Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
law
law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: law
In the 1996 Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans, the voters of the state of Colorado approved a second amendment to their state Constitution through a referendum, in order to prevent homosexuals from becoming a protected minority. Before the referendum occurred, many of the major cities in Colorado passed laws prohibiting people to be discriminated against based on their sexuality, including whether or not they are homosexual. The citizens of Colorado who disapprove of homosexuality then created a petition to put the second amendment to a vote, and won with a majority of 53% of the votes. Richard Evans, with the support of many others, took the amendment to court claiming it was unconstitutional, and should be removed from the constitution, going on to win in the Colorado Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.
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 ...
... middle of paper ...
... argument because it shows the problems with the amendment and his argument complies with the constitution. Furthermore, Kennedy brings up more valid points, whereas Scalia mostly relies on the reasoning that Kennedy’s argument lacks the evidence of enough legal citation. Also, Kennedy believes the amendment is unconstitutional on the basis that it violates the equal protection clause because it denies homosexuals special rights that any other minority has access to, and it singles out one class that it affects instead of creating a general law that affects everyone. Thus, Kennedy’s argument should prevail because it relies on the constitution as its main evidence to show that the amendment is invalid and should not be permitted, and Kennedy believes that the amendment violates the rights of homosexuals, which is clearly does by singling them out as a specific class.
A unanimous Supreme Court decision overturned the Lovings convictions on June 12, 1967. The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Chief Justice Warren’s opinion stated that the Constitution provide citizens “the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
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
Is a person's sudden flight from identifiable police officer, patrolling a high crime area, suspicious to justify the officer's stop and frisk of that person? This was the question that the justices of the Supreme Court were addressing when they heard the argument of the case Illinois v. Wardlow on November 2, 1999.
Constitutionally, the case at first appears to be a rather one-sided violation of the First Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth. The court, however, was of a different opinion: "...
Obergefell v. Hodges was a landmark decision that deemed same-sex marriage a constitutionally guaranteed right. If I was a justice on the Supreme Court during the Obergefell v. Hodges case, I would have agreed with the majority opinion. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and the following statement summarizes the court’s decision, “Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.”
The religious aspect that this Supreme Court case has screaming right away is the actions of Mr. Philips decision in which "pits religious believers against the nonreligious". Mr. Philips denied making a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins which caused controversy within the state of Colorado. This case as well is brining many other issues to light that are not being publicly mentioned as for this case is, yet nevertheless its stirring the melting pot in America that in not all cases should the government rules and regulations should be followed to the bullet points. Such as the findings founded in the "Lavender Scare" in which founded and called homosexuals in work settings publicly and shunned them. It was founded as well in President Carters staff
In the court the only justices in the court who agreed with connecticut was Black and Stewart. The ones that did agree is Warren, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennen, White , and Goldberg and the majority opinion Was William Douglas. Douglas the one who wrote the opinion and igt states “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by the emanations from those guarantees that give them life and substance” and that these “ various guarantees create zones of privacy.” Finding that the ban on contraceptives by married persons “concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees,” the majority decided that the intrusion of the law was “repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.” The justices that chose to disregard this pretty much said that it is not in the
"The Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the Wake of Romer v. Evans ." New
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.
Beginning with the topic on gay marriage and the controversial battle between authors, Andrew Sullivan and William Bennett, Sullivan is the gay supporter. In Sullivan’s piece, “Let Gays Marry,” he opens with a statement by the Supreme Court, “A state cannot deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” He feels that this simple sentence has so much meaning, saying that whatever type of person, male or female, black or white, everyone deserves the same legal protection and equal rights. Therefore, gay marriage should not be excluded from the legal system. He tells that some churches practice different beliefs and may oppose gay marriage but religion has nothing to do with the state appeals. Sullivan explains how the definition of marriage has changed in the past and that it can be done again. Sullivan ends his piece by saying that changing the law would not affect straight couples, so why are they against gay marriage? He believes the change would allow gay couples to experience what straight couples already have.
Hardwick, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the U.S Constitution does not prohibit states from classifying homosexual sex as illegal act was valid because there was no constitutionally protected right to engage in homosexual sex, where was instigated that the Constitution does not protect the right of homosexual adults to engage in private or consensual sodomy. The defense argued the case of the fundamental right to privacy which was protected by the Constitution's Due Process Clause. While the right to privacy protects intimate aspects of marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing from state interference, it does not protect gay sodomy because there was, "no connection between family, marriage, or procreation on the one hand and homosexual activity on the other has been demonstrated,” (Bowers, Attorney General of Georgia v. Hardwick et al). It took the court thirty years to abolish the criminalization for private sexual intercourse between adult homosexuals, in a recent survey conducted in Ventura County was reported that 38.6% of the population disagree that homosexuals should not have a right to marry, where 42.9% of those who disagreed were men. (Refer Chart 1). When comparing whether or not people support the legalization of same-sex marriage based on political affiliation, the gap between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is quite large, where the Pew Research Center reported that 63%
In April 2002, Texas’s highest criminal court, The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, refuses to hear Lambda Legal’s appeal. In July 2002, Lambda Legal request U.S. Supreme Court to review the constitutional regarding The “Homosexual Conduct” law. The case presents the high court with two independent Constitutional claims that Lambda Legal urges to review: 1) Equal protection 2) Rights of privacy and liberty. December 2002, U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear the case. In January 2003, Lambda Legal files its brief urging U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Texas’s “Homosexual Conduct” law. March 2003, Lambda Legal presents oral arguments before U.S. Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Texas “Homosexual Conduct”
Hodges. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the fourteenth amendment, equal protection under the law, and prohibited state bans on same-sex marriage in the United States, in which according to dissenters of same-sex marriage, will reduce their right to religious freedoms. The change in rulings from the Hobby Lobby case to the Obergefell v. Hodges has brought an increase of intensity to this conflict between the first, and fourteenth amendments, reiterating there is no solution for the turmoil between the first and fourteenth amendments when the Supreme Court opinions wavers. According to David Savage, The Author Of Battles Over Religious Freedom Are Sure To Follow Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, “[t]he close divide among the justices almost ensures that new legal battles lie ahead. This divide reflects the inherent conflict between the first and fourteenth amendment.” The Supreme Court is trying to balance the conflict, however, with an unsuspected outcome—the Religious Freedom Restoration