Obergefell Et Al. V. Hodges Case Analysis

1900 Words 8 Pages
On June 26, 2015 the United States Justices decided on a pivotal case in American history. In a close 5-4 vote the Justices deemed that same-sex marriage was constitutional via the 14th amendment. The Obergefell et al. v. Hodges case was the finality of a slow evolving progression for same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges). This landmark decision allowed same-sex marriage to be legal in the United States. After this decision same-sex couples rushed to their nearest marriage clerk to solidify their relationship in marriage. Same-sex marriage licenses were being distributed at a rapid rate all throughout America, except in Rowan County, Kentucky. Standing on her 1st amendment civil liberty to have freedom to practice and exercise her religion, …show more content…
civil liberties cases. As justices have come in and out of the Supreme Court so have the leanings on pro civil rights vs. pro civil liberties. The United States Supreme Court Justices are to rule in accordance to the law, but in these cases there is no specific law to establish an obvious ruling. Because of this, most Supreme Court rulings are based in the controversy of the constitution. Justices often find themselves ruling towards how they personally see the case due to the ambiguity of the constitution. Very rarely is there precedent to these cases, and if there is then the case is usually handled in the lower courts. This means that most cases of this genre are unique and require Supreme Court ruling. All of this has led to an ever-flowing shift in these rulings. There is no telling on how a civil rights vs. civil liberties decision will turn out, but in most cases Justices try and make it unanimous. Justices are called upon for the United States most important legal decisions. Due to this Justices try and make clear, concise decisions to prevent controversy. When a clear decision with a strong majority is made, it is less likely that Americans will question the court, making it easier for people to cope with knowing that all/most of the Justices ruled in a certain way. Therefore, a majority of the United States most known and debated court decisions are due to a 5-4 …show more content…
v. Hodges ruling was also a catalyst to the Miller v. Davis case. If the court had been unanimous in their decision, then there could have been less controversy. Kim Davis was compelled by religion to act the way she did, but had the court been more unified in their ruling, Davis might have eased off. History has shown that the most disputed cases has led to the most dissention with the American people. The Bush v. Gore, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius are some examples of recent 5-4 decisions that led to a national divide and outrage (Yeomans). What, historically, have not caused national debate are the clear 9-0, 8-1, or 7-2 rulings. When the people of the United States see that their respective party rules in a way similar to that of the opposing party there is less tension. While being religiously conservative, as Davis was, is quite different than being politically conservative, there are obvious correlations to the two being interloped. That being said, Davis was a democrat (Ross). It could then be argued that had the decision been more one sided then Davis’ religious beliefs could have been conquered by her political beliefs and she would not have been compelled to act the way she

Related Documents