Facts and History of the Case
In order to understand the point of reviewing the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, on has to be aware of the facts about the case first. The Obergefell v. Hodges case was a landmark case that was handled by no less than the United States Supreme Court . The main issue at hand was the constitutionality of the previously implemented clauses banning same sex marriages. There were two issues at hand here. The first one was the legalization of same-sex marriage. The second issue was whether the prior and the still existing bans on same-sex marriage were constitutional or otherwise. In legal terms, if the ban proves to be unconstitutional, then the said bans, under the ruling of a higher court authority, or in this case the Supreme Court, would be cancelled because no other law or ordinance should violate the constitution. The problem was that there is a significant number of collections and rulings made in various circuits that suggest that such bans are constitutional; on the other side of the story, there are some that suggest that they are unconstitutional. Because of the conflicting results, the Obergefell v. Hodges case was inevