Obergefell V. Hodges
- Ryan Nava
- Sep 14, 2021
- 3 min read
How the court grappled with the definition of marriage and religious liberty.
BACKGROUND:
Date Argued: April 28, 2015
Date Decided: Jun 26, 2015
Plaintiff: Jim Obergfell
Defendant: Richard Hodges
Jim Obergfell was married to his partner Arthur in Maryland, but his marriage was not recognized when they moved to Ohio, a state that didn’t legally recognize gay marriage. Likewise, when Arthur died of ALS, Jim was not allowed to identify himself as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate. He then sued the Ohio Department of Health, challenging laws and amendments adopted by states forbidding same-sex marriage, and for banning the recognition of same-sex marriages. (The case consolidated other cases from Tanco v. Haslam, DeBoer v. Snyder, and Bourke v. Beshear because of their similar appeals.)
Two years prior, in U.S. v. Windsor, the court declared that part of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional, while still leaving the constitutionality of same-sex marriage up for debate. Instead, the ruling guranteed tax breaks and insurance benefits to same-sex couples. DOMA still defined marriage as being between a man and a woman and made it clear that states would not be required to uphold same-sex marriage.
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS:
(2) Does the 14th Amendment require states to recognize same-sex marriages certified in other states?
OUTCOME :
5-4 in favor of Jim Obergefell.
Majority: According to the Majority of Judges….
The due process clause of the 14th amendment guarantees a right to marriage for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The due process clause provides the liberty to be married, and the equal protections clause (also from the 14th amendment) guarantees equal recognition of marriage among the states.
Marriage is important for 4 reasons: (1) Marriage is connected to individual autonomy. (2) Marriage is an intimate association that should be private. (3) Marriage provides legitimacy to raising children if it is legally recognized. (4) Marriage is the keystone of social order.
This ruling was not a judicial overstep by the court that ignored democratic debate. Any individual can sue for constitutional protection regardless of whether the public agrees or whether the state legislature could have passed a law to address the issue instead.
The 1st amendment still allows religious organizations to define marriage according to their beliefs, but states are not allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples.
"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.” -Anthony Kennedy
Dissent: Meanwhile, the other 4 justices believed …
The due process clause could be applied to unwritten rights (known as substantive due process) but should only apply to historically protected rights (Washington v. Glucksberg).
There is precedent for protecting marriage, but not for changing its definition. Even Loving v. Virginia did not change the definition of marriage.
Same sex bans would have been constitutional during the 14th amendment’s creation, so those bans are still constitutional today.
The equal protections clause was not violated because the government had a compelling interest to keep marriage between one man and one woman: procreation is essential to marriage and only possible with a man and woman.
Abandoning the older definition of marriage would quicken the current decay of marriage already seen through high rates of wedlock.
A right to privacy was not violated by the state bans, as there was no intrusion into same-sex couple’s private lives.
The court was carrying out legislative powers, when the state legislatures should have decided for them.
States should protect intervention into marriage but not be required to give entitlements to the people.
"If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.” - John Roberts
SIGNIFICANCE
This court case represented a continuation of LGBT successes in the supreme court, starting with Bowers V. Hardwick in 1986. 14 state laws banning same sex marriage were overturned as a result of the ruling. Ultimately, this was the first recognition of the right to marriage for gay couples ever handed down by the Supreme Court.
Comentários