Posted: August 13th, 2022

Obergefell v. Hodges

Obergefell v. Hodges
My research paper is on the 14th amendment (equal protection clause) obegefell v. Hodges case (2015 – Research Paper Writing Help Service). For the research paper I would recommend following this model: Facts, Issue, Analysis, Holding, then Opinion. For facts, summarize what this case is about. Who are the parties and why is this matter in court. What happened to get us to this point. The issue is what the court is focussing on. What does the party who brought the case before the Court want to happen. What did ,they say the lower court got wrong. Analysis involves how the Court is deciding the issue. Are they focussing on the Constitution, a statute, or something else. Holding means what did the majority of the court decide to do. You can also include what the holding was, for instance was it 9-0 5-4 etc. You can include which judges agreed with the majority etc. Finally, opinion. What is your opinion of what occured. Did you agree with the holding.
Obergefell v. Hodges
Facts
The petitioners, in this case, were a group of people that were fourteen same-sex couples and two other men whose same-sex partners had passed on. The petitioners brought the file cases in different district courts, challenging their different jurisdictions for denying them the right to have same-sex marriages that were recognized in a different jurisdiction (Tweedy, 2015 – Research Paper Writing Help Service). There was a contradiction in that same-sex marriages were recognized in some states and not in others. The different cases were held in Tennessee, Ohio, Michigan, and Kentucky, where same-sex marriages were not recognized since the states defined marriages to be composed of a man and a woman and not otherwise. The different district courts rule in favor of the petitioners, thus allowing and encouraging the recognition of same-sex marriages. Consequently, the state officials (respondents) appealed the decision where the court of appeal ruled in their favor by reversing the decision made in favor of the petitioners. This fact made the petitioners seek the interpretation of the Supreme Court on same-sex marriages.
The background of the case presents the different scenarios presented in the case for the different petitioners. In this regard, James Obergefell and his partner John Arthus married for over twenty years. John had traveled from Ohio to Maryland to marry James (Tweedy, 2015 – Research Paper Writing Help Service). When John died, James could not be recognized as the surviving spouse in the death certificate since the Ohio law prevented and did not recognize same-sex marriages. Consequently, Jayne Rowse and DeBoer same-sex partners had three adopted children. The Michigan law was against same-sex marriages such that married couples or single persons could do the adoption of children. In this case, the children would only be adopted by one person, and in case one partner died, the other partner could not have legal rights to the children. Furthermore, Thomas Kostura and Ijpe Dekoe married while in New York, where same-sex marriage was legal. Later, the couple moved to Tennessee, where same-sex marriage was not recognized. Therefore, the movement from New York to Tennessee rendered their marriage null and void. Therefore, the different couples filed cases in the quest for the legalization of same-sex marriages in the different jurisdictions for their marriages to be legal.
Issue
The issue of the case was if the fourteenth Amendment required states to license marriages between two people of the same sex and if the fourteenth Amendment recognized marriages between same-sex partners when it was legally licensed and performed in other states that recognized same-sex marriages (Tweedy, 2015 – Research Paper Writing Help Service). In this case, the spouses wanted states that did not recognize same-sex marriage to start recognizing them so as to eliminate legal barriers presented by the issue. The legalization of same-sex marriage in different states would bring a sense of uniformity thus enabling same-sex spouses to be recognized in every jurisdiction, the adoption of children by same-sex couples and inclusion of surviving couples in the death certificates for same-sex partners thus enabling legal processes such as inheritance or being recognized in the wills.
Analysis
The rule of law or legal principle to be adopted in evaluating the case is section 1 of the fourteenth Amendment of the United States constitution (Snyder, 2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay For Me Without Delay). The Fourteenth Amendment states that the state cannot deprive a person of their property, liberty, or life without following the due process of the law nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the right to equal protection of the law. In this regard, the fourteenth Amendment required the states to give licenses to same-sex marriages and to recognize same-sex marriages performed and licensed in other states.
Upon the ruling against the petitioner in the court of appeal, the petitioners sought further interpretation from the court of appeal. The petitioners argued that the action of the court of appeal to deny the recognition of same-sex marriage was in contravention of the fourteenth Amendment (Snyder, 2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay For Me Without Delay). The different state’s action to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages or recognize same-sex marriages that were legally licensed and performed in other jurisdictions/states was in contravention of the fourteenth Amendment. The petitioners were in the view that their marriages were devalued, and thus they wanted their form of the institution of marriage to be respected and recognized, thus achieving equal rights just as opposite marriage sex.
On the other hand, the respondents argued that the petitioners were seeking the right to have recognition of new and non-existent for of marriage “same-sex marriage” as opposed to seeking the recognition of the right to marry (Snyder, 2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay For Me Without Delay). The institution of marriage by nature is made up of a man and a woman, and thus recognizing same-sex marriages devalued the institution of marriage. The respondents further argued that there was no democratic discourse to discuss and decide on the issue of the definition of marriage. Moreover, the respondents argued that legalizing same-sex marriages would hurt the institution of marriage as it would act against the connection of marriage and the issue of procreation.

Holding
The court of appeal ruled in favor of the petitioners by the vote of the majority of the judges. On the issue of same-sex marriages, the judges noted that the institution of marriage is dynamic and has evolved both legally and socially, thus making the different states to be divided over the issue (Khuu, 2017). Under the fourteenth Amendments, the states are urged to recognize people’s choices, personal dignity, beliefs, identity, and choices. In consideration of liberties, the court argued that people’s right to marry needs to be protected and respected despite the forms of marriage in question.
The courts argued that opposite-sex marriages established four fundamental principles of the right to marry, right to make a personal choice based on the inherent aspect of a person’s autonomy, the importance of marriage in procreation and safeguarding children and families and marriage was the central aspect of social order (Khuu, 2017). The court argued that similar principles should apply to same-sex marriages. Therefore, limiting marriage among the opposite sex was in the contravention of the right to marry, and thus burning same-sex marriages would result in stigma and injury to the victims.
The respondent earlier argument that the petitioners did not seek the right to marry but introduce a new and inconsistent for of marriage was quashed on the fact that it was in contravention of fundamental rights that included the right to marriage. Therefore, same-sex partners had a right to make a choice and enter into same-sex marriage just as those participating in different-sex marriages. Additionally, same-sex marriages are perfectly guaranteed under the Equal Protection Clause. In this case, just as the opposite sex marriages are respected and recognized, then same-sex marriages are entitled to similar treatment.
On the issue of recognition of same-sex marriages in some states and not the other, it resulted in uncertainty and instability, and thus there was a need for uniformity by legalizing same-sex marriages. In this case, same-sex partners were allowed to marry in all states since there is no lawful reason why a state would oppose the marriage of same-sex couples even for those that married in different jurisdictions or states.
Opinion
The Supreme Court ruled to ensure that same-sex marriages received similar recognition and importance just as opposite-sex marriages. I am fully in agreement with the district court and the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage. In this regard, the fourteenth Amendment ensures that the state or any other party does not deny its people the equal protection of the laws. In this case, the opposite sex marriages are protected and recognized under the law. Similarly, same-sex marriages need to be protected under the law in line with the fourteenth amendments. Consequently, people have a right to enjoy their liberties and freedoms as long as they do not interfere or prevent other parties from enjoying theirs. Therefore, people or spouses engaged in same-sex marriages are enjoying their rights, and thus they should not be prevented from doing so but rather protected by the states and their organs. Additionally, same-sex marriages need to be legalized in all states, thus instituting uniformity in the marriage institution to the point of eliminating contradicting and conflicts.

References
Khuu, N. (2017). Obergefell v. Hodges: Kinship Formation, Interest Convergence, and the Future of LGBTQ Rights. UCLA L. Rev., 64, 184.
Snyder, D. V. (2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay For Me Without Delay). CASE SUMMARY: OBERGEFELL V. HODGES. Gen, 388(6th).
Tweedy, A. E. (2015 – Research Paper Writing Help Service). Tribes, Same-Sex Marriage, and Obergefell v. Hodges. Available at SSRN 2669877.

Order | Check Discount