ObergefellvsHodges576US2015

FACTS:

OhioCase
Jim ObergefellandJohnArthurmettwodecades ago.In2011,Johnwas diagnosed withALS.They
then decidedtogetmarriedin2013by travellingfromOhio toMarylandwheresamesexmarriage
waslegal.
Three months later, Arthur died. Ohio law does not permit Obergefell to belisted asthesurviving
spouseonArthursdeathcertificate.
HebroughtsuittobeshownasthesurvivingspouseonArthursdeathcertificate.

MichiganCase
April DeBoer and Jane Rowse adopted three children. However, Michigan only allowed
oppositesexcouplesandsingleindividualstoadopt.
Thus, eachchild was considered toonlyhaveoneparent.IftragedyweretobefalleitherDeBoeror
Rowse,theotherwouldhavenolegalrightsoverthechildrenshehadnotbeenpermittedtoadopt.
Thus,theybroughtsuittoseekrelieffromtheuncertaintythattheirunmarriedstatuscreated.

TennesseeCase
IjpeDeKoe received orders to be deployed to Afghanistan. Before leaving,he married his partner
ThomasKosturainNewYork.
They later settled in Tennessee, where the lawful marriage wasstrippedfromthem. Thelegal tie
returnsanddisappearsastheycrossstatelines.Thus,theybroughtsuit.

OntheHistoryofMarriage
Until the mid20th century,samesex intimacylong had been condemned asimmoral bythestate
itselfinmostWesternnations.
Inthelate20th century, followingsubstantialculturalandpoliticaldevelopments,samesexcouples
begantoleadmoreopenandpubliclivesandtoestablishfamilies.
Bowers
v.
Hardwick:
upheld the constitutionalityofa Georgia lawdeemedto criminalizecertain
homosexualacts.
Romer v. Evans:
the Court invalidated an amendment to Colorados Constitution that sought to
foreclose any branch or political subdivision of the State from protecting persons against
discriminationbasedonsexualorientation.
Lawrence v. Texas:
The Court invalidated
Bowers
in 2003, holding thatlawsmakingsamesex
intimacyacrimedemeanthelivesofhomosexualpersons.
In
Baehr vs. Lewin
(1993), the Hawaii Supreme Court decided that Hawaiis law restricting
marriage to oppositesexcouplesconstituted aclassification onthebasis ofsexandwastherefore
subjecttostrictscrutinyundertheHawaiiConstitution.
o As a response, other states sought to reaffirm traditional marriage. The US Congress
passedtheDefenseofMarriageActin1996.
Goodridge
v.
Department of Public Health
: the Supreme JudicialCourt of Massachusettsheld
theStatesConstitutionguaranteedsamesexcouplestherighttomarry.
USv.Windsor:
theSupremeCourtinvalidatedtheDOMA.

ISSUES:
ROJAS,Rina---SABANDO,FydahMarie

ObergefellvsHodges576US2015

Whether or notthe FourteenthAmendment requiresaStatetolicenseamarriagebetweentwopeopleof

thesamesex.
YES.

Whether or notthe FourteenthAmendment requiresa State to recognizeasamesexmarriagelicensed

andperformedinaStatewhichdoesgrantthatright.Y
ES.

RULING:

Under theDueProcessClauseof theFourteenth Amendment,noStateshalldepriveanypersonof

