On this date, June 26,
2015, The
U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 5–4, that same-sex couples have a
constitutional right to marriage under the 14th Amendment
to the United States Constitution. I will post the information about this
SCOTUS case from Wikipedia.
 |
| White House in rainbow lights to celebrate June 26, 2015 ruling by US Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage nationally. |
Obergefell v. Hodges
|
||||
 |
||||
Argued April 28,
2015
Decided June 26, 2015 |
||||
Full case name
|
James Obergefell, et al., Petitioners v. Richard Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al.
|
|||
Docket nos.
|
||||
Citations
|
135 S. Ct. 2584; 192 L. Ed. 2d 609; 83
U.S.L.W. 4592; 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 472; 2015 WL 2473451; 2015 U.S. LEXIS
4250; 2015 BL 204553
|
|||
Related cases
|
||||
Argument
|
||||
Opinion
announcement
|
||||
Holding
|
||||
The Fourteenth
Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the
same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when
their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker
v. Nelson overturned.
|
||||
Court membership
|
||||
|
||||
Case opinions
|
||||
Majority
|
Kennedy, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer,
Sotomayor, Kagan
|
|||
Dissent
|
Roberts, joined by Scalia, Thomas
|
|||
Dissent
|
Scalia, joined by Thomas
|
|||
Dissent
|
Thomas, joined by Scalia
|
|||
Dissent
|
Alito, joined by Scalia, Thomas
|
|||
Laws applied
|
||||
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
|
||||
Baker
v. Nelson
(1972)
|
||||
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case
in which the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is
guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In
November 2014, following a lengthy series of appeals court rulings from the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits that state-level bans
on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, the Sixth Circuit ruled that it
was bound by Baker v. Nelson and found such bans to be
constitutional. This created a split
between circuits and led to an almost inevitable Supreme Court review.
Decided
on June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker and requires all
states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex
marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions. This legalized same-sex marriage throughout
the United States, and its possessions and territories. The Court examined the
nature of fundamental rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution, the harm
done to individuals by delaying the implementation of such rights while the
democratic process plays out, and the evolving understanding of discrimination
and inequality that has developed greatly since Baker.
Prior
to Obergefell, thirty-six states, the District of Columbia,
and Guam already issued marriage licenses to
same-sex couples. The governor of Puerto Rico announced on June 26
that same-sex marriage would begin in that territory within 15 days, and on
June 29 and June 30, the governors of the Northern Mariana
Islands and the Virgin Islands
(respectively) made similar announcements. The status of same-sex marriage in American Samoa
remains uncertain.
1 Lawsuits in the district courts
The
U.S. Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges is not the culmination
of one lawsuit. Ultimately, it is the consolidation of six lower-court cases,
originally representing sixteen same-sex couples, seven of their children, a
widower, an adoption agency, and a funeral director. Those cases came from
Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. All six federal district court rulings
found for the same-sex couples and other claimants.
1.1 Michigan case: DeBoer v. Snyder
One
case came from Michigan, involving a female couple and their three children.
April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse held a commitment ceremony in February 2007. They
were foster parents. A son was born on January 25, 2009, and adopted by Rowse
in November. A daughter was born on February 1, 2010, and adopted by DeBoer in
April 2011. A second son was born on November 9, 2009, and adopted by Rowse in
October 2011. Michigan law allowed adoption only by single people or married
couples. Consequently, on January 23, 2012, DeBoer and Rowse filed a lawsuit in
the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Southern
Division, Detroit), DeBoer v. Snyder, alleging Michigan's adoption
law was unconstitutional. Richard Snyder, the lead defendant, was then governor
of Michigan.
During
a hearing on August 29, 2012, Judge Bernard A. Friedman expressed reservations
regarding plaintiffs' cause of action, suggesting they amend their complaint to
challenge the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
The plaintiffs amended their complaint accordingly on September 7. During a
hearing on March 7, 2013, Judge Friedman decided he would delay the case until
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry, hoping for
guidance. On October 16, Friedman set trial for February 25, 2014. The trial
ended March 7. On March 21, Judge Friedman ruled for the plaintiffs, concluding
that, "without some overriding legitimate interest, the state cannot use
its domestic relations authority to legislate families out of existence. Having
failed to establish such an interest in the context of same-sex marriage, the
[state marriage ban] cannot stand."
