Case Study: Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)
OBERGEFELL v. HODGES, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)
FACTS
The States of Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee definition of marriage is defined to be “a union between one man and one woman.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). The State’s traditional definition aggrieved “[fourteen] same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased,” resulting in “[filing] suits in Federal District Courts in their home States, claiming that respondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another State given full recognition.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). The district level each Court ruled in the petitioners’ favor; but “the Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed.” See Id. Thus, the petitioners sought to have their marriages deemed lawful, citing a violation of their constitutional rights—in that like “persons of the opposite sex” marriage is a fundamental right. Id. Specifically, the petitioners claimed that the respondents violated the Fourteenth Amendment “by denying them the right to marry or . . . given full recognition” should it be ordained in another state. Id. Following their grievance, the petitioners appealed by writ of certiorari; the Supreme Court granted this request, limiting its focus to two questions. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). Here, the two questions the Court limited the request to were (1) “whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex;” and (2) “whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to recognize a same sex marriage licensed and performed in a State which does grant that right.” Id.
ISSUES
First, (1) can a State’s denial to legally recognize same-sex marriage, be considered an infringement of its citizens’ fundamental liberties; when the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that without Due Process, no person within its jurisdiction may be denied the unabridged privileges, immunities, and equal protection of the laws? Second, (2) is marriage a fundamental human right that exists independently of the state; as the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property?
RULE OF LAW
The claim here is that the states have denied the plaintiffs their Constitutionally guaranteed equal protection of the laws; as the “[p]etitioners first contend that the marriage laws of their States violate the Due Process Clause.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).
Under the Fourteenth Amendment;
“[n]o 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.” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1).
In Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971), the State Supreme Court held that the Minnesota statute did “not authorize marriage between persons of the same sex and that such marriages are accordingly prohibited.” Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971). This judgment set precedence, clarifying that moving forward, the definition of marriage would be a state issue.
On September 21st, 1996, Congress ratified H.R. 3396 the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), creating a federal definition for marriage. H.R. 3396, 104 Cong. at 1–2 (1996). This federal act shifted the authority of marriage to the national government; declaring that, “the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” Id.
Conversely, in United States v. Windsor 570 U.S. 744 (2013), Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of was struck down under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; returning the authority of marriage back to the states. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013). The Opinion of the Court read that “DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons under the Fifth Amendment. Regulation of marriage has traditionally been within the authority of the states.” Id. Another state precedent Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013), the Court let stand lower federal court rulings striking down California’s prohibition on same-sex marriage. Otis H. Stephens, Jr., American Constitutional Law: Sources of Power and Restraint 63 (John M. Scheb II, et al. eds, 4th ed. 2008).
Here, in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the doctrine of stare decisis endows the Court’s holding on these issues with authority over all set previous legal precedents defining marriage.
HOLDING
Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the Opinion of the Court—alongside Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—holding that “[t]he Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). The Court held further that “[t]he 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.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).
Dissenting were Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, John G. Roberts, Jr., and Clarence Thomas. Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. in his dissent noted that; “[the p]etitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness . . . [b]ut this Court is not a legislature.” See Id. Justice Roberts expounded that judges do not have the power to say what the law should be, only what it is; “[w]hether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).
RATIONALE
Justice Kennedy reasoned the Opinion of the Court, that “[t]hese considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). The Opinion of the Court noted that, “[t]he centrality of marriage to the human condition makes it unsurprising that the institution has existed for millennia and across civilizations. Since the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). The Court added further that, on the question of challenging the state definition of marriage; that, “[t]hese new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution of marriage.” See Id. Justice Kennedy explained that “[i]ndeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations.” Id. Kennedy elaborated on his support for the plaintiffs, as indicated by the origin and context of this case, that it is “often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process.” See Id.
Justice Kennedy noted that the Court’s holding would put an end to the “[n]umerous cases about same-sex marriage have reached the United States Courts of Appeals in recent years. Id. The Court expounded on the finalizing of their decision that it was made “[i]n accordance with the judicial duty to base their decisions on principled reasons and neutral discussions, without scornful or disparaging commentary, courts have written a substantial body of law considering all sides of these issues.” Id. In his opinion Justice Kennedy wrote that “[n]o union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.” See Id. The Opinion of the Court thus nationally redefined the traditional definition of marriage, imposing this definition to the states. Justice Kennedy reasoned that “[i]n 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.” See Id.
Dissenting, Justice Samuel Alito, contended that “[t]he system of federalism established by our Constitution provides a way for people with different beliefs to live together in a single nation.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). Justice Alito cited the importance of diversity, writing that, “[i]f the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not.” See Id. Further Alito noted the detriment brought onto the minoritarian interests, adding that “[i]t is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights. The majority today makes that impossible.” Id.
Justice Alito reasoned his dissent, that “[b]y imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas.” See Id. Alito reflected that two wrongs do not make a right, writing “[r]ecalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.” See Id.
Sharing in his dissent, Justice Roberts recognized that “[t]he people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage.” Id. Justice Robert’s position highlighted the broadness of the ruling, in that it forces any state traditionally opposed to same-sex marriage to abandon representation of its constituency and accept the newly formed, federally imposed definition. Justice Roberts acknowledging the minoritarian position, wrote that, “[m]any people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening.” See Id.
Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting, wrote that “[w]hen the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). Justice Scalia added that “[t]he five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.” See Id. Scalia noted further that “the ruling of the Court’s majority indicated that it had “discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since.” Id. Justice Scalia concluded with a notion that contemporary judges ought to consider: that “[t]he opinion [of the Court’s majority] is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic . . . with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” . . . we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.” Id.
JUDGMENT
In sum, the judgment of the Supreme Court defederalized the definition of marriage shifting its authority to a national level. The Court concluded in its judgment that “Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples.” Thus, the Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges redefined the modern legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples; and broadly applied this definition nationally across all states—invalidating all conflicting existing state laws and traditional practices.