life,liberty,orproperty,withoutdueprocessoflaw.
The Court has longheld the rightto marryis protected by the Constitution. In
Loving v.Virginia
,it
was held that marriage was one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of
happinessbyfreemen.
Over time and in other contexts, the Court has reiterated that the right to marry is fundamental
undertheDueProcessClause.Therearefourprinciplesthatcanbedrawnfromtheseprecedents.
First Principle:
The right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of
individualautonomy.
o Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and childrearing,
all ofwhichareprotectedbytheConstitution,decisionsconcerningmarriageareamongthe
mostintimatethatanindividualcanmake.
The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other
freedoms,suchasexpression,intimacy,andspirituality.
o Thisistrueforallpersons,whatevertheirsexualorientation.
SecondPrinciple:Theright tomarryisfundamental becauseitsupportsatwopersonunionunlike
anyotherinitsimportancetothecommittedindividuals.
o Marriage responds to theuniversalfear thata lonelypersonmight call out onlytofindno
onethere.It offersthehopeof companionshipandunderstandingandassurancethatwhile
bothstilllivetherewillbesomeonetocarefortheother.
Third Principle: it safeguardschildren and families andthus draws meaningfromrelatedrightsof
childrearing,procreation,andeducation.
o Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers,theirchildrensufferthe
stigmaofknowingtheirfamiliesaresomehowlesser.
o Anability,desire,or promise to procreate isnotandhasnot beenaprerequisite foravalid
marriageinanyState.
Fourth Principle: this Courts cases and the Nations traditions make clear that marriage is a
keystoneofoursocialorder.
Marriage has been the basis of an expanding list of rights. By virtueoftheir exclusion from that
institution,samesexcouplesaredeniedbenefitsthattheStateshavelinkedtomarriage.
There is a fundamental inconsistency between limiting marriage to oppositesex couples and the
righttomarry.
The petitioners are not asking for a nonexistent right for samesex couples to marry they are
askingforthecomprehensiverighttomarry.
The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from
ancientsourcesalone.
o IninterpretingtheEqual ProtectionClause,theCourthasrecognizedthatnewinsightsand
societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequality within our most fundamental
institutionsthatoncepassedunnoticedandunchallenged.
Denialtosamesexcouplesoftherighttomarryworksagraveand continuingharm.Theimposition
ofthisdisabilityongaysandlesbiansservestodisrespectandsubordinatethem.
On the argument that there must be further legislation, litigation, and debate: There have been
referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns, as well as countless studies, papers,
books,andotherpopularandscholarlywritings.

ROJAS,Rina---SABANDO,FydahMarie

ObergefellvsHodges576US2015
Schuette v. BAMN:
when the rights of persons are violated, the Constitution requires
redress by the courts, notwithstanding the more general value of democratic decision
making.
Individualsneednotawaitlegislativeactionbeforeassertingafundamentalright.
Being married in one State but having that valid marriage denied in another is one of the most
perplexinganddistressingcomplication[s]inthelawofdomesticrelations.

DISSENTINGOPINIONS:

Roberts,
dissenting:
TheCourtisnotalegislature.Itsayswhatthelawis,notwhatitshouldbe.
The people of a State are free to expand marriage to includesamesex couples,or to retain the
historicdefinition.
The majoritys decisionis anact of will,notlegal judgment. Theright it announces hasno basisin
theConstitutionorthisCourtsprecedent.
o As a result,theCourtinvalidatesthemarriagelawsofmorethanhalftheStatesandorders
the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for
millennia.
Themajorityneglectsthatrestrainedconceptionof thejudicialrole.Itseizesforitselfaquestionthe
Constitutionleavestothepeople,atatimewhen the peopleareengagedinavibrantdebateon that
question.
Theuniversaldefinitionofmarriageastheunionofamanandawomanisnohistoricalcoincidence.
o It aroseinthenatureofthingstomeetavitalneed:ensuringthatchildrenareconceivedby
a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong
relationship.
Every State at the foundingand every State throughout our history until a dozen years
agodefinedmarriageinthetraditional,biologicallyrootedway.
The precedent citedby the majoritydid not, however,workanytransformationinthecorestructure
ofmarriageastheunionbetweenamanandawoman.
Why not grant the same right to polyamorous relationships too? Petitioners failed to cite any
substantialdifferencethatwouldmeritadifferentlegalanalysis.
Indeed,howeverheartened the proponents of samesexmarriagemightbe onthisday, itisworth
acknowledging what they have lost,andlostforever:theopportunitytowinthetrueacceptancethat
comesfrompersuadingtheirfellowcitizensofthejusticeoftheircause.

Scalia,
dissenting:
Thepublicdebateoversamesexmarriagemustbeallowedtocontinue.
What the majoritydid istolaynakedjudicial claimtolegislativeindeed,
super
legislativepower
aclaimfundamentallyatoddswithoursystemofgovernment.
Butwhat really astounds is the hubrisreflectedintodaysjudicialPutsch. (i.e.themajorityknows
better than the legal minds that preceded them The opinion is couched in a style that is as
pretentiousasitscontentisegotistic.)

Thomas,
dissenting:
By strayingfromthetextof theConstitution,substantivedue processexaltsjudgesattheexpense
ofthePeoplefromwhomtheyderivetheirauthority.
Tojustifytheuseofthedueprocessargument,onemustidentifythelibertybeingtakenaway.
The ratificationof the Fourteenth Amendment almostuniformly construedthewordlibertytorefer
onlytofreedomfromphysicalrestraint.
o Even assuming that the liberty in those Clauses en compasses something more than
freedom from physical restraint, it would not include the types of rights claimed by the
majority.
ROJAS,Rina---SABANDO,FydahMarie

ObergefellvsHodges576US2015
IntheAmericanlegaltradition,libertyhaslongbeenunderstoodasindividualfreedom
from
governmentalaction,notasaright
to
aparticulargovernmentalentitlement.
The majority likewise undermines religious freedom. The majorityopinionand religiouslibertywill
come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to
participateinandendorsecivilmarriagesbetweensamesexcouples.
o

Alito,
dissenting:
Samesex marriage is not included in the liberties protected by the due process clause. It lacks
deeprootsandthatitiscontrarytolongestablishedtradition.
For millennia, marriagewasinextricablylinkedtotheonethingthatonlyan oppositesexcouplecan
do:procreate.
Todays decision shows thatdecadesofattempts torestrainthisCourtsabuseofitsauthorityhave
failed.

CONTRADICTIONS:ASTONATURALLAW

1. ITIS
NOT
MARRIAGE
Amanandawoman
wantingtomarrymaybedifferentintheircharacteristics:onemay beblack,
the otherwhiteone rich,theotherpoor orone tall,theother short.None ofthesedifferencesare
insurmountable obstacles to marriage. Thetwo individualsarestill manand woman,andthus the
requirementsofnature
arerespected.

Samesex marriage opposesnature. Twoindividualsof the same sex, regardlessoftheir race,

wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable
biologicalimpossibility
.

2. NEGATES
PRESERVATIONOFSPECIES

SexualRelationshipsare apartofthemaritalrelationship,becausethenaturaloutcomeofsex
ischildren.

It denies the specificprimary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation ofthehumanraceandthe

raisingofchildren.

3. VIOLATES
NATURALLAW

goodistobedoneandpursued,andevilistobeavoided.
By hisnatural reason,man can perceive whatis morally goodor bad for him.Thus, hecanknow
the endor purpose of each of hisactsandhowitismorallywrongtotransformthemeansthathelp
himaccomplishanactintotheactspurpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates
naturallawandtheobjectivenormofmorality.
ROJAS,Rina---SABANDO,FydahMarie

ObergefellvsHodges576US2015

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire
humanrace,equally.Itcommandsandforbidsconsistently.

4. ITTURNSA
MORALWRONG
INTOA
CIVILRIGHT

Aman anda woman

wantingtomarrymaybedifferentintheircharacteristics:onemay beblack,
the otherwhiteone rich,theotherpoor orone tall,theother short.None ofthesedifferencesare
insurmountable obstacles to marriage. Thetwo individualsarestill manand woman,andthus the
requirementsofnature
arerespected.

Samesex marriage opposesnature. Twoindividualsof the same sex, regardlessoftheir race,

wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable
biologicalimpossibility
.

ROJAS,Rina---SABANDO,FydahMarie