1.2 Ohio cases
1.2.1 Obergefell v. Kasich
Two
cases came from Ohio, the first ultimately involving a male couple, a widower,
and a funeral director. In June 2013, following the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in United States v. Windsor, James
Obergefell (pronunciation: /ˈoʊbərɡəfɛl/ OH-bər-gə-fel)
and John Arthur decided to get married to obtain legal recognition of their
relationship. They married in Maryland on July 11. After learning that their
state of residence, Ohio,
would not recognize their marriage, they filed a lawsuit, Obergefell v.
Kasich, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Western Division,
Cincinnati) on July 19, 2013, alleging that the state discriminates against
same-sex couples who have married lawfully out-of-state. John
Kasich, the lead defendant, was then governor of Ohio. Because one partner,
John Arthur, was terminally ill and suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS),
they wanted the Ohio Registrar to identify the other partner, James Obergefell,
as his surviving spouse on his death
certificate, based on their marriage in Maryland. The local Ohio
Registrar agreed that discriminating against the same-sex married couple was
unconstitutional, but the state attorney general's office announced plans to
defend Ohio's same-sex marriage ban.
As
the case progressed, on July 22, District Judge Timothy
S. Black granted the couple's motion, temporarily
restraining the Ohio Registrar from accepting any death certificate unless
it recorded the deceased's status at death as "married" and his
partner as "surviving spouse". Black wrote that "[t]hroughout
Ohio's history, Ohio law has been clear: a marriage solemnized outside of Ohio
is valid in Ohio if it is valid where solemnized", and noted that certain
marriages between cousins or minors, while unlawful if performed in Ohio, are
recognized by the state if lawful when solemnized in other jurisdictions. Ohio
Attorney General Mike DeWine indicated he would not appeal the preliminary
order. On August 13, Black extended the temporary restraining order until the
end of December and scheduled oral arguments on injunctive
relief, which is permanent, for December 18.
Meanwhile,
on July 22, 2013, David Michener and William Herbert Ives married in Delaware.
They had three adoptive children. On August 27, William Ives died unexpectedly
in Cincinnati, Ohio. His remains were being held at a Cincinnati funeral home
pending the issuance of a death certificate, required before cremation, the
deceased's desired funeral rite. As surviving spouse David Michener's name
could not by Ohio law appear on the death certificate, he sought legal remedy,
being added as a plaintiff in the case on September 3.
As
the newly amended case moved forward, on September 25, Black granted a
September 19 motion by the plaintiffs to dismiss the governor and the state
attorney general as defendants, and to add funeral director Robert Grunn to the
lawsuit so that he could obtain clarification of his legal obligations under
Ohio law when serving clients with same-sex spouses, such as his client James
Obergefell. Ohio Health Department Director Theodore Wymyslo was substituted as
the lead defendant, and the case was restyled Obergefell v. Wymyslo. On
October 22, plaintiff John Arthur died. The state defendants moved to dismiss
the case as moot. Judge Black, in an order dated November 1, denied the motion
to dismiss. On December 23, Judge Black ruled that Ohio's refusal to recognize
same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions was discriminatory and ordered Ohio
to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions on death certificates.
He wrote, "When a state effectively terminates the marriage of a same-sex
couple married in another jurisdiction, it intrudes into the realm of private
marital, family, and intimate relations specifically protected by the Supreme
Court."
1.2.2 Henry v. Wymyslo
The
second case from Ohio involved four couples, a child, and an adoption agency.
