted to wed. For the longest period, it has remained evident that the supporters of same-sex marriage have remained in the minority side in the United States a norm that was transformed on the 26th of June during the court’s ruling. The ruling was made after a group of gay couples from different states in the United States moved to court challenging the constitutional basis of the states that had banned or refused to acknowledge gay marriage[2]. The plaintiffs argued that this was in violation of the fourth amendment and Equal Protection Clause. The ruling that had been made prior was thus reversed by the Supreme Court against the holding that the ban and refusal were not in violation of individual’s rights[3]. While the argument of the majority judges held that the right to marriage is constitutionally provided regardless of who one wishes to marry the dissenting side raised concern in regard to other Americans right in regard to dissenting same-sex marriage as it has been.

The fourth amendment necessitates states to offer license to same-sex marriage populace based on Obergefell v Hodges ruling[4]. The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy for the supporting judges in regard to same-sex marriage. In that, the court asserted that the Due Process Clause with respect to the Fourth Amendment offers individuals equally the right to same-sex marriage in an equal manner as provided to couples engaged in opposite-sex marriage[5]. The judicial pattern also held that marrying is one of the fundamental rights which are fully guarded and the provision is applicable to same-sex marriage. This is based on the fact that the right is an inherent one in reference to the concept of individual’s independence as it guards the primary intimate connection that exists amid two persons. In addition, the same clause offers protection to families as well as children by rendering legitimate recognition and respect to creating a home as well as raising children and it is conventionally recognized as the cornerstone in reference to social arrangement[6]. Given that there are no distinctions amid same-sex and opposite-sex marriage in regard to the constitutional principles it is evident that the segregation of same-sex persons from marrying each other is a primary defilement of the Due Process Clause of the fourth amendment[7]. In addition, the court held that the Equal Protection Clause within the same amendment provides assurances asserting that gay couples should be provided with the privilege to wed as denying or prohibiting them from such is a definite denial of same-sex pair’s equal protection which is offered by the constitution[8].

Conventionally, marriage privileges have widely been handled through several clauses of the fourth amendment and it is the same interrelated principles with reference to freedom and equality that were applied in equal nature in resolving the crisis of same-sex unions[9]. In this case, the constitution, therefore, guards the fundamental rights of same-sex intimate pairs in regard to marriage. Further, the court also asserted that the First Amendment guards the general rights of religious institutions in regard to following and obeying their standards but on the other hand it does not permit different states to prohibit or assert refusal of gay couples of their privilege to getting married in regard to equal terms when equated to those of the opposite sex pairs in general[10]. Based, therefore, on the general provisions of the Fourth Amendment it is rather clear that it is a misunderstanding to hold that gay couples disrespect the notion of marriage because their intention is based on creating a more uniform family in general. The argument is that based on their motives and the fact that they have been bonded by devotion and love they have demonstrated respect in regard to marriage as needed by the constitution and they are therefore in search of satisfaction for selves. The clause also creates support for such marriages by condemning individuals from being subjected to any form of loneliness by being segregated from one of the oldest institutions to have existed being marriage. In this context, same marriage plea from Obergefell v Hodges was only in search of equal dignity under the provisions of the American law as they have been offered the privilege by the court[11]. In that the court argued that the differentiation has not be made constitutionally but based on the equal protection section of the amendment then their rights are fully guarded as should not, therefore, be denied.

On the other hand, the dissenting rule differs with that of the majority in several aspects. John Roberts the Chief Justice gave the ruling provisions in which he raised the argument that while gay unions might be beneficial as a positive and fair rule, the American constitution does not in any case address it existence of all that it concerns[12]. In this context, he raised the argument that it is thus, beyond the jurisdictions of the court to make the ruling on whether all states are bound to diagnose, acknowledge or license such unification. In this context, this is a problem that should be resolved by individual state governments based on the motivation and decision of their voters. In this context, Robert argued that ruling in the position of the states is a violation of their obligation to respect those that elected them and those that they represent as the decision might be in violation of the voters and the state’s governments[13]. He added that the constitution and judicial standard evidently offers adequate protection in regard to the privilege of getting married and therefore necessitates differs states to utilize laws that address equality in the subject of marriage but in this context, it is not fair for the court to overrule its boundaries and participate in judicial policy development thus denying states government to engage in the activities[14].

The standards that regard to the privilege of marrying mainly raids down the unconstitutional boundaries that are related to marriage based on the notion that it has been conventionally been described and administrations interruptions and thus, there lacks a precedential support in regard to creating a notion that basically affects the general description of marriage[15]. Robert raised the argument that the minority decision mainly dependent upon the excessively extensive provisions of the Fourth Amendment without mainly relying on the conventional rulings as well as discounting the appropriate response in reference to courts within the democratic setting[16]. Other within the dissenting opinion raised the argument that the ruling of the majority was exceeding of their authority because the court was focused on exercising the legislative role rather than based on the court’s judicial authority by acting in the place of state’s governments. In this context as the court decided to take the policy-making role, they were therefore in defilement of the elected member's rights[17]. In that, the majority opinion created a privilege that was never in existence which is a form of basically creating their own policy. In that, the court stretched the clauses and in this act, they disrupted the democratic provisions by acquiring the general authority of the legislative process. In addition, they argued that the ruling also infringed religious liberty by making policies while on the bench rather than permitting legislatures within states the manner in which the issue can best be addressed for the wellness of the communities[18].

In conclusion, while the majority opinions in support of gay marriage asserted that the constitution guards the rights to equality and marriage the dissenting forum held that the court acted beyond their power by playing the legislative role. In that, the majority opinions were derived from stretching the Fourth Amendment leading to creating a policy that never existed which in turn altered the democratic process. On the other hand, the supporting opinions were grounded on the fact that the constitution guards individuals rights in regard to equality and marriage and these privileges should not be denied given that the amendment has not created any distinction amid gay and opposite-sex unions.

References

Top of Form

2015. Obergefell Et Al. V. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department Of Health, Et Al. Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit. PDF

Cathcart, Kevin M., and Leslie J. Gabel-Brett. 2016. Love unites us: winning the freedom to marry in America. http://lib.myilibrary.com?id=931916.

Koren, Marina. (2016). Gay Marriage in the U.S., After Obergefell v. Hodges. The historic Supreme Court ruling led to a surge in same-sex marriages in all 50 states, polls show. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/gay-marriage-obergefell-hodges/488258/

Liptak, Adam. (2015). Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html

Lopez, German. (2015). Obergefell v. Hodges: Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8851699/gay-marriage-scotus-decision-obergefell-v-hodges

Ring, Kevin A., and Antonin Scalia. 2016. Scalia's Court: A Legacy of Landmark Opinions and Dissents.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&AN=1233168.

Stephens, Otis H., and John M. Scheb. 2012. American constitutional law. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Bottom of Form

 

[1] Lopez, German. (2015). Obergefell v. Hodges: Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling.

[2] Stephens, Otis H., and John M. Scheb. 2012. American constitutional law. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

[3] Lopez, German. (2015). Obergefell v. Hodges: Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling.

[4] 2015. Obergefell Et Al. V. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department Of Health, Et Al. Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit. PDF

[5] Ring, Kevin A., and Antonin Scalia. 2016. Scalia's Court: A Legacy of Landmark Opinions and Dissents.

[6] Cathcart, Kevin M., and Leslie J. Gabel-Brett. 2016. Love unites us: winning the freedom to marry in America.

[7] Koren, Marina. (2016). Gay Marriage in the U.S., After Obergefell v. Hodges. The historic Supreme Court ruling led to a surge in same-sex marriages in all 50 states, polls show.

[8] Liptak, Adam. (2015). Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide.

[9] Liptak, Adam. (2015). Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide.

[10] Koren, Marina. (2016). Gay Marriage in the U.S., After Obergefell v. Hodges. The historic Supreme Court ruling led to a surge in same-sex marriages in all 50 states, polls show.

[11] Lopez, German. (2015). Obergefell v. Hodges: Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling.

[12] Ring, Kevin A., and Antonin Scalia. 2016. Scalia's Court: A Legacy of Landmark Opinions and Dissents.

[13] 2015. Obergefell Et Al. V. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department Of Health, Et Al. Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit. PDF

[14] Cathcart, Kevin M., and Leslie J. Gabel-Brett. 2016. Love unites us: winning the freedom to marry in America.

[15] Liptak, Adam. (2015). Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide.

[16] Ring, Kevin A., and Antonin Scalia. 2016. Scalia's Court: A Legacy of Landmark Opinions and Dissents.

[17] Koren, Marina. (2016). Gay Marriage in the U.S., After Obergefell v. Hodges. The historic Supreme Court ruling led to a surge in same-sex marriages in all 50 states, polls show.

[18] Ring, Kevin A., and Antonin Scalia. 2016. Scalia's Court: A Legacy of Landmark Opinions and Dissents.