The concept of what defines a marriage has highly been disputed over the past century. In 1996, the U.S. government passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as the union of one woman and one man, and allowed states to ignore same-sex marriages granted in other states. This federal law stood until June 26, 2015 with the case Obergefell v. Hodges, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 stating that no state can deny a same-sex couple the right to marriage. The court’s official opinion states,”[t]he right of same-sex couples to marry is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment [and] is fundamental under the Due Process Clause.” Why did it take nearly twenty years for the court to synthesize the current
…show more content…
Hodges was the executive government. President Barack Obama openly expressed his support for the court’s opinion by stating that the ruling had “made [their] union a little more perfect. From the beginning of his presidency, it was clear that he wanted the government to reach this decision. In his 2013 Inaugural Address, he said that “[o]ur journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like everyone else under the law -- for if we are truly equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.” While many presidents that came before him denied same-sex marriage, President Obama took an evolving stance on this social issue. As the Commander in Chief, he held an instrumental role in legalizing same-sex marriage. In February 2011, the Obama Administration announced that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional since it fostered inequality and months later, he ended the “Don’t ask, don’t tell policy” to create a more welcoming environment in the armed forces. If the Supreme Court were to rule against the White House’s opinion, the court would not only lose its legitimacy, but would also risk losing its “institutional prestige.” This would occur because by design, the court needs the Executive branch to enforce its ruling and since the Executive branch had already declared its opinion, it …show more content…
These informal actors, such as the Human Rights Campaign, present these amicus curie briefs to prove to the court that a large portion of the public support their given policy. The Human Rights Campaign is the leading “civil rights organization working to achieve equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer Americans.” In 2015, this interest group led efforts to influence the Supreme Court by hosting the People’s Brief and the Project One America, which were programs to educate America and influence the court on its decision. One important note is that the Peoples Brief contained the most signatures than any other amicus curie brief ever submitted to the Supreme Court. According to Marin Gilens in Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America, the power of the interest group relies within the membership numbers. Therefore, it could be said that this brief was the most powerful one submitted to the court, which is not something the court could overlook. Indirectly, the Human Rights Campaign used the power of the public opinion through the People’s Brief in order to show the large support for same-sex marriage. Therefore, with both the public support and one of the largest interest groups, the Supreme Court was unable
Hodges was the executive government. President Barack Obama openly expressed his support for the court’s opinion by stating that the ruling had “made [their] union a little more perfect. From the beginning of his presidency, it was clear that he wanted the government to reach this decision. In his 2013 Inaugural Address, he said that “[o]ur journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like everyone else under the law -- for if we are truly equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.” While many presidents that came before him denied same-sex marriage, President Obama took an evolving stance on this social issue. As the Commander in Chief, he held an instrumental role in legalizing same-sex marriage. In February 2011, the Obama Administration announced that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional since it fostered inequality and months later, he ended the “Don’t ask, don’t tell policy” to create a more welcoming environment in the armed forces. If the Supreme Court were to rule against the White House’s opinion, the court would not only lose its legitimacy, but would also risk losing its “institutional prestige.” This would occur because by design, the court needs the Executive branch to enforce its ruling and since the Executive branch had already declared its opinion, it …show more content…
These informal actors, such as the Human Rights Campaign, present these amicus curie briefs to prove to the court that a large portion of the public support their given policy. The Human Rights Campaign is the leading “civil rights organization working to achieve equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer Americans.” In 2015, this interest group led efforts to influence the Supreme Court by hosting the People’s Brief and the Project One America, which were programs to educate America and influence the court on its decision. One important note is that the Peoples Brief contained the most signatures than any other amicus curie brief ever submitted to the Supreme Court. According to Marin Gilens in Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America, the power of the interest group relies within the membership numbers. Therefore, it could be said that this brief was the most powerful one submitted to the court, which is not something the court could overlook. Indirectly, the Human Rights Campaign used the power of the public opinion through the People’s Brief in order to show the large support for same-sex marriage. Therefore, with both the public support and one of the largest interest groups, the Supreme Court was unable