Hayden Rinker
Ms. Barnes
U.S History
Orange D
Obergefell v. Hodges
In Obergefell v. Hodges, in a five to four majority opinion, the United States Supreme Court untimely decided that a state may not prohibit same-sex couples the right to marry, and that states must recognize lawful same-sex marriages in other states. As a general rule, constitutional law analysis differs depending if the amendment or rights have been broken or compromised. Certain rights are enumerated in the Constitution (i.e. freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.). Other rights are not enumerated in the Constitution but are arguably implied within its language. Most rights rising by implication derive from the word “liberty” which is found in both the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the Due Process Clauses, both the federal government and the state governments are prohibited from enacting laws that ,“deprive any person of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness without due process of law” (2). In Obergefell, no one argued that an enumerated right existed. Instead, the argument was that the “liberty” afforded under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes the implied right of same-sex couples to marry, and that the States’ actions were depriving them of this liberty interest without due process of law. The first issue of analysis is whether the Constitution affords same-sex couples a liberty interest to marry. The majority opinion concluded that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of a person protected by the Constitution. This within itself is not a new law. The Court has long afforded the right to marry constitutional protection. However, the majority opinion went further to find that the liberties implied within the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, “extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs ” (2). Using this logic, the majority opinion concluded that the liberty interest to marry extends to same-sex couples.
The background of this personal dates back a while; however, one major background is another Minnesota Supreme Court case dealing with same sex marriage back in 1971 which is the Baker v. Nelson case. In this case the Supreme Court appealed the case but untimely did not take it saying, “The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question”(3). The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled against same sex marriage saying, “the Court found that childless marriages presented no more than a theoretical imperfection in the state's rationale for limiting marriage to different-sex couples” (3). This was the main point of the court; however, one court justice turned his chair around thus, literally turning is back on the attorney. When the Supreme Court ruled with same sex marriages it over turned this case making it invalid.
This decision was extremely impactful on society, same sex couples everywhere in the United States rejoice when the court ruled in their favor. Some immediate impacts were that a lot of controversy regarding if it was constitutional or not ended. Also same sex couples finally started families and got married now that it was finally legal and if they wanted to elope they could do that as well thanks to this ruling. Some long-impacts are that more church riots and hate towards same sex couples occurs because they did not find it acceptable. Also some articles ran by a Orthodox Christian, states that same sex marriage is a special legal right and stated, “Now that same-sex marriage is legally recognized, what’s next? Legalizing incest? Pedophilia? Polygamy? Bestiality? Or any other satanic aberration?”(1).
In a personal opinion, same sex marriage is 100 percent constitution because even though it is not stated in the constitution, the Due Process Clauses as well the equal rights. As well has life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which marrying same sex couple make millions of people happy every day. Which would make banning same sex marriage unconstitutional because it is taking away those rights. It is also unconstitutional because of the ninth amendment (unenumerated right to privacy), which banning same sex marriage deals with there private lives and no one else’s causing it to be unconstitutional. Proving with the evidence given the court ruling was fair and abided by the constitutional laws.
Works cited
“Why Gay Marriage Is Wrong.” The National Herald, www.thenationalherald.com/96681/why-gay-marriage-is-wrong/. (1)
“OBERGEFELL v. HODGES.” LII / Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556. (2)
“Baker v. Nelson.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 4 Nov. 2018, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson. (3)
“{{Meta.pageTitle}}.” {{Meta.siteName}}, www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556. (4)