OBERGEFELL V HODGES CASE STUDY

OBERGEFELL V HODGES CASE STUDY

Did the majority of the United States Supreme Court reach the correct conclusion in Obergefell v. Hodges?

In any case, for a court ruling to be perceived as wrong or right depends largely on whether it was approached in the right way or not. Correct approaches therefore will achieve correct conclusions whereas wrong approaches will achieve wrong conclusions on the other hand. In the Obergefell v. Hodges case, however much it has been praised, the fact remains that the majority of the United States Supreme Court did not reach the correct conclusion. This is in consideration to the fact that the ruling towards the case was beyond the capacity of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not have the capacity to rule over the case in such an abrupt manner as they did and that is a prime example of judicial power activism rampant in the present judicial systems (Hermann, 2015).

Basing the argument on the dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, same sex marriage could have first passed through a legislative process and not ruled out by the Supreme Court in such an abrupt manner. This is because same-sex marriage maybe could have been a good thing but since it had not been mentioned in the constitution, it remained to be above the capacity of Supreme Court to make a ruling on it. Chief Justice Roberts argues that the issue should have been left to the states instead (Hermann, 2015).  

Considering that the Constitution had outlined marriage as right that was supposed to be exercised equally by all, that alone was a limitation to the court from making any policy in regard to the case contrally to what the majority did (Stein, 2015). Marriage law precedents had been defined and decided based on the traditional perspective and so the court did not have to change the perspective of marriage on precedent basis. Additionally, Roberts argues that the majority applied the 14^th amendment broadly in this case with an aim of allowing for their ruling and which was contrally to what had been applied in the previous cases (Stein, 2015).

On a different note, and in consideration to 14^th amendment, constitution had clearly protected the rights of people in regard to marriage and important to note is that those rights did not exclude same sex marriage. That meant that exclusion of same sex couples from the right to marry could imply a violation of equal protection and due process clause. It is therefore wise to conclude that the majority overstepped it judicial powers and went ahead to exercise the powers of legislature, specifically those reserved for states. Also, the majority can be seen to have stretched the 14^th amendment so far and snatched legislature powers to give it to themselves (Stein, 2015).

Do you agree that the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution require states to recognize same-sex marriage?

Reasoning not only under the basis of Due Process Clause but also the Equal Protection Clause because the two are inextricably linked, it is without doubt that the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution should recognize same-sex marriage. 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause promises liberty to all the citizens and the right of marriage between couples without specifying whether they should be opposite or same-sex, therefore same sex marriage is part of that liberty promised by the Amendment. And from the same Amendment citizens are also guaranteed of equal protection by the laws (Sunstein, 2013).

Both Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause are related in an intense way, although in some instances they set autonomous principles. The rights implied in liberty and those protected equally may rest on diverse precepts and may not always correspond, yet in some other instances one may be instructive to the meaning of the other. In the case of same sex marriage, the two clauses are fused in consideration to the fact that the fundamental right of marriage is being repudiated in part just because of unenviable discrimination against same sex advocates. The laws under challenge are therefore clearly imposing burden to the liberty of gays and lesbians. Further, it must also be acknowledged that the central precepts on equality are being abridged. Marriage laws being enforced by respondents are unequal because the same-sex couples will have been denied the benefits accorded to the opposite-sex couples and also barred from marriage as one of their fundamental right (Sunstein, 2013).

Especially against the history of condemnation of same sex relationships, denying them the right to marry works as a grave and unending harm. The burden of this disability on same sex couples is more of a disrespect and subordination on them. The enduring exclusion of same sex couples from the fundamental right to marriage can be linked with the severe prejudgment against them by the society as well as many injustices initially subjected to (Sunstein, 2013). It is also clear that denial of same sex couples rights to marriage harms them in several of ways, right from feeling discriminated from the rest of the society to diminishing their self-esteem.