The Obergefell v. Hodges case ignited much of the ongoing controversy between marriage equality and religious liberties. Fourteen same sex couples challenged the laws of Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, which stated that marriage could only be a union of opposite sex couples (Obergefell). The plaintiffs disputed that under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution same sex marriages must be recognized as valid by all states, even if other state authorities performed them (Obergefell). Accordingly, the central issues which were debated by this case are as follows: same sex couples rights to marriage in all states, states obligations to award marriage licenses to homosexual …show more content…
Alito. Since the U.S. Constitution does not address same sex marriage I believe that the decision whether for or against marriage equality should have been one reserved to the state's democratic process (Obergefell Oyez). Nevertheless, since the law was passed and a clash of rights arose because of the positive verdict on marriage equality I believe that public officials like Kim Davis have sworn to execute the law, and if the law states that she must issue marriage licenses she should issue them. Indeed, she is an elected official, which prevents her from simply being fired for not complying. The right and liberties awarded to citizens of this country are not absolute; therefore public officials must adhere to the government’s decisions because ultimately the government is their employer. Limits must be placed on religious freedoms when they are in direct conflict with current law. Surprisingly I learned that only 22 states have laws that protect against discrimination based on sex orientation in the areas of employment and housing (Margolin). I argue that it is crucial for all states to issue these essential protections because of the implicit rights stated in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments supporting equality in various aspects (Roland)`. All in all I see that Americans are suffering on both ends of the spectrum and some balance needs to be met in order to best
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
Throughout the recent history of America, gay marriage has always been an issue. With the different views and morals everyone has on the subject, it makes it hard for individual states to determine what side they should be on. In 1983 a Harvard Law School student, Evan Wolfson, wrote a thesis stating the rule of marriage equality. Justices concluded that gay couples were entitled to the legal benefits of civil marriage; and most crucially in the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts, whose favorable ruling, in a suit by lawyer Mary Bonauto and the Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocated and Defenders, led to the nation’s first bona fide same-sex marriages…” (“Gay Marriage turns 10 and Credit Should Be Spread around- The Boston Globe). On May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriages. In June of 2013, California legalized gay marriages, which helped their large LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered) community. (“History and Timeline of the Freedom…”). When this finally happened, it was seen as a great achievement by Karmala Harris, a California Attorney. “This is a profound day in our country, and its just the right thing: ‘Justice is finally being served’” (“Court Gives OK for California Gay Marriages”).
Abstract On June 26, 2015 a divided Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples could now marry nationwide. At the time of the split ruling there were 9 supreme court justices, 5 of the justices were Republicans, and the remaining 4 were Democrats. In high profile cases it is except that the justices will vote along party lines. When the 5-4 ruling was reveled by the following statement. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right (Corn,2015).” written by
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.
In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the court determined gay marriage to be a constitutional right, striking down several dozen state laws against SSM. While there has been some residual pushback against this decision, overall there has been broad complacence due to a high level of public support for the decision. Little scholarship has been done on how this decision has been implemented because the discussion was made so recently, but some measures show that “99.87 percent of the U.S. population [lives] in a county where same-sex marriage licenses are available” ("Local Government Responses to Obergefell v. Hodges." n.d.). While there are some pockets of resistance it is clear that there is broad local compliance with this decision, likely because of its broad popularity. Instances in which local bodies choose to disregard the Obergefell decision are highly publicized, and generally receive a great deal of public criticism. Thus, the SSM marriage example has fulfilled the two conditions for successful policy, as interest groups were able to use the courts to accomplish a set of aims, and local support has allowed for the implementation of the policy. While there has been some pushback along the way, this pushback has only served to further raise awareness of issue in the minds of the American people, and helped this cause gain
In the U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v Lopez (1995), a twelfth grade boy, Alfonzo Lopez, brought a loaded .38 caliber firearm to his local Texas high school. After being reported to the front office, Lopez was questioned about the gun and openly admitted that the firearm was in his possession. Texas then convicted Alfonzo of a criminal statute, which prohibited the carrying of a gun on school grounds. However, the charges were dropped rather quickly when the United States Government charged Lopez with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act.
The constitutional right of gay marriage is a hot topic for debate in the United States. Currently, 37 states have legal gay marriage, while 13 states have banned gay marriage. The two essays, "What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage?" by Katha Pollitt and "Gay "Marriage": Societal Suicide" by Charles Colson provide a compare and contrast view of why gay marriage should be legal or not. Pollitt argues that gay marriage is a constitutional human right and that it should be legal, while Colson believes that gay marriage is sacrilegious act that should not be legal in the United States and that “it provides a backdrop for broken families and increases crime rates” (Colson, pg535). Both authors provide examples to support their thesis. Katha Pollitt provides more relevant data to support that gay marriage is a constitutional right and should be enacted as law in our entire country, she has a true libertarian mindset.
Indeed, themes of coercion are oftentimes synonymous with family-related oppression that various groups faced. Some benefits were meant for children who were missing a parent, as merely lacking finances was not enough to merit welfare. Yet despite defining the condition as “absence of a parent,” what these programs really meant was the absence of a father-- the traditional wage-earner of the household. [footnote 115] There was anxiety about whether or not “able-bodied males might surreptitiously benefit from grants given to women and children,” for if one was physically able then regardless of whether or not the wages and hours were fair it was believed one should work. [footnote 124] Thus, any perceived method to circumvent such assigning
Abortion is defined by Merriam-Webster as the termination of a pregnancy after accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus such as a spontaneous miscarriage, or induced expulsion of a human fetus. Abortions have been around for many years, dating all the way back to ancient times. In those times they used herbal medicines, and sharp too. Abortion has a history dating all the way back to civilizations China, Ancient Egypt, and the Roman Empire. Abortions are one of the most common medical procedures performed in the United States each year. Even though it is performed so many times, it is still one of the most controversial procedures to date. Since being allowed by law, abortion has developed in the
On June 26, 2015, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right in the decision on Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al. This controversial decision overturned the law of more than 17 states. In the 5-4 decision, Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan voted with the majority and Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito were dissenting. At the heart of the controversy is the philosophy of judicial restraint and judicial activism. Was the Obergefell decision an example of judicial activism? Certainly, because it declared state laws banning same-sex marriages as unconstitutional. The Court’s decision, which was based on precedent and interpretation of the Constitution, was just.
The extents of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution has been long discussed since its adoption in mid-late 1800s. Deciding cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade has been possible due to mentioned amendment. These past cases not only show the progression of American society, but also highlights the degree of versatility that is contained within the amendment. Now, in 2015, the concerns are not of racial segregation or abortion, the extent of the amendment was brought to a new field: same-sex marriage. In Obergefell v Hodges, we can see the epitome of the Equal Protection Clause.
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.
The ruling of Baehr vs. Lewin was a victory for gay rights activists, hope for other states searching for the same freedom, and disappointment for opponents of same-sex marriage. Yet this victory was short lived (until complete legalization in November 13, 2013) since the state appealed the lower court’s decis...
Hodges is more of a recent test of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, having happened around two years ago from now. Some groups of same-sex couples sued Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee’s state agencies “to challenge the constitutionality of those states’ bans on samesex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages that occurred in jurisdictions that provided for such marriages.” According to the plaintiffs, the equal protection and the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment were violated. There were two questions to ponder. One, “Does the fourteenth amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?” Two, “Does the fourteenth amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another