Obergefell v. Hodges and the Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage
Issue
Same-sex couples groups have sued the relevant government agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee, claiming the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage in those states or legalizing same-sex marriage in the proposed jurisdictions. In each case, plaintiffs allege that state law violated the Equal Protection and Due Process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also filed suits under the Civil Rights Act.
Rule
In both cases, the courts of first instance ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that state bans on same-sex marriages and denials of recognition of marriages performed in other states resulted from the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to equal protection and due process of husbands and wives, ruling that they did not violate.
Analysis
Judge Anthony M. Kennedy ruled by a majority of 5 to 4. The Supreme Court held that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental freedoms it protects. Case law has shown that the right to marry is integral to personal autonomy, protects the closest bond between two people, and separates them from children by legally allowing them to build a house and raise them. Historically, it has been recognized as the cornerstone of the social order. Since there is no distinction between same-sex and heterosexual couples regarding these principles, depriving same-sex couples of the right to marry violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that same-sex couples have the right to marry, and refusing this right violates their equal protection under the law. The right to marry has traditionally been dealt with in both parts of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the same principles of interlocking liberty and equality apply equally in these cases. Thus, the Constitution protects the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry.
Judges Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also joined in the dissenting opinion. In another dissenting opinion, Judge Scalia wrote that the majority goes beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, exercising legislative rather than judicial power, but in areas that the Constitution leaves to the states. State legislatures violated one of the most basic principles of the Constitution, according to which unelected judges decide the dispute. Elected representatives. By assuming this decision-making role, the majority deviated from the established Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence and created rights not in the Constitution. Judge Thomas joined the dissenting opinion.
Work Cited
“Obergefell v. Hodges.” Oyez. Web.