Obergefell v. Hodges and US Constitutional Rights

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Background of the case
Intention and purpose
The ruling defends people’s civil rights
Challenges and disadvantages
Expression of the basic idea of freedom
It aid’s mankind’s evolution
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Obergefell v. Hodges is a monumental case decided by the United States Supreme Court Case on June 26, 2015, that recognized the constitutional right to same-sex marriages (Kleiman 8). The ruling was a culmination of many years of court cases and activism directed toward officially legalizing same-sex unions. It marked the end of a long period of discrimination and criticism against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community and occurred against the backdrop of changing public opinion regarding the morality of same-sex marriages (Kleiman 8). The ruling not only brought a challenge of morality but more importantly, a new era of the justification of the United States Constitution.

In addition to defending victims’ civil rights to marry a same-sex mate, it manifests the definition of America’s foundation, which is freedom. Moreover, it expounds the regulation of human love as it is equally accepted now to love a same-sex mate. Consequently, mankind has officially stepped forward in terms of evolution.

Background of the case

The ruling in the Obergefell v. Hodges case overturned the Baker v. Nelson ruling that had banned same-sex marriages by describing them as unconstitutional. Prior to the ruling, the case had undergone a lengthy series of hearings that ended with rulings that legalized same-sex unions. The Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits maintained that such unions were unconstitutional and could not be allowed in the United States (Kleiman 12).

The Sixth Circuit cited the Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson case of 1971 in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of a Minnesota law banning same-sex unions. The case caused legal disagreements between circuits and as a result, necessitated a Supreme Court review. The new law made in the Obergefell v. Hodges case established the constitutionality of same-sex marriage nationwide.

Intention and purpose

The intention and purpose of Obergefell v. Hodges were to define marriage as an institution between two people regardless of their sexual orientation. The purpose was to prove that same-sex marriages are protected under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore, every American has a right to love and marry whoever they want (Kleiman 21). The ruling illegalized any ban on such unions and allowed them to be recognized in all states regardless of where they were conducted.

The ruling will promote equality because same-sex couples will receive equal treatment under the law including benefits such as insurance, tax breaks, and Social Security. The Supreme Court revoked a section of the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor, which laid the foundation for Obergefell v. Hodges (Kleiman 24).

The ruling defends people’s civil rights

The ruling protects people’s civil rights because, for a long time, many states banned same-sex marriages citing a lack of representation in the constitution (Kleiman 27). The justices hearing the case challenged this assumption and made a ruling that justified the constitution. It is unconstitutional for a government or organization to prevent an individual from participating in the civil life of the society because of factors such as sexual orientation. The Supreme Court’s decision to redefine marriage and oblige states to embrace the new definition based on the ruling could violate the rights of religious people. The decision will compel many Americans to abandon their strongly held beliefs and faith in order to embrace the new law that was forced on them by the Supreme Court.

Challenges and disadvantages

The main disadvantage of the ruling is the possibility of creating clashes between the law and religion. Religion does not allow same-sex marriages because it describes it as unnatural and an abomination. The landmark ruling created a platform for moral collisions between the government and the church. This occurs in light of recent polls that show that public opinion has shifted significantly toward supporting same-sex unions. A major challenge of the ruling is the issue of judicial overreach.

Critics have claimed that it was the ruling was an example of judicial overreach in which a bare majority of justices invented a new right and imposed it on the whole country without allowing time for public discourses (Kleiman 34). Prior to the ruling, some states recognized same-sex marriages while others banned them. Therefore, imposing the new right on the whole country was a judicial overreach that could have dire consequences in the future. The ruling disregarded established and traditional institutions such as the church that would never allow same-sex marriages (Kleiman 35).

In that regard, the ruling made by the majority ignored the right of conservative Americans to be heard. Justice Thomas criticized the ruling by arguing that it will impinge on individual religious liberty and as a result, distort the principle of liberty as protected by the Constitution. Some states maintained that the ruling was judicial overreach because the states had the right to either allow or ban same-sex marriages conducted in other states. Ohio, Tennessee, and Michigan argued that the Fourteenth Amendment does not clearly define marriage, and therefore, states have a right to define it rather than having it imposed on them by the Supreme Court (Kleiman 42).

Expression of the basic idea of freedom

Marriages are based on love that is shared between two partners. Therefore, love should be respected because it has no prejudice. There is no scientific proof that same-sex marriages harm society. Decisions to ban them are founded on religious and moral arguments that are primarily based on outdated traditions and moral ethics. The American Constitution protects the right of citizens to be free from any form of oppression from the government.

People are free to love anyone because it expresses the basic idea of freedom that forms the foundation of the United States. The concept of freedom is best expressed by allowing people to choose their marriage partners regardless of their sexual orientation (Kleiman 47). Choosing to marry a same-sex partner is a personal choice that is a constitutional expression of individual autonomy. Therefore, bans on same-sex marriages are a violation of some people’s constitutional rights. Obergefell v. Hodges was a reaffirmation that all Americans are equal before the law and should not be judged or denied their constitutional rights because of their sexual orientation.

One of the arguments that influenced the ruling was the principle that describes marriage as an important factor in the maintenance of social cohesion (Kleiman 50). In that regard, there is no difference between a marriage between same-sex mates and opposite-sex mates. They all fulfill the purpose of bringing social order in the nation. Banning same-sex marriages promoted unjustified inequality because it denied people their right to make choices (Kleiman 53).

It aid’s mankind’s evolution

Obergefell v. Hodges was a step forward in regard to human evolution because, for many years, Americans lived in denial of the rights of the LGBT community and many people were skeptical that such a day would finally arrive. Very few people envisioned such a monumental ruling that was received with both jubilation and sorrow. The ruling is a step toward evolution because Americans will undergo several struggles before they finally come to terms with the fact that same-sex marriage is constitutional and a right that can be enjoyed by all individuals. Moreover, it has given Americans hope that real change is possible with regard to sensitive matters that have both legal and religious implications.

Making the necessary shifts in mind and heart will be difficult for many Americans because such a ruling has never been made in the history of the United States. Opponents of same-sex marriage will have to embrace the decision and change their attitudes and perspectives.

Conclusion

Obergefell v. Hodges is a 2015 landmark case heard by the Supreme Court that declared the banning of same-sex marriages by states as unconstitutional. It created a new law that upholds same-sex marriages and requires all states to recognize unions that are legally officiated in other states. The advantages of the ruling include equal treatment of married couples under federal law, enhancement of respect for love and marriage, and their role in promoting social order, and provision of the right to freedom for all Americans. The ruling was welcomed with jubilation because Americans’ opinion of same-sex, marriages has changed significantly in the last decade.

The majority of Americans believe that it is okay for people of the same sex to marry. Disadvantages of the ruling include potential clashes between the state and the church, judicial overreach, and impingement on individuals’ religious liberty. The ruling not only defends victims’ civil rights to marry a same-sex mate but also promotes the right to freedom. It expounds the regulation of human love as it is now acceptable to love and marry a same-sex mate. Consequently, it marks a critical moment in the journey of human evolution.

Works Cited

Kleiman, Daniel. (2016). Obergefell v. Hodges: the landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples. New York, NY: CreateSpace Independent Publishing.

Click Here To Order Now!