The Obergefell vs. Hodges Supreme Court case was petitioned by 14 same-sex couples and two men whose partners were deceased. They filed for separate suits according to the states they are from which are Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky to the Federal District Courts. On the other hand, the respondents are state officials that responsible for enforcing the laws in question. The petitioners claim that the respondents violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying them the right to marry or to have their marriages recognized that was lawfully performed in another state. The petitioners reasoning behind their cases is to be given the same rights that opposite-sex couples receive, they want to be treated equally as human beings and be given the right to marry the ones they love without being discriminated or demeaned as a group of people that are categorized similar to that of criminals. The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach which includes specific rights that allow individuals, in a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.
The definition of marriage has evolved over the centuries. Marriage has always been known to be the union of a man and a woman. Women were seen as unequal’s to men till the late 20th century but as times changed and women started to fight for their rights, the laws had to be changed according to the era. Similar to that, the law should not keep to the old laws that have constantly deemed the gays and lesbians as lesser human beings. They are a group of people that have been discriminated for most of their lives. At one point in history, homosexuality was known as a mental illness, a disease, and even a criminal offense. Only in recent years, the psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and irreversible. In 1996, the Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), defining that marriage for all law purposes as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” The DOMA was invalidated through United States vs. Windsor, as it scorned gays and lesbians. Homosexuality in the 21st century is more acceptable in our current society and it is not as discriminated and frowned upon as it used to be. Therefore, laws that have denied them of their fundamental human rights for a very long time has to come to an end.
Obergefell who has an ailing partner decided to get married in Maryland where same-sex marriage was legal. Unfortunately, the state of Ohio does not recognize marriages that are between a man and a woman. This state legislative will deny Obergefell the right to have his name of his husband’s death certificate as the surviving spouse. Due to that reason, Obergefell filed a suit against the state of Ohio to be given the recognition to their marriage that was performed legally in another state, which is usually granted to couples of the opposite sex. The respondents believe that giving recognition to a couple of the same sex will harm the institution of marriage. They also asserted that the petitioners do not seek to exercise the right to marry but rather create a new and nonexistent “right to same-sex marriage.” The Obergefell vs. Hodges case was the main case as it was consolidated with the other cases from Tennessee, Kentucky, and Michigan
The Federal District Court ruled in favor of Obergefell because they found that the States have infringed the couple’s right to marry by violation the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause. The respondents appealed the decisions against them to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Court of Appeals held that a State has no constitutional obligation to license same-sex marriages or to recognize same-sex marriages performed out of state. The Sixth Circuit used the Baker vs. Nelson (1972) case as the precedent which said that challenging a state’s definition of marriage is not a “substantial federal question.” This led the petitioners to sought writ of certiorari which this Court granted review, limited to two questions. The first question that was presented by cases from Michigan and Kentucky asked whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and the cases from Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky asked whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to recognize a same-sex marriage licensed and performed in a State which does grant that right. These two questions were the main issue that was raised by the petitioners.
When the case went to the Supreme Court, the decision made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was once again reverted to being in favor of the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the state to license same-sex marriages as well as recognize them if they were legally performed out of state. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” which helped the Court confirm in their decision-making. A person’s right to marry is included in one of the liberties that protect the person’s private and intimate choices that defines one’s identity. This is a case of liberty because when bans on same-sex marriages are made, they burden these people’s liberty who seek to find the same purpose marriage that an opposite-sex couple does. Besides, the Supreme Court stresses the fact that the generation before that had written the Fourteenth Amendment did not predict the reach of freedom that is required to be happy today. The Supreme Court also said that the Equal Protection Clause was used as a basis in order to invalidate the bans that were made on same-sex marriages. This is an issue of equality because same-sex couples are not given the same rights as opposite-sex couples the right to marry, they are denied the right to marry which makes it unequal. The generations before definitely made the Constitution in the best form as they possibly could, but it up to the generation now to interpret it and use according to the era we live in today.
The Obergefell vs. Hodges case won by a 5-4 majority opinion. The four Justices who wrote the dissenting opinions were Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito. Chief Justice Roberts said that the fundamental right to marry does not include the right to make a State change its definition of marriage. He argued that the Constitution has nothing to do with the vote of the other five Justices as their opinion was an overstretch of the Fourteenth Amendment. He also argued that the precedents used for this case (Loving vs. Zablocki) had nothing to do with forcing the states to change their definition of marriage. Moreover, he believed that the petitioners’ argument of using the Equal Protection Clause was not enough to justify the violations that they brought forward. Furthermore, Justice Scalia argued that the ratification done to Fourteenth Amendment by the people in 1868 could not have foreseen the debate of same-sex marriage today. He believes that by ruling in favor of the petitioners, the people have lost their ability to debate regarding the issue and to come up with a decision.
Justice Thomas, on the other hand, thought that this majority decision has opposed the political process and disregarded upon the religious liberty of others. According to Justice Thomas, referring to the initial interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, liberty is defined as “freedom from physical restraint or governmental action. His definition implies that the petitioners’ cases could not be applied as their case for a marriage license would mean that the government has a right to intervene. Lastly, Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion argued that the Due Process Clause only protects the rights and beliefs that are have existed in the Nation’s tradition and history. Justice Alito believes that since same-sex marriage was not legalized until 2003 in Massachusetts, it was illegal, therefore it is not traditional or old enough to be in history. His reasoning towards this case is that there if there is a political change, it should be through the elected representatives and not through Supreme Court Justices who are only supposed to make judgments, not pass legislatures.
In conclusion, I agree with the majority of the Supreme Court’s decision. I believe that the law should adjust itself according to the current time and society we live in. It is understandable why the respondents and the four Justices that voted against this ruling did not support the idea of changing the definition of marriage in order to include same-sex couples. They didn’t believe in it because the definition of marriage has been the same for so many centuries. In fact, same-sex couples have existed all the way to ancient Greek, but since same-sex marriages have no purpose in terms of procreating, it has been frowned upon for far too long. For example, many children that are without families get adopted by gay or lesbian couples that give them the childhood and life they deserve. This was not a norm in the past because people would not voluntarily burden themselves of raising a child that is not their own. Times change so does the society and so should the law. If the laws are outdated, they should be ratified in order to fit into the current environment and era. Everyone deserves personal rights and liberty over their own lives, especially the liberty to marry regardless of their sexuality, race or religion. Denying this people of their rights and laws that harm or discriminate a specific group is unconstitutional. It also violates the Due Process Clause that protect every U.S. citizen from being deprived of life, liberty or property.