Obergefell Case

The Evolution of Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection Rights in Obergefell v. Hodges Your Name Subject and Section Professor’s Name September 30, 2024 The recent ruling of the Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) shares an essential episode in the fight for equality and recognition of the rights of sexual minorities, especially in the marriage of equal sex. This case not only appalled the constitutional rights of same-sex couples but also supported the principles of substantive due process and equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. The change came after many years of changes in social and legal culture, which had beginnings in earlier cases like (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986) and the high health insurance costs, as well as Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which informs on the subjects of privacy and intimacy. As the present work is an analytical essay, the discussion will consider the plaintiff's and the Court's arguments, the groundwork set by precedent cases, significant societal changes impacting the Court's decision, dissenting opinions, and, finally, which justice is proper – the majority or those dissenting. Plaintiffs' Arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges The parties in Obergefell v. Hodges state that bans on same-sex marriage contravened their substantive due process and Equal Protection Clause claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. More particularly, they asserted that the right to marry is, therefore, a liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; the denial of this right to same-sex couples deprived them of the ability to attain the dignity, security, and other perquisites that go with marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). The plaintiffs insisted that not only is marriage a highly personal and intimate choice and fundamental right defining individual freedom, but it was also unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples equal right to marry (Academy 4SC). Further, the plaintiffs said that these state bans’ trod on the Equal Protection Clause since it discriminated against same-sex couples as opposed to opposite-sex unions. I was arguing that denying membership for same-sex couples in the institution of marriage created a differential and arbitrary treatment of sexual misunderstanding. They pointed out that the distinction they highlighted was not supported by any government interest facing legitimacy and continued to cause suffering among same-sex couples and their families (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). The Court's Ruling and Reasoning in Obergefell v. Hodges A slim 5-4 majority reached the judgments in this case for the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court held and would thus uphold same-sex marriages based on the two constitutional clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment: the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses. It is noticeable in this case that Justice Kennedy, who summarized for the majority, listed four principles that he deemed to support the reason marriage is now a right. First, marriage is an inherent right of freedom of individuals, and people have the right to make profound decisions in their life and their relationships. Second, marriage encapsulates a sacred bond between two persons that cannot be compared with any other bond despite the obligations involved. Third, marriage protects children and families from the illegality and instability often resulting from failed relationships. Last but not least, marriage is the foundation of society. When such couples are denied the right to marriage, it is unconstitutional as it devalues their worth and status in society (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). The Court further rationalized that the right to marry is a basic idea, irrespective of the sex of the two parties involved. It used concepts from previous cases like the famous Loving v. Virginia case. Virginia, in 1967, about interracial marriage, reminded us that the government cannot exclude individuals or couples from the fundamental right to marry based on race or sexual orientation. The Court stated that not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples provided them no access to an entity that belongs to the essential elements of liberty and a...