Final Paper Assignment
The fourteenth amendment states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” but what does this have to do with
same sex marriages.
Well Obergefell v Hodges was a case that set to decide whether same sex marriages were
not only constitutional, but also if they should be upheld in every state. I will state by giving you
a summary of the initial the cause was founded on. Then I will give you a summary of the case
itself complied of the key facts. I will continue by elaborating on the key terms and finally I will
state how this case has affected similar cases that proceeded after itself.
Summary
Before I get into the details of Obergefell v Hodges, I will give a summary premise in which the
case of Obergefell v Hodges was founded on. The case was sixteen same sex couples, two who's
partners had passed away, sued their respective states because they did not recognize the
legitimacy of their marriages. To which they claimed was a violation of their fourteenth
amendment
The case
After the sixteen couples had filed for the sues in their states, their individual states
district courts agreed that this was a violation of their fourteenth amendment, but it was later
Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed it. Their reasoning was that in order for the
marrige to be officially first the state must recognize that the marriage was licensed legally in the
other state. Second, the ceremony must have been performed properly. They believed that if
same sex marriages were recognized it would demean the opposite sex marriage that was
historically accepted. It was stated that while marriage was about tradition it has also changed
throughout the year. An example that they gave was arranged marriages and the abandonment of
the law of coverture. They stated that these new ideas have strengthened marriage instead of
weaking it. They continued by saying that changing concepts with different generations is a part
of an ever-evolving sense of freedom. They further stated that even same sex relationships,
which was seen as immoral even into the late 20th century, is now publicly accepted. The use the
case Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186, which was overturned in 2003 for being “demea[n] the
lives of homosexual persons.” as well as Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 575., the federal
Defense of Marriage Act being stuck down, and United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. They then
reinstated the fourteenth amendments need for a state to license a same sex marriage. They state
that the fourteenth amendment Due Process Clause extends to personal choices central to
individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and
beliefs. They cite Eisenstadt v.Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S.
479, 484–486. They state that “For example, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12, invalidated
bans on interracial unions, and Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95, held that prisoners could not
be denied the right to marry.” They state that these cases may have been talking about opposite
sex couple, but the facts still apply. They state that the right to marriage is a personal choice.
They state “This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated
interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. They by stating “the right to marry is
fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the
committed individuals.” They cite how “The intimate association protected by this right was
central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married
couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95.
They cite Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 and Windsor, supra on why it is important to
have married parents even if the couple cannot have kids. They continue by stating that marriage
is the cornerstone of American culture. They cite Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. The go on
to state that same sex marriage is also covered by the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of
equal protection. The court then stated “ The Court has invoked equal protection principles to
invalidate laws imposing sex based inequality on marriage, see, e.g., Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450
U. S. 455, 460–461, and confirmed the relation between liberty and equality, see, e.g., M. L. B.
v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102, 120–121. The continue by saying “The Court has acknowledged the
interlocking nature of these constitutional safeguards in the context of the legal treatment of gays
and lesbians. See Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 575.” They followed by stating “The marriage laws at
issue are in essence unequal: Same-sex couples are denied benefits afforded opposite-sex couples
and are barred from exercising a fundamental right.” and “Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The
State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude
same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.
Pp. 22–23.” The court then states its unjustified under the Fourteenth Amendment. As well as
“Respondents’ argument that allowing same sex couples to wed will harm marriage as an
institution rests on a counterintuitive view of opposite-sex couples’ decisions about marriage and
parenthood. They finish by saying “Finally, the First Amendment ensures that religions, those
who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles
that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths. Pp. 23–27” the Court rules “ Since
same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, there is no
lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another
State on the ground of its same-sex character. Pp. 27–28. 772 F. 3d 388, reversed.”
Key terms
In this section I will be putting the mentioned case or amendment. Beside it I will put a brief
summary of the case or amendment.
Bowers v. Hardwick 478 u. s. 186 -this decision found that the Fourteenth Amendment does not
prevent a state from criminalizing private sexual conduct involving same-sex couples.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) - invalidated sodomy law across the United States, making same-sex
sexual activity legal in every State and United States territory
Defense of Marriage Act- Amends the Federal judicial code to provide that no State, territory, or
possession of the United States or Indian tribe shall be required to give effect to any marriage
between persons of the same sex under the laws of any other such jurisdiction
United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S.-, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of DOMA is
unconstitutional and that the federal government cannot discriminate against married lesbian and
gay couples for the purposes of determining federal benefits and protections.
Eisenstadt v.Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453- Unmarried couples have the right to use contraception,
based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the more nebulous
constitutional right to privacy.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486- A right to privacy can be inferred from several
amendments in the Bill of Rights, and this right prevents states from making the use of
contraception by married couples illegal.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510- ruled (9–0) that an Oregon law requiring children to
attend public schools was unconstitutional
Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211- The consent of the parties is, of course, essential to its
existence, but when the contract to marry is executed by the marriage, a relation between the
parties is created which they cannot change. Other contracts may be modified, restricted, or
enlarged, or entirely released upon the consent of the parties.
Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U. S. 455, 460–461- Determined the constitutionality of state “head
and master” laws, which deem the husband “master” of all marital property and allows him to
control marital property without his wife's consent.
M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102, 120–121. -In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, the Court held that, just as a State may not block an indigent petty offender's access to
an appeal afforded others, so Mississippi may not deny M.L.B., because of her poverty
Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 575- a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court
ruled that sanctions including any form of criminal punishment to all forms of private,
consensual non-procreative adult sexual activities between two individuals (commonly referred
to as sodomy laws) are unconstitutional.
Conclusion
As you can see from the decision by the court. Not only is same sex marriage protected under the
Fourteenth amendment and first amendment. It should be recognized and permitted across
America and its territories.
References
Bottger Newman, B. (2020, November 3). The Lasting Effects of Maynard v. Hill on the
Definition of Marriage - Berkman Bottger Newman & Schein LLP. Berkman Bottger
Newman & Schein. https://www.berkbot.com/blog/2020/november/the-lasting-effects-of-
maynard-v-hill-on-the-def/#:~:text=The%20consent%20of%20the%20parties
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). (n.d.). Justia Law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/478/186/#:~:text=Hardwick%2C%20478%20U.S.
%20186%20(1986)&text=Later%20overruled%20by%20Lawrence%20v
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). (n.d.). Justia Law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/438/#:~:text=Baird%2C%20405%20U.S.
%20438%20(1972)&text=Unmarried%20couples%20have%20the%20right
Gilkis, K. B. (2018, September). Lawrence v. Texas. LII / Legal Information Institute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lawrence_v._texas#:~:text=Overview-
Kirchberg v. Feenstra | Legal Momentum. (n.d.). Www.legalmomentum.org. Retrieved April 28,
2024, from https://www.legalmomentum.org/amicus-briefs/kirchberg-v-
feenstra#:~:text=Feenstra
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). (2019). Justia Law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/
M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved April 28, 2024, from
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/519/102/
National Archives. (2021, September 7). 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights
(1868). National Archives; The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment#:~:text=No%20State
%20shall%20make%20or
Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary | law case. (n.d.). Encyclopedia
Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pierce-v-Society-of-Sisters-of-the-Holy-Names-
of-Jesus-and-Mary
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. (2014).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/14-556.pdf
United States v. Windsor (Challenging the federal “Defense of Marriage Act”). (n.d.). NYCLU.
https://www.nyclu.org/court-cases/united-states-v-windsor-challenging-federal-defense-
marriage-act#:~:text=In%20a%20landmark%20decision%20issued
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
