Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    Obergefell V

    Uploaded by

    Zhaojiang Xue
    The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion held that the fundamental right to marry protects same-sex couples and that states cannot deny them marriage licenses or fail to recognize lawful out-of-state same-sex marriages. The dissenting opinions argued that the definition of marriage should be left to the democratic process in individual states and that the Court overstepped its role in finding a new implied fundamental right.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Obergefell V

    Uploaded by

    Zhaojiang Xue
    25 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion held that the fundamental right to marry protects same-sex couples and that states cannot deny them marriage licenses or fail to recognize lawful out-of-state same-sex marriages. The dissenting opinions argued that the definition of marriage should be left to the democratic process in individual states and that the Court overstepped its role in finding a new implied fundamental right.

    Original Title

    Obergefell v

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion held that the fundamental right to marry protects same-sex couples and that states cannot deny them marriage licenses or fail to recognize lawful out-of-state same-sex marriages. The dissenting opinions argued that the definition of marriage should be left to the democratic process in individual states and that the Court overstepped its role in finding a new implied fundamental right.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    25 views3 pages

    Obergefell V

    Uploaded by

    Zhaojiang Xue
    The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion held that the fundamental right to marry protects same-sex couples and that states cannot deny them marriage licenses or fail to recognize lawful out-of-state same-sex marriages. The dissenting opinions argued that the definition of marriage should be left to the democratic process in individual states and that the Court overstepped its role in finding a new implied fundamental right.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Obergefell v.

    Hodges
    United States Supreme Court
    576 U.S. ___ (2015)

    Rule of Law
    Under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth
    Amendment, states must issue marriage licenses and recognize lawful out-of-
    state marriages for same-sex couples.

    Facts
    In response to some states legalizing same-sex marriage, various states enacted
    laws and constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and
    one woman. When James Obergefell’s (plaintiff) partner, John Arthur, became
    terminally ill, the pair decided to marry. The couple wed in Maryland, where
    same-sex marriage was legal. After Arthur died, however, the couple’s home
    state of Ohio refused to list Obergefell as Arthur’s surviving spouse on the death
    certificate. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse (plaintiffs), a same-sex couple living in
    Michigan, adopted three children. Because of a state ban on adoptions by same-
    sex couples, DeBoer and Rowse could not both be legal parents to their children.
    Ipje DeKoe and Thomas Kostura (plaintiffs) got married in New York before
    DeKoe was deployed to Afghanistan with the army reserve. They later moved to
    Tennessee, which refuses to recognize the union. These and similarly situated
    plaintiffs separately sued state officials (defendants) charged with enforcing state
    marriage laws in federal courts in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee,
    alleging violations of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district
    courts found for the plaintiffs in each instance, but the state officials appealed to
    United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The court of appeals
    consolidated the cases and reversed, holding that states were under no
    constitutional duty to license or recognize same-sex marriages. The plaintiffs
    petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari, which was granted.

    Issue
    Must states issue marriage licenses and recognize lawful out-of-state marriages
    for same-sex couples?

    Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)


    Yes. Same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry protected by the Due
    Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Marriage
    is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. For example,
    in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), the Court struck down anti-
    miscegenation laws that interfered with the right to marry. Similarly, in Zablocki v.
    Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978), the Court invalidated state laws limiting the ability
    of individuals with unpaid child support to marry. Ultimately, the four principles
    underpinning the protection of the right to marry apply equally to opposite and
    same-sex couples: (1) the right to choose whether and whom to marry is
    “inherent in the concept of individual autonomy”; (2) the right serves relationships
    that are equal in importance to all who enter them; (3) assuring the right to marry
    protects children and families, which implicates the myriad of rights related to
    procreation and childrearing; and (4) lastly, marriage is the very “keystone of our
    social order” and foundation of the family unit. Though marriage has historically
    been viewed as between opposite-sex couples, the institution has changed over
    time, including through the changing legal status of women. Similarly, while
    same-sex relationships were once forbidden, in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558
    (2003), the Court held that same-sex couples had an equal right to intimate
    associations. Refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry denies them a myriad
    of legal rights, including those related to taxation, insurance benefits, intestate
    succession, spousal evidentiary privileges, child custody and support, etc. In this
    instance, the liberty interest protected by due process intersects with the right to
    equal protection, and same-sex marriage bans violate both. Therefore, states
    must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Further, states must
    recognize lawful out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples. All contrary
    laws are struck down. The court of appeals is reversed.
    Dissent (Scalia, J.)
    An unelected committee of nine lawyers has stopped the debate and the
    democratic process on this issue. There is no question that those who ratified the
    Fourteenth Amendment could not possibly have intended for it to eliminate the
    traditional and, at least at that time, universal understanding of marriage. The
    justices are selected for their skill as lawyers, not policymakers, and in are in no
    way representative of the rest of the country.

    Dissent (Roberts, C.J.)
    Although there are strong arguments for the inherent fairness in recognizing
    same-sex marriages, this should be left to individual states to decide. The
    Constitution does not define marriage, and states should be free to define it as
    they will, including maintaining the traditional definition of marriage recognized
    throughout history. The Court has usurped the right of the people to make such a
    decision through the democratic process and denied same-sex marriage the
    legitimacy that comes with that. Marriage developed as a means of ensuring
    children were cared for by two parents. The Court has warned of the dangers of
    finding new, implied fundamental rights as a matter of substantive due process,
    as the Court fatefully did in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857)
    and Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). The Court is acting as a super-
    legislature and substituting its own judgment for the law. Further, if same-sex
    marriage is valid, there is no good argument why plural marriage should not be.
    Finally, the Court fails to conduct the traditional Equal Protection Clause analysis
    before declaring the clause to be violated.

    You might also like