The case of Obergefell v. Hodges will be a case that is remembered throughout history. Some will celebrate the right to marriage while others wonder is the case should have even been heard by the courts. Whatever the stance on the issue, this case will be just as significant as cases such as Roe v. Wade. Those who debate the case will use examples such as civil liberties, privacy, discrimination, equality and the list goes on. Those who opposed the decision do not see it as a privacy issue and in some cases not even a religious issue. To many it was seen as the judiciary branch overstepping their bounds and taking away the power of the states given by the constitution. The Supreme Court Justices were just as torn on their opinions as well.
…show more content…
The Due Process Clause protects the right to life, liberty and property, but does the liberties of the few supersedes the liberties of the many. While those who pushed for marriage equality would say yes, the dissenting opinion of Justice Roberts would not. The laws set forth by the states and in turn the majority in those states did not want marriage equality. If liberty was the basis, the minority gained liberties while the liberties of others, were taken away. Is marriage considered a liberty that is protected under these rights? Many would argue that marriage is not a liberty but a choice. Marriage to some is seen as a tradition not a liberty. Those supporting same sex marriage use interracial marriage as an example, primarily the case Loving v. Virginia. Justice Kennedy’s views were slightly different. Marriage is a civil union that should be a right that all are allowed to. Not just for the individuals, but to promote healthy and happy family relationships. The case does more than allow individuals to marry, it redefines marriage as it has always been know. Some would call marriage an intimate union between a man and a woman to provide a stable family, the government can easily redefine this. The Constitution does not define marriage, the people define marriage. This argument can work for both sides. If the majority of the states do not want to …show more content…
Therefore if opposite sex marriage is legal then same sex marriage is legal as well. The problem was that the definitions and laws were already in place and due to the historical context of marriage, opposite sex marriage was the only form recognized. The laws were not discriminatory for those that wanted to marry that were man and woman, which was the only way that anyone recognized marriage throughout many years and in numerous other cultures. In his opinion Justice Roberts refers the case Lockner v. New York. The case was not about a particular individual as is marriage but made for people of fundamentally different views. This case was not just about the right to marry, it was also about the benefits of being married. Even after same sex marriage was legalized in some states, not all states would recognize the marriages and the benefits that are granted to a marriage couple. Those benefits include insurance, deductions on tax refunds, access to a spouse in a medical situation and many more. They individuals in the case did not just want their marriage to be legal, but to be recognized be all states as
The Due Process Clause protects the right to life, liberty and property, but does the liberties of the few supersedes the liberties of the many. While those who pushed for marriage equality would say yes, the dissenting opinion of Justice Roberts would not. The laws set forth by the states and in turn the majority in those states did not want marriage equality. If liberty was the basis, the minority gained liberties while the liberties of others, were taken away. Is marriage considered a liberty that is protected under these rights? Many would argue that marriage is not a liberty but a choice. Marriage to some is seen as a tradition not a liberty. Those supporting same sex marriage use interracial marriage as an example, primarily the case Loving v. Virginia. Justice Kennedy’s views were slightly different. Marriage is a civil union that should be a right that all are allowed to. Not just for the individuals, but to promote healthy and happy family relationships. The case does more than allow individuals to marry, it redefines marriage as it has always been know. Some would call marriage an intimate union between a man and a woman to provide a stable family, the government can easily redefine this. The Constitution does not define marriage, the people define marriage. This argument can work for both sides. If the majority of the states do not want to …show more content…
Therefore if opposite sex marriage is legal then same sex marriage is legal as well. The problem was that the definitions and laws were already in place and due to the historical context of marriage, opposite sex marriage was the only form recognized. The laws were not discriminatory for those that wanted to marry that were man and woman, which was the only way that anyone recognized marriage throughout many years and in numerous other cultures. In his opinion Justice Roberts refers the case Lockner v. New York. The case was not about a particular individual as is marriage but made for people of fundamentally different views. This case was not just about the right to marry, it was also about the benefits of being married. Even after same sex marriage was legalized in some states, not all states would recognize the marriages and the benefits that are granted to a marriage couple. Those benefits include insurance, deductions on tax refunds, access to a spouse in a medical situation and many more. They individuals in the case did not just want their marriage to be legal, but to be recognized be all states as