m01-brief
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Ivy Tech Community College, Indianapolis *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
209-30D
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
7
Uploaded by sscoville15
Sidney Scoville
M01 Assignment - Obergefell Case Study
CASE BRIEF
Obergefell v. Hodges
576 U.S. 135 S. Ct. 2584, 192 L. Ed. 2d 609 (2015)
JUDICIAL HISTORY:
In Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee, groups of
same-sex couples sued their respective state agencies to challenge the
validity of those states' bans on same-sex marriage or refusal to recognize
lawful same-sex marriages that occurred in jurisdictions that allowed such
unions. The plaintiffs in each action asserted that the states' statutes
violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Due
Process Clause, and one set of plaintiffs also filed claims under the Civil
Rights Act. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in all of the cases.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned, ruling
that the states' restrictions on same-sex marriage and reluctance to
recognize weddings performed in other states did not violate the couples'
rights to equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
FACTS
: Marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman in
Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. A group of same-sex couples filed
lawsuits in federal district courts in their home states, alleging that state
officials violated the Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to allow them to
marry or grant full faith and credit to their out-of-state marriages. The case
was elevated to the Supreme Court of the United States on certiorari after
each District Court found in their favor.
ISSUE:
1.
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage
between two people of the same sex?
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a
marriage between two people of the same sex legally licensed and
performed in another state?
RULE:
The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in one's liberty,
and under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses, couples of the same sex may not be denied that right and liberty.
Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) must be invalidated. State law-based
limitations that prevent same-sex couples from marrying on the same terms
and conditions as opposite-sex couples are declared unlawful.
ANALYSIS:
The court found that the freedom to marry is one of the
fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due
Process Clause and that this analysis applies to both same-sex and opposite-
sex couples. According to judicial precedent, the right to marry preserves the
most sacred union of two people, as well as children and families, by
legalizing the establishment of a home and raising children. The court also
decided that while the First Amendment supports religious groups' rights to
follow their beliefs, it does allow states to deny same-sex couples the same
rights as opposite-sex couples to marry on the same terms. In 2003, the
Supreme Court overturned Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, a 1986
decision that upheld a Georgia law that criminalized certain homosexual
acts, making sex intimacy a crime. Then, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12,
which struck down interracial marriage laws, and Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S.
78, 95, which ruled that prisoners cannot be denied the right to marry.
CONCLUSION:
The laws of Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee were
found to be unconstitutional to the extent that they prohibited same-sex
couples from marrying on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex
couples. It explained that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to
marry under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses. In addition, in all states, same-sex couples have the legal right to
marry. As a result, there is no legal basis for a state to refuse to recognize a
valid same-sex marriage performed in another state because of the same-
sex nature of the marriage.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
1.
As explained by the Court, how has the institution of marriage
changed over time?
The Court outlines how marriage was initially considered an
arrangement by the couple’s parents based on political, religious, and
financial concerns, however by the time of the Nation’s founding;
marriage was recognized to be a contract between men and women.
The court also addressed how the state treated a married man and
woman as one legal entity under the centuries-old notion of coverture
and how coverture was abandoned when women earned legal,
political, and property dignity. The court also highlighted how the
changes were not cosmetic but rather significant shifts in the
organization of the court, affecting aspects of marriage that had long
been regarded as vital by many.
2.
What are the four principles and traditions that the Court
relies upon in support of its conclusion that same-sex couples
have a fundamental right to marry?
1.
The right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the
concept of individual autonomy.
2.
The right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-
person union.
3.
It safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from
related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.
4.
The Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that
marriage is a keystone of our social order.
3.
According to the Court, why is marriage such an important
institution?
Marriage dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be
found alone, for a marriage becomes more significant than just the two
persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is
essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.
4.
Why does the Court ultimately conclude that it is
unconstitutional to ban same-sex partners from marrying?
Same-sex marriage bans violate the due process and equal protection
clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court considered the
relationship between the Due Process Clause’s liberty and the Equal
Protection Clause’s equality, concluding that same-sex marriage
restrictions violate the latter.
5.
Identify the objections that the dissenting Justices raise in
response to the majority opinion.
The legal arguments for requiring an extension to marriage to same-
sex couples are not compelling. The right to marry does not include the
right to force the government to change its definition of marriage.
Our
Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of
a State have the right to expand marriage to include same-sex couples
or adhere to the historic definition.
Stealing the issue from the people will, for many, cast a cloud over
same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more
difficult to accept.
The court invalidated the marriage laws of more than half the states
and ordered the transformation of a social institution that has formed
the basis of human society for millennia. Who do we think we are?
Whether the decision should rest with the people acting through their
elect or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing
them to resolve legal disputes according to the law.
Across civilizations, marriage was referred to as a union between men
and women. Marriage arose in the nature of things to meet a vital
need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father
committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong
relationship
Procreation – procreation occurs through sexual relations between a
man and a woman. When sexual relationships result in conception, that
child is generally better if the mother and father stay together.
The developments were not superficial changes but any
transformations in the core structure of marriage as a union between
men and women.
Suppose a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry
because their children would otherwise suffer from the stigma of
knowing their families are somehow lesser. Why wouldn’t the same
reasoning apply to a family of 3 or more persons raising children?
If not having the opportunity to marry serves to disrespect and
subordinate gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
imposition of this disability serve to disrespect and subordinate people
who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships