Finally, in Obergefell, Kennedy’s rationale is primarily focused on the scope of protection that opposite-sex couples have in contrast to same-sex couples. Kennedy shows that the application of fundamental liberties and their protections need to distributed in the same manner. He specifically notes that
“there is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to [the] principles, yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable”.
Then, he explains that the right to marry is one of the most important fundamental liberties because it protects the most intimate relationship between two people, safeguards children and families, and is historically essential to social order. Since Kennedy established that there are no differences in same- and opposite-sex marriages, it shows that excluding same-sex couples from their right to marry is a direct violation of the Due Process Clause and Fourteenth Amendment. As a constitutionalist, Justice Scalia shares drastically different opinions in his dissents. …show more content…
Beginning with Romer, Scalia attacks the majority opinion by saying the Court argued that the political minority is given preferential treatment and allows the minority to take over Colorado’s traditional sexual values. Additionally, he states that Amendment 2 was created to prevent the decline of sexual morality and is an appropriate means to legitimate state interest, which is constitutional. Scalia attacks the Court and concludes with “today’s opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to”. Scalia does not effectively defend his argument, because the majority wanted to provide Equal Protection to the minority group. Also, a state’s interest cannot be to hinder rights of a minority group and is a huge flaw in Scalia’s opinion. In Lawrence, Scalia believes that because the Court did not find homosexual sodomy to be a fundamental right, rational basis scrutiny should be applied, which would uphold the law since it is only an exercise in liberty. He additionally argues that homosexual sodomy is a similar exercise in liberty like “fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity, which cannot pass rational-basis review. Scalia also argues that many citizens do not want people involved in homosexual sodomy to be involved in their children’s schooling because it is “immoral and destructive” to family life. In Scalia’s separate dissents in Windsor and Obergefell, the Justice argued that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to review the case or the power to strike down democratically enacted legislation. …show more content…
Additionally, Scalia believes that the Supreme Court asserted their supremacy and eludes to their power being the ultimate say in government, which he disagrees with. He believes the Court’s role in this decision was unjust and “the Court cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. In Obergefell, Scalia joins Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent which states that the Court played more of a legislative role rather than judicial role. The dissent is more focused on the role of the Court than the issue of the right to marry: “it is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. Scalia’s dissents are not as
“there is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to [the] principles, yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable”.
Then, he explains that the right to marry is one of the most important fundamental liberties because it protects the most intimate relationship between two people, safeguards children and families, and is historically essential to social order. Since Kennedy established that there are no differences in same- and opposite-sex marriages, it shows that excluding same-sex couples from their right to marry is a direct violation of the Due Process Clause and Fourteenth Amendment. As a constitutionalist, Justice Scalia shares drastically different opinions in his dissents. …show more content…
Beginning with Romer, Scalia attacks the majority opinion by saying the Court argued that the political minority is given preferential treatment and allows the minority to take over Colorado’s traditional sexual values. Additionally, he states that Amendment 2 was created to prevent the decline of sexual morality and is an appropriate means to legitimate state interest, which is constitutional. Scalia attacks the Court and concludes with “today’s opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to”. Scalia does not effectively defend his argument, because the majority wanted to provide Equal Protection to the minority group. Also, a state’s interest cannot be to hinder rights of a minority group and is a huge flaw in Scalia’s opinion. In Lawrence, Scalia believes that because the Court did not find homosexual sodomy to be a fundamental right, rational basis scrutiny should be applied, which would uphold the law since it is only an exercise in liberty. He additionally argues that homosexual sodomy is a similar exercise in liberty like “fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity, which cannot pass rational-basis review. Scalia also argues that many citizens do not want people involved in homosexual sodomy to be involved in their children’s schooling because it is “immoral and destructive” to family life. In Scalia’s separate dissents in Windsor and Obergefell, the Justice argued that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to review the case or the power to strike down democratically enacted legislation. …show more content…
Additionally, Scalia believes that the Supreme Court asserted their supremacy and eludes to their power being the ultimate say in government, which he disagrees with. He believes the Court’s role in this decision was unjust and “the Court cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. In Obergefell, Scalia joins Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent which states that the Court played more of a legislative role rather than judicial role. The dissent is more focused on the role of the Court than the issue of the right to marry: “it is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. Scalia’s dissents are not as