Georgia Nicole Yorksmith and Pamela Yorksmith married in California on October
14, 2008. They had a son in 2010 and were expecting another child. In 2011,
Kelly Noe and Kelly McCraken married in Massachusetts. They were expecting a
child. Joseph J. Vitale and Robert Talmas married in New York on September 20,
2011. In 2013, they sought the services of the adoption agency, Adoption S.T.A.R.,
finally adopting a son on January 17, 2014, the same day Brittani Henry and
Brittni Rogers married in New York. They, too, were expecting a son. The three
female couples were living in Ohio, each anticipating the birth of a child
later in 2014. Vitale and Talmas were living in New York with their adopted
son, Child Doe, born in Ohio in 2013 and also a plaintiff through his parents.
On February 10, 2014, the four legally married couples filed a lawsuit, Henry
v. Wymyslo, also in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Western Division,
Cincinnati), to force the state to list both parents on their children's birth
certificates. Adoption agency, Adoption S.T.A.R., sued due to the added and
inadequate services Ohio law forced it to provide to same-sex parents adopting
in the state. Theodore Wymyslo, the lead defendant, was then director of the
Ohio Department of Health.
As
the case moved forward, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to ask the court
to declare Ohio's recognition ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Judge
Black gave the state time to prepare its appeal of his decision by announcing
on April 4 that he would issue an order on April 14 requiring Ohio to recognize
same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Following the resignation of the
lead defendant, Ohio's director of health, Ted Wymyslo, for reasons unrelated
to the case, Lance Himes became interim director, and the case was restyled Henry
v. Himes. On April 14, Black ruled that Ohio must recognize same-sex
marriages from other jurisdictions, and, on April 16, stayed enforcement of his
ruling, except for the birth certificates sought by the plaintiffs.
1.3 Kentucky cases
1.3.1 Bourke v. Beshear
Two
cases came from Kentucky, the first ultimately involving four same-sex couples
and their six children. Gregory Bourke and Michael DeLeon married in Ontario,
Canada, on March 29, 2004. They had two children: Plaintiff I.D., a
fourteen-year-old girl, and Plaintiff I.D., a fifteen-year-old boy. Randell
Johnson and Paul Campion married in California on July 3, 2008. They had four
children: Plaintiffs T.J.-C. and T.J.-C., twin eighteen-year-old boys,
Plaintiff D.J.-C., a fourteen-year-old boy, and Plaintiff M.J.-C., a
ten-year-old girl. Jimmy Meade and Luther Barlowe married in Iowa on July 30,
2009. Kimberly Franklin and Tamera Boyd married in Connecticut on July 15,
2010. All resided in Kentucky. On July 26, 2013, Bourke and DeLeon, and their
two children through them, filed a lawsuit, Bourke
v. Beshear, in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (Louisville
Division), challenging Kentucky's bans on same-sex marriage and the recognition
of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Steve
Beshear, the lead defendant, was then governor of Kentucky.
Subsequently,
on August 16, the complaint was amended to bring Johnson and Campion, their
four children through them, and Meade and Barlowe into the case, again
challenging the state's bans on same-sex marriage and the recognition of
same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. On November 1, the complaint was
amended again to bring Franklin and Boyd into the case, now challenging only
Kentucky's ban on the recognition of same-sex marriages from other
jurisdictions. Originally, the couple had filed their own lawsuit, Franklin
v. Beshear, with the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, but a change of
venue was ordered for convenience, with the intent formally to consolidate the
case with Bourke. Consolidation never occurred, and that separate case
was dismissed for failure to raise new claims. On February 12, 2014, Judge John G. Heyburn II issued the court's decision:
"In the end, the Court concludes that Kentucky's denial of recognition for
valid same-sex marriages violates the United States Constitution's guarantee of
equal protection under the law, even under the most deferential standard of
review. Accordingly, Kentucky's statutes and constitutional amendment that
mandate this denial are unconstitutional."
1.3.2 Love v. Beshear
The
second case from Kentucky, Love
v. Beshear, involved two male couples. Maurice Blanchard and Dominique
James held a religious marriage ceremony on June 3, 2006. Kentucky county
clerks repeatedly refused them marriage licenses. Timothy Love and Lawrence
Ysunza had been living together as a couple for thirty years when, on February
13, 2014, they were refused a marriage license at the Jefferson County Clerk's office. On
February 14, the next day, the couples submitted a motion to join Bourke v.
Beshear, challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. The motion was
granted on February 27, and the case was bifurcated, the instant action restyled as Love
v. Beshear, on February 28. On July 1, 2014, Judge Heyburn issued his
ruling. He found "homosexual persons constitute a quasi-suspect class", and ordered that
Kentucky's laws banning same-sex marriage "violate the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and they
are void and unenforceable." In the course of assessing the state's
arguments for the bans, he stated, "These arguments are not those of
serious people."
1.4 Tennessee case: Tanco v. Haslam
One
case came from Tennessee, involving four same-sex couples. Joy
"Johno" Espejo and Matthew Mansell married in California on August 5,
2008. On September 25, 2009, they adopted two foster children. After Mansell's
job was transferred to the state, they relocated to Franklin, Tennessee, in May
2012. Kellie Miller and Vanessa DeVillez married in New York on July 24, 2011,
later moving to Tennessee. Army Reservist Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and
Thomas Kostura married in New York on August 4, 2011. In May 2012, after
completing a tour of duty in Afghanistan, Sergeant DeKoe was restationed in
Memphis, Tennessee, where the couple subsequently relocated. On September 3,
2013, the Department of Defense began recognizing their marriage, but the state
did not. Valeria Tanco and Sophia Jesty married in New York on September 9,
2011, then moved to Tennessee, where they were university professors. They were
expecting their first child in 2014. On October 21, 2013, wishing to have their
out-of-state marriages recognized in Tennessee, the four couples filed a
lawsuit, Tanco v. Haslam, in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville
Division). William Edwards Haslam, the lead defendant, was then
governor of Tennessee.
As
the case progressed, on November 19, 2013, the plaintiffs moved for a
preliminary injunction enjoining the state from applying its marriage
recognition ban against them. On March 10, 2014, plaintiff couple Kellie Miller
and Vanessa DeVillez withdrew from the case. On March 14, Judge Aleta Arthur Trauger granted a preliminary
injunction requiring the state to recognize the marriages of the three plaintiff
couples. She wrote, "At this point, all signs indicate that, in the eyes
of the United States Constitution, the plaintiffs' marriages will be placed on
an equal footing with those of heterosexual couples and that proscriptions
against same-sex marriage will soon become a footnote in the annals of American
history." The state immediately filed a motion to stay this ruling, but,
on March 20, Judge Trauger denied the request, reasoning that "the court's
order does not open the floodgates for same-sex couples to marry in Tennessee
... [and] applies only to the three same-sex couples at issue in this
case."
2 Reversal by the Sixth Circuit
The
six decisions of the four federal district courts were appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Ohio's director of health appealed Obergefell
v. Wymyslo on January 16, 2014. The governor of Tennessee appealed Tanco
v. Haslam on March 18. On March 21, the governor of Michigan appealed DeBoer
v. Snyder. The governor of Kentucky appealed Bourke v. Beshear and Love
v. Beshear on March 18 and July 8, respectively. And on May 9 Ohio's
director of health appealed Henry v. Himes.
Subsequently,
on May 20, the Sixth Circuit consolidated Obergefell v. Himes with Henry
v. Himes for the purposes of briefing and oral argument. (On April 15,
after Ohio's governor appointed Lance Himes interim health director on February
21, Obergefell was restyled Obergefell v. Himes.) Upon prior
motion by the parties, the Sixth Circuit also consolidated Bourke v. Beshear
and Love v. Beshear on July 16. On August 6, the three-judge panel
consisting of Judges Jeffrey Sutton, Deborah
L. Cook, and Martha Craig Daughtrey heard oral arguments
in all four cases. On August 11, Richard Hodges succeeded Himes as
Ohio's health director, and Obergefell was again retitled, this time as
its final iteration of Obergefell v. Hodges.
On
November 6, 2014, in a decision styled DeBoer v. Snyder, the Sixth
Circuit ruled 2–1 that Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage did not violate the U.S.
Constitution. The court said it was bound by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1972
action in a similar case, Baker
v. Nelson, which dismissed a same-sex couple's marriage claim "for
want of a substantial federal question". Writing for the majority, Judge Sutton
also dismissed the arguments made on behalf of same-sex couples in this case:
"Not one of the plaintiffs' theories, however, makes the case for
constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from
the place it has been since the founding: in the hands of state voters."
Dissenting,
Judge Daughtrey wrote:
Because the correct result is so obvious, one is tempted to speculate that the majority has purposefully taken the contrary position to create the circuit split regarding the legality of same-sex marriage that could prompt a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court and an end to the uncertainty of status and the interstate chaos that the current discrepancy in state laws threatens.
3 Before the Supreme Court
3.1 Petitions for writs of certiorari
Claimants from
each of the six district court cases appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
On November 14, 2014, the same-sex couples, widowers, child plaintiff, and
funeral director in DeBoer v. Snyder, Obergefell v. Hodges, and Tanco
v. Haslam filed petitions for writs of certiorari
with the Court. Adoption agency Adoption S.T.A.R. did not petition. The
same-sex couples in Bourke v. Beshear filed their petition for a writ of
certiorari with the Court on November 18. The DeBoer petitioners
presented the Court with the question of whether denying same-sex couples the
right to marry violated the Fourteenth
Amendment. The Obergefell petitioners asked the Court to consider
whether Ohio's refusal to recognize marriages from other jurisdictions violated
the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of due process and equal protection, and whether the state's
refusal to recognize the adoption judgment of another state violated the U.S.
Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Tanco
petitioners asked the Court to consider three questions: whether denying
same-sex couples the right to marry, including recognition of out-of-state
marriages, violated the Due Process or Equal Protections Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment; whether refusing to recognize their out-of-state
marriages violated same-sex couples' right to interstate travel; and whether Baker
v. Nelson (1972), summarily dismissing same-sex couples' marriage claims,
remained binding precedent. Lastly, the Bourke petitioners posed to the
Court two questions: whether a state violates the Due Process or Equal
Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by prohibiting same-sex couples to
marry, and whether it does so by refusing to recognize out-of-state same-sex
marriages.
3.2 Merits briefs
On
January 16, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court consolidated the four same-sex
marriage cases challenging state laws that prohibited same-sex marriage—DeBoer
v. Snyder (Michigan), Obergefell v. Hodges (Ohio), Bourke
v. Beshear (Kentucky), and Tanco
v. Haslam (Tennessee)—and agreed to review the case. It set a briefing schedule
to be completed April 17. The Court ordered briefing and oral argument on the
following questions:
- Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
- Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
The
Court also told the parties to each of the four cases to address only the
questions raised in their particular case. Thus, Obergefell raises only
the second question, the recognition of same-sex marriages from other
jurisdictions.
The
case gained much national attention and had 148 amici
curiae briefs submitted, more than any other U.S. Supreme Court case.
3.3 Oral argument
Oral
arguments in the case were heard on April 28, 2015. The plaintiffs were
represented by civil rights lawyer Mary
Bonauto and Washington, D.C. lawyer Douglas Hallward-Driemeier. U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., representing the United
States, also argued for the same-sex couples. The states were represented by
former Michigan Solicitor General John
J. Bursch and Joseph R. Whalen, an associate solicitor general from
Tennessee. Of the nine justices, all except Clarence Thomas made comments and
asked questions, giving clues as to their positions on the Constitution and the
future of same-sex marriage. While the questions and comments of the justices
during oral arguments are an imperfect indicator of their final decisions, the
justices appeared sharply divided in their approaches to this issue, splitting
as they often do along ideological lines, with Justice Anthony Kennedy being
pivotal. It was thought Chief Justice John
Roberts could be pivotal as well. Despite his past views, and his dissent
in Windsor, Roberts made comments during oral argument suggesting that
the bans in question may constitute sex discrimination. In the end, however, he
argued against the same-sex couples in his opinion.
4 Opinion of the Court
On
June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the
Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and
recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. The Court overruled its
prior decision in Baker v. Nelson, which the Sixth Circuit had
invoked as precedent.
The
Obergefell v. Hodges decision came on the second anniversary of the United States v. Windsor ruling that
struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which
denied federal recognition to same-sex marriages. It also came on the twelfth
anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy
laws in 13 states. The justices' opinions in Obergefell are consistent
with their opinions in Windsor. In both cases, Justice Kennedy authored
the majority opinions and was considered the "swing vote".
Chief
Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito each wrote a separate
dissenting opinion. The Chief Justice read part of his dissenting opinion from
the bench, his first time doing so since joining the Court in 2005.
4.1 Majority opinion
Justice
Anthony
Kennedy authored the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen
Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena
Kagan. The majority held that state same-sex marriage bans are a violation
of the Fourteenth
Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
"The
Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach," the Court
declared, "a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow
persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity."
Citing Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court
affirmed that the fundamental rights found in the Fourteenth
Amendment's Due Process Clause "extend to certain personal choices central
to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define
personal identity and beliefs", but the "identification and
protection" of these fundamental rights "has not been reduced to any
formula." As the Supreme Court has found in cases such as Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner
v. Safley, this extension includes a fundamental right to marry.
The
Court rejected respondent states' framing of the issue as whether there were a
"right to same-sex marriage", insisting its precedents "inquired
about the right to marry in its comprehensive sense, asking if there was a
sufficient justification for excluding the relevant class from the right."
Indeed, the majority averred, "If rights were defined by who exercised
them in the past, then received practices could serve as their own continued
justification and new groups could not invoke rights once denied." Citing
its prior decisions in Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence
v. Texas, the Court framed the issue accordingly in Obergefell.
The
Court listed four distinct reasons why the fundamental right to marry applies
to same-sex couples. First, "the right to personal choice regarding
marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." Second,
"the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union
unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals", a
principle applying equally to same-sex couples. Third, the fundamental right to
marry "safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from
related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education"; as same-sex
couples have children and families, they are deserving of this safeguard—though
the right to marry in the United States has never been conditioned on
procreation. Fourth, and lastly, "marriage is a keystone of our social
order", and "[t]here is no difference between same- and opposite-sex
couples with respect to this principle"; consequently, preventing same-sex
couples from marrying puts them at odds with society, denies them countless
benefits of marriage, and introduces instability into their relationships for
no justifiable reason.
The
Court noted the relationship between the liberty of the Due Process Clause and
the equality of the Equal Protection Clause and determined that same-sex
marriage bans violated the latter. Concluding that the liberty and equality of
same-sex couples was significantly burdened, the Court struck down same-sex
marriage bans for violating both clauses, holding that same-sex couples may
exercise the fundamental right to marry in all fifty states.
Due
to the "substantial and continuing harm" and the "instability
and uncertainty" caused by state marriage laws differing with regard to
same-sex couples, and because respondent states had conceded that a ruling
requiring them to marry same-sex couples would undermine their refusal to hold
valid same-sex marriages performed in other states, the Court also held that
states must recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states.
Addressing
respondent states' argument, the Court emphasized that, while the democratic
process may be an appropriate means for deciding issues such as same-sex
marriage, no individual has to rely solely on the democratic process to
exercise a fundamental right. "An individual can invoke a right to
constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public
disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act", for
"fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the
outcome of no elections." Furthermore, to rule against same-sex couples in
this case, letting the democratic process play out as "a cautious approach
to recognizing and protecting fundamental rights" would harm same-sex
couples in the interim.
Additionally,
the Court rejected the notion that allowing same-sex couples to marry harms the
institution of marriage, leading to fewer opposite-sex marriages through a
severing of the link between procreation and marriage, calling the notion
"counterintuitive" and "unrealistic". Instead, the Court
stated that married same-sex couples "would pose no risk of harm to
themselves or third parties". The majority also stressed that the First
Amendment protects those who disagree with same-sex marriage.
In
closing, Justice Kennedy wrote for the Court:
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
4.2 Dissenting opinions
4.2.1 Chief Justice Roberts
Chief
Justice John Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion, which was
joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Roberts accepted substantive due process, by which fundamental rights are protected through the Due Process Clause, but warned it has been
misused over time to expand perceived fundamental rights, particularly in Dred Scott v. Sanford and Lochner v. New York. Roberts stated that no
prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between
one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the
Due Process Clause. Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage
bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no
government intrusion or subsequent punishment. Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated
that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were
rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional
definition of marriage.
More
generally, Roberts stated that marriage, which he proposed had always had a
"universal definition" as "the union of a man and a woman",
arose to ensure successful childrearing. Roberts criticized the majority
opinion for relying on moral convictions rather than a constitutional basis,
and for expanding fundamental rights without caution or regard for history. He
also suggested the majority opinion could be used to expand marriage to include
legalized polygamy. Roberts chided the majority for overriding the democratic
process and for using the judiciary in a way that was not originally intended.
According to Roberts, supporters of same-sex marriage cannot win "true
acceptance" for their side because the debate has now been closed. Roberts
also suggested the majority's opinion will ultimately lead to consequences for
religious liberty, and he found the Court's language unfairly attacks opponents
of same-sex marriage.
4.2.2 Justice Scalia
Justice
Antonin
Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Thomas.
Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of
"the freedom to govern themselves", noting that a rigorous debate on
same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue
nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted. Addressing the claimed
Fourteenth
Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban
would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth
Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today. He claimed
there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down
legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and
directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of
law". Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for
"diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis"
and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John
Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune
cookie."
4.2.3 Justice Thomas
Justice
Clarence
Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Scalia.
Thomas rejected the principle of substantive due process, which he claimed
"invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—roa[m] at
large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the
fundamental rights protected by that document"; in doing so, the judiciary
strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and
"exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their
authority." Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due
Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint".
Furthermore, Thomas insisted that "liberty has long been understood as
individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a
particular governmental entitlement" such as a marriage license. According
to Thomas, the majority's holding also undermines the political process and threatens
religious liberty. Lastly, Thomas took issue with the majority's view that
marriage advances the dignity of same-sex couples. In his view, government is
not capable of bestowing dignity; rather, dignity is a natural right that is
innate within every person, a right that cannot be taken away even through
slavery and internment camps.
4.2.4 Justice Alito
Justice
Samuel
Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and
Thomas. Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the
Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are
"deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition", Alito claimed
any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he
chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and
long-held tradition. Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the
premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the
optimal childrearing environment. Alito expressed concern that the majority's
opinion would be used to attack the beliefs of those who disagree with same-sex
marriage, who "will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by
governments, employers, and schools", leading to "bitter and lasting
wounds". Expressing concern for judicial abuse, Alito concluded,
"Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today’s decision
because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans,
whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s
claim of power portends."
5 Subsequent developments
5.1 Reactions
5.1.1 Support
James
Obergefell, the named plaintiff in Obergefell who sought to put his name
on his husband’s Ohio death certificate as surviving spouse, said, "Today’s
ruling from the Supreme Court affirms what millions across the country already
know to be true in our hearts: that our love is equal." He expressed his
hope that the term gay marriage soon will be a thing of the past and henceforth
only be known as marriage. President Barack
Obama praised the decision and called it a "victory for America".
Hundreds
of companies reacted positively to the Supreme Court decision by temporarily modifying
their company logos on social media to include rainbows or other messages of
support for the legalization of same-sex marriage. Jubilant supporters went to
social media, public rallies, and Pride parades
to celebrate the ruling. Media commentators highlighted the above-quoted
passage from Kennedy's decision as a key statement countering many of the
arguments put forth by same-sex marriage opponents and mirroring similar
language in the 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia, which abolished bans on
inter-racial marriages, and the 1965 decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which affirmed
married couples have a right of privacy. The paragraph was frequently repeated
on social media after the ruling was reported.
In
2015, due to the ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy and the other justices of the
Supreme Court were chosen as The
Advocate's People of the Year.
 |
|
An opponent of same-sex marriage holds up a
poster reading "Save the..." (followed by pictures of a family headed
by a heterosexual couple) before the steps of the Supreme Court of the United
States in Washington, DC on the morning of Friday, June 26, 2015, shortly
before the Court would strike down bans on same-sex marriage nationwide with
its landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.
|
5.1.2 Opposition
Conversely,
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton
called the Court's decision a "lawless ruling" and pledged free legal
defense of state workers who refuse to marry couples on religious grounds. In a
tweet, former Governor of Arkansas and then current Republican candidate
for the 2016 presidential election
Mike
Huckabee wrote, "This flawed, failed decision
is an out-of-control act of unconstitutional judicial tyranny."
Austin R. Nimocks, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a group that
opposes same-sex marriage, accused the Court's majority of undermining freedom
of speech, saying that "five lawyers took away the
voices of more than 300 million Americans to continue to debate the most
important social institution in the history of the world. . . . Nobody has the
right to say that a mom or a woman or a dad or a man is irrelevant." Some,
such as the National Catholic Register and Christianity Today, raised concerns that
there may be conflict between the ruling and religious liberty, echoing the arguments made
by the dissenting justices.
5.2 Compliance
While
the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States,
thirteen counties, all in Alabama, Kentucky, and Texas, still do not issue
marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and officials in another have yet to
clarify their position. As of October 2, 2015, 99.9 percent of Americans live
in counties that issue licenses to same-sex couples.
Alabama: As of January 20, 2016, eleven
counties issue no marriage licenses at all rather than supply them to same-sex
couples: Autauga,
Bibb, Choctaw, Clarke, Cleburne, Covington, Elmore, Geneva,
Marengo, Pike, and Washington Counties. Four counties will
not verify their policies: Coosa, Chambers, Crenshaw, and Lamar Counties. State law grants county
clerks authority to issue marriage licenses but does not specifically require
them to do so. The law states they "may" issue licenses.
Kentucky: The clerk of Rowan
County, Kim Davis, repeatedly refused to issue
licenses despite being ordered to by the governor and, on August 12, 2015,
a federal district court. The federal Sixth Circuit Court refused to stay the
district court's order on the twenty-sixth, as did the U.S. Supreme Court on
the thirty-first. Davis was found in contempt of court and jailed on September
3. Other clerks from her office agreed to grant licenses starting the next day
rather than be jailed themselves, but the legality of licenses not signed by
the elected county clerk might be in question. Davis was released from jail on
September 8 and returned to work on the fourteenth. She continued to refuse to
issue or sign marriage licenses herself but permitted her deputies to issue
them, including to same-sex couples; however, she altered the forms, casting
further doubts on their validity.
Additionally,
Whitley County, which purportedly had been
delaying issuing licenses to same-sex couples until updated license forms could
be obtained, is now refusing to issue licenses to same-sex couples, as is Casey County, though neither county has of
yet faced lawsuits over their stated refusals. Both counties are refusing to
comply on religious grounds. Knott
County officials never confirmed whether they would issue licenses to
same-sex couples.
Texas: Irion County flatly refuses on religious
grounds to issue licenses to same-sex couples. No legal challenge has been made
regarding this refusal.
Counties
denying licenses to same-sex couples
|
||||
Status
|
Total
|
|||
Will not issue any marriage licenses
|
11
|
0
|
0
|
11
|
Will issue licenses only to opposite-sex couples
|
0
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
Officials will not state whether they will issue
licenses
|
4
|
1
|
0
|
5
|
Total
|
15
|
3
|
1
|
19
|
5.3 Public opinion
Polling
company Gallup found that, two weeks after the Supreme
Court ruling, support for same-sex marriage was "stable" at 58
percent. Another poll from the Associated
Press found that poll respondents' support for same-sex marriage within
their own states dropped from 48 percent in April 2015, before the Supreme
Court ruling, to 44 percent after the ruling. However, the poll found that 42
percent supported same-sex marriage, versus 40 percent who opposed it. The poll
also found that 41 percent disapproved of the outcome of the case, as opposed
to 39 percent who approved.
OTHER
LINKS:
No comments:
Post a Comment