Answer Initial Post Question 250 words. Respond to 3 classmates 250 words each.
Initial Post
To spark an interesting and balanced discussion on Obergefell v Hodges, post an initial post that challenges the state laws in question. You will be arguing that same-sex marriages conducted in other states should be recognized and that the states which prohibited same-sex marriage should be required to perform such marriages.
After you have your initial post, discuss the following question. From a legal standpoint, do you agree or disagree with the ruling? Why or why not? Remember to support your answers and give attribution to your sources.
Classmate 1 Adam: Welcome to my week 5 forum posting on “Fundamental Rights: Due Process”. This week we will be specifically looking at the case of Obergefell v Hodges, and the ruling on same-sex marriages. To summarize the case for you briefly, the plaintiff argued that states could not keep same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their unions. The Supreme Court eventually decided in favor of the plaintiff, stating this as well, in a ruling that had been under months of focus and speculation. The decision was 5-4 when the dust settled. Justice Anthony Kennedy, seen as a pivotal swing vote in the case, wrote the majority opinion. All four justices who voted against the ruling wrote their own dissenting opinions: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. The lead plaintiff, Obergefell, filed a suit because he wasn’t allowed to put his name on his late husband John Arthur’s death certificate after Arthur died from ALS. Obergefell later stated in a news appearance, “No American should have to suffer that indignity.”
To briefly challenge the state laws that were repealed, I simply want to quote a bit of the court decision material and it reads as follows; “The Supreme Court said that the right to marry is fundamental — and Justice Kennedy wrote that under the 14th Amendment’s protections, “couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.”” At the end of the day, these members of society asked for equal dignity in the eyes of the law, and the constitution grants them that very right.
To discuss a little further on whether or not from a legal perspective I concur with the ruling, I do indeed agree with the ruling based on the very legal principles embedded and set forth in the 14thamendment. Now, if they went ahead and changed the 14th amendment then legally maybe it would be different, but at this very moment I definitely agree with the legality. I look forward to our discussion this week.
Classmate 2 Crystal: Because my last name begins with Y, I am posting on challenging the state laws that relate to Obergefell v Hodges. So this means that I am challenging that the same-sex marriages should not be recognized, as well as the states that prohibit these marriages should not be able to perform such marriages. In Obergefell v Hodges, The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment does require both the licensing and the recognition for the same-sex couples. The Due Process Clause deems the right to marry is a fundamental liberty. Based on the Loving case from 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that “The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.” The Loving case (Loving v. Virginia, n.d.) was related to an interracial couple that was arrested when they went to Virginia for the crime of being married. They too claimed that Due Process of the Fourteenth Amendment protected them. Chief Justice Warren, Earl stated that the Constitution protects the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State. These state laws that banned the same-sex marriages actually violated the equal rights of fays and lesbians. Further, while Items like the Commerce Clause suggests that each state is entitled to their own laws, the Commerce clause also gives Congress the right to regulate amongst several states. In this relation, due process protects citizens of the United States. The Due Process prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, or property by the government except as authorized by law.
My thoughts overall: Individual states are not allowed to infringe on individual rights. I look at it similar to regulations. Commanders can add to, but can’t take away from regulatory guidance. So States can add to the Constitution as long as they don’t take away from. Same-sex marriage has been ruled protected based on the due process and that marriage is an aspect of life and liberty. The Equal Protection Clause under the Constitution protects against the discrimination against individuals based on their sexuality and gender. Based on the Equal Protection Clause, same-sex couples are required to reap the same benefits of marriage as different-sexed marriages. Further, the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause insists all states must issue marriage licenses to otherwise eligible couples regardless of sexual orientation as well as the same-sex marriages need to be recognized even if they were performed in other states.
References:
Loving v. Virginia. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 19, 2021, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395
Classmate 3 Jeffery: With my last name being Sowa, it looks like I will be supporting the Supreme Court decision and challenging the laws of the state. I’m glad to be on this side of the discussion because this case happened at a significant time in my life. To go a little off-topic this ruling occurred while I was in Basic Training. Obviously, as it progressed through the courts all of us in training had no idea for the most part. The ruling in this case and the legalization of same-sex marriage was one of the only pieces of current news we had received in Basic Training. I never really knew the details of the case and the story well until now.
Prior to Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the most recent case regarding same-sex marriage was United States v. Windsor (2013). Although this case did not grant federal recognition of same-sex marriage it was a tremendous step towards accomplishing that goal. With the passage of the United States v. Windsor (2013) the Federal Government was no longer allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples and had to allow them the same legal protections as heterosexual marriage. This case laid the groundwork for Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) but still allowed the authority to allow and recognize same-sex marriages in the states under Baker v. Nelson (1971).
This case began when James Obergefell and then long-term boyfriend John Arthur wanted to get married before John passed away from health complications. The issue was they lived in Ohio which did not recognize same-sex marriages. James and John took a plane to Maryland and after getting married on the plane returned to Ohio. James attempted to be listed as the surviving spouse on John’s death certificate and was denied. Ohio did not recognize same-sex marriages regardless if they were done in a state where the act was legal and recognized. The couple sued the State of Ohio and this is where this historic case began.
The battle began strong with District Judge Timothy Black supporting the couple. James was added to John’s death certificate and John passed away shortly after with James listed as a surviving spouse. Ohio appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. At this time the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was handling five similar cases at the same time and made a blanket ruling on all of them. The Sixth Circuit voted in favor of the states citing Baker v. Nelson (1971) which gave states discretion to limit marriages based on gender. James and the other appalled the United States Supreme Court and they accepted the case.
James and other parties cited the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteen Amendment. Given the arguments, the United States Supreme Court Justices had two questions to consider. If the Fourteenth Amendment mandates that a state grants marriage licenses to those of the same sex, as well as if the states have to recognize a same-sex marriage license originating from another state. After a close 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled in favor of James and the others. Justice Kennedy delivered the majority opinion; stating the Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach and Baker v. Nelson violated the Fourteenth Amendment and was overturned. This decision effectively and immediately made same-sex marriage legal throughout the United States; regardless of the opinions of the states.
The lower courts were acting within the limits of the law in their earlier decision against James and the others. Baker v. Nelson (1971) was the long-standing law of the time and United States v. Windsor(2013) only shifted the law slightly and did not bring widespread protections to those seeking a same-sex marriage license. The issue is the law was flawed from the start and the Supreme Court recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause “extends to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.” The court also cited United States v. Windsor (2013) gave the right to the personal choice of marriage chosen by individual anatomy. Finally, Justice Kennedy stated that marriage is a keystone in our social order, and there is no difference in marriage regardless of sex.
Given this information the state laws were unlawful. Ohio and other states blocking same-sex marriages even if they were married in another state is a violation of the Constitution. Blocking people of their individual liberties violates the Fourteen Amendment and the inconsistency in state laws led to an unstable world for same-sex couples, even if the state they resided in allowed same-sex marriage. This Supreme Court decision is so recent and though it has no direct impact on me it has helped others I’ve known and is easy for me to remember since it came at such a pivotal point in my life.
References:
Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971).
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).
U.S. Const. amend XIV.
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013).
0 comments