discussion replies

Running Head: GAY MARRIAGE 1

2

GAY MARRIAGE

Question 1

The Supreme Court of the United States recently decided a case concerning gay marriage.  Discuss this case as it demonstrates the appellate process.  How did it get to the Supreme Court? What effect does the ruling have on state laws?

Reply 1

Obergefell v. Hodges is a landmark case in which on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held, in 5-4 decision, that state bans on same-sex marriage and on recognizing same sex marriages duly performed in other jurisdictions are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1972, in the decision in Baker v. Nelson the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case about the denial of the marriage license application for same-sex couple “for want of a substantial federal question” (Supreme Court Order in Baker v. Nelson, 1972). This ruling blocked federal courts from reviewing same-sex marriage cases for decades, leaving the decision solely in the hands of states.

In late 1980s and mid 1990s same-sex couples had the option to see a few indications of trust on the marriage front. In 1981, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a statute that permitted gay couples and unmarried hetero couples to enlist for homegrown association, which additionally allowed clinic appearance privileges and different advantages. After three years the District of Columbia likewise passed a homegrown association law, giving same a few various significant advantages like the chance of getting a medical care if their accomplice was utilized by the DC government. In 1993 the most elevated court in Hawaii decided that a restriction on same-sex marriage might disregard the state constitution’s Equal Protection Clause whenever a state first court has at any point crawled toward making same-sex marriage lawful, nonetheless, the First Circuit court covered the thoughts that choice impelled and in 1996 the US Congress added one more pass up passing the Defense Marriage Act (DOMA). Even though DOMA didn't boycott same-sex marriage it given that main hetero couples could be conceded government marriage benefits. Furthermore, regardless of whether a state made same-sex marriage legitimate, couples still wouldn’t have the option to document annual assessments together, support mates for movement benefits, or get spousal Social Security installment and so on in 1998 the standpoint of the remainder of the nation on to the equivalent sex marriage boycotts got to Hawaii, where citizens supported an established change forbidding same-sex marriage in the state.

Reply 2

The case was Obergefell Vs Hodges which made bans on same sex marriage unconstitutional. These bans were not federal ban these were state bans which the supreme court ruled that the states bans were against the constitution and all fifty states had to same sex marriages. The case started because Obergefell and his partner wanted to get married and they were not allowed in the state they lived in. So, they left and sent to state that allowed it and got married and then went back to Ohio, but Ohio did not recognize them as being married based on the bans of the state. They sued Ohio for discrimination against same sex marriage and the supreme court rule in their favor. The process which was presented to the district court and the number of other cases which were presented with the same reason allowed them to go to the courts of appeals. During this time the court of appeals brought together multiple cases which were the same and going over the rulings of multiple cases. They then were allowed to appeal to the supreme court which there ruling was that the equal protection clause allows same sex marriage legal. This changed all states which banned same sex marriage to allow same sex marriage and to recognize all same sex marriages.

Question 2

Appellate courts are designed to ensure the trial courts make the correct decisions based on rules of evidence.  After reading chapter 13 of the text can you identify strengths and weaknesses of American appellate procedure?

Reply 1

Appellate court check all evidence and personal which were part of a trial court. They are here to make sure that everything was allowed and legitimate ruling during trial court. They have a few strengths and a few weaknesses that I can see. One weakness in the length it takes for them to go through a case. Some cases take years, and this could cause someone to be wronged for a very long time. On top of this the length to just get to appellate courts is just as long and there needs to be a change I feel to this system. I remember reading a article that said the usual wait time for a higher court is eight to nine years and most cases that take this long people forget about them. This should not be the problem and if we need more people and more help at this level then we need to get it so they can go through cases quicker. The strength of this court is its main reason which is a citizen right of appeal a decision they feel they were cheated out of or unfairly treated. This allows everyone to have a second look if they feel that there trail was bad or unfair.

Reply 2

After reading chapter 13, some strengths on the American appellate procedure include, " Given the inherent limits of trying to cope with the pressing problem of appellate caseload explosion by increasing resources, appellate courts have engaged in a fundamental re-evaluation of the appellate process in an effort to make more efficient use of existing resources", ( Neubauer p.384). Another strength would be to eliminate or reduce oral arguments due to the fact that many judges do not find them helpful when deciding cases. One weakness of the American appellate procedure would be the cost to appeal. This limits the justice for citizens, who fall outside the narrow legal aid ground. Another weakness is the limited scope of remedies available to the applicant.  In my personal opinion, the Appellate procedure in the United States is more desperately in need of reform than any other branch of procedural law. It is full of useless forms, unnecessary distinction, and outgrown traditions.