Same-sex marriage has been disputable in the United States for many years. However, a significant change took place in the entire United States as distinct states started lifting the similar gender marriage ban. Before the ruling of “Obergefell v. Hodges(2005)”, around 70% of districts and states of Columbia had acknowledged same-sex marriages, and had only thirteen states had their ban still in action (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). A significant number of gay-sex partners whose lovers whose had succumbed claimed that Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Michigan contravened the fourteenth amendment by repudiating them the chance to wed their spouses or even allowing them to conduct their marriages in other states that allowed same-sex marriages
Facts
Obergefell v.Hodges kicked off a six distinct lawsuit split between four states. By 2015, four states that are Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee, restricted marriage only to individuals of the opposite gender. An enormous number of plaintiffs sued in different states, arguing that there was a violation of the fourteenth amendment that legalized marriages between individuals of the same gender because the unions were getting conducted legally and fully recognized in other states (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). Different district law courts in the united states rule in favor of the plaintiffs, and the case is taken to the supreme court of appeal for the sixth circuit. A panel of three judges voted 2-1 altogether to reverse the ruling passed by the district courts. The ruling stated that states would not recognize out states’ marriage certificates of individuals of the same sex and not grant certificates to same-sex marriages in the state. However, the court of appeal found out that the constitutional responsibility did not bind the states in terms of marriage; hence they agreed to hear the case based on a certiorari writ.
The Legal Question
The legal question, in this case, was whether the fourteenth amendment allowed same-sex marriages in America. The amendment stated that no state had the right to cut short the privileges of any American citizen (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). No state should rob off any American citizen of autonomy without adhering to the law’s due process.
The Court’s Decision
The court of appeal held that the four states, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee ruling, were invalid. After all, they had closed same-sex marriages from civil marriage because they believed in opposite-gender marriages (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). It summed up that under legal proceedings and uniform protection of subsections in the fourteenth amendment, partners of similar sex had the right to marry. Additionally, they can fundamentally exercise their rights in all states.
The Court’s Rationale that Supports Its Decision
Getting married is a fundamental right based on a person’s willingness (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). Under the legal proceedings and uniform safeguarding of subsections in the fourteenth amendment, couples of the same sex should not get deprived of their liberty to marry.
The Rationale of the Dissenting Opinions
On the eve of the historic ruling of Obergefell v.Hodges declaring that marriage between individuals of the same sex was the law of the land, fourth judges had different opinions, with the majority each having his dissent.
Justice Clarence Thomas
He described liberty as a clause in the fourteenth amendment that stated that an individual was free from restraining. Therefore, he noted that the individuals could not claim that the state restrained them from conducting their marriages because they were free to do whatever they want with their lives. The only thing that the state had not done was a formal recognition of same-sex marriages formally. Thomas argued that liberty was freedom from governmental restraining but not an opportunity to benefit from the government.
Chief Justice John Roberts
John Roberts was the only dissenter that read his ruling from the bench. He said that many people rely on personal understanding of what freedom should become, not understanding their misinterpretation of democracy (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). According to him, the case’s petitioners failed to win because of the democratic process, yet they had the opportunity to change everything. He wrote that approach towards the matter by the majority was disheartening, calling it activism. He said that whether the gender of the similar sex marriage was an excellent idea or not did matter because the judges could say what the law is and what the law is not.
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia
The judge upheld that marriage was to understand the traditional perspective whereby its primary purpose was procreation. In his dissent, he also quoted religious liberty, saying the purpose of the decisions was to show the number of Americans who were unwilling to accept the new orthodoxy (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). He stated that those that still upheld their old believes would always major their thoughts in recess to their homes. He also warned the court for exceeding its powers.
Masterpiece Cake Shop V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)
The Facts of the Case
Jack Philips, the possessor and the Masterpiece Cake Shop operator, a Colorado bakery, repudiated to bake a cake for a couple of similar sex due to his religious opinions opposed to the union between the same sex. He stated that he did not recognize the union; therefore, since he could not bake them a wedding cake, the only thing he could do was to sell them other baked products (Quick, 2018). The lovers then sort redress with the Colorado civil rights panel in line with the anti-prejudice Colorado act that prevented prejudice based on someone’s sexuality. Colorado civil rights commission found out that there may be an instance of violation and transferred the case to Coronado anti-discriminatory act. The commission later alluded to the case for an authorized hearing prior to taking it to the executive law jury. The judge judged in favor of the partners. This means he denied Jack’s first amendment; expecting him to bake a couple’s wedding cake would violate his right to speech, which would violate his free exercise of religion.
The Legal Question
The legal question for these cases was whether Colorado public accommodation law’s application to force a cake maker to bake a cake that would violate his staunch Christian believes about same-sex marriages would be against the unconfined speech subsection of the first amendment.
The Court’s Decision
The court voted 7-2, requiring the Colorado civil rights commission to investigate the main reason why jack repudiated to bake a marriage ceremony cake for the lovers. The jury upheld that despite gay couples and people of the same sex being protected by the civil rights act, philosophical and religious beliefs towards same-gender marriage and same-sex marriage can guard utterance (Quick, 2018). Colorado’s regulations that protected people of similar gender from discrimination were put into action neutrally regarding religion. The majority believed that Jacks’ view about cakes creation was an artistic expression combined with his religious beliefs.
The Court’s Rationale that Supports Its Decision
The court noted the need for reconciliation between the two principles, the first being the authority that main interests were to protect the rights of gay people against any form of discrimination. This is when they seek services and the other being jack and his right to exercise the right to expression and religion (Quick, 2018). Moreover, the jury upheld that society understood that gay couples and gay people are community members and not outcasts; hence the constitution will protect them as they exercise their civil rights.
The Rationale of the Dissenting Opinions
Justice Kagan and Breyer agreed with the majority that the commission did not give jack a neutral based on his religious beliefs. Additionally, justice Gorsuch made a correlated ruling with justice Alito argued that jack and bakers had an obligation to same-sex unions; hence the commission judged them inappropriately (Quick, 2018). Justice Thomas upheld that passing legislation requiring a jack to bake a cake for the partners would breach his first amendment rights.
Part Two
Decisions in Light of America’s Constitutional History
Moreover, based on the decisions made by the court of appeal and civil rights panel, similar gender is now legal in the United States. All its fourteen states are in full support of these types of marriages without any form of discrimination. The rulings managed to end legal battles that existed for several decades. Additionally, the former president of the united states stated that the verdict in favor of same-sex marriage was a victory for the Americans. On the other hand, not all Christian conservatives are in favor of these new trends.
Decisions in Light of the Christian Foundations of America
In the political structure and systems of American since the colonial era, religion and religious beliefs have been of great importance to the country’s political life. In American history, religion had been in the best and the worst hearts of numerous American movements and laws. Some rules guide the relationship between religion and politics to avoid battles. Moreover, the supreme court now realizes the need for protecting religion in its broadest form. Religious liberty in American has become America’s first liberty philosophically and logically.
Decisions in Light of Specific Constitutional Principles
Decisions made in the two cases show the importance of constitutionality and how we can apply it in different scenarios to ensure the law gets executed fairly. The fourteenth amendment was applicable in some states and rejected in others. There was like a form of discrimination until the matter got to the court of appeal and lifted the ban against same-sex marriages. On the other hand, we see judges passing out a fair judgment on jack regarding the same-sex marriage issues. It is clear evidence of the advance American and the importance of having a constitution that favors all its citizens.
Decisions in Light of Specific Methods of Constitutional Adjudication
According to the two cases, we see an advanced America in terms of constitutional adjudication. In Obergefeel v.Hodges (2015), we see an improved constitutional adjudication of the constitution whereby the court of appeal takes time to listen to district and state court cases and make a final ruling for both parties. In Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), the judges adjudicate the constitution fairly and even request the civil rights commission to go and make an informed investigation since Jack had liberty, freedom of speech, and freedom to his religious beliefs. The court orders a fair judgment since both individuals have their constitutional rights.
Conclusion
To sum up, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan got held invalid to intentionally exclude same-sex marriages in their terms and conditions concerning opposite couples. However, a constitutional clause in the fourteenth amendment grants people of the same sex the right to wed. Additionally, couples of the same sex can now exercise their fundamental rights and marry in any state of their choice. In Jack Philips and the civil rights commission’s second case, the jury requests the panel not to misuse state duty under the first amendment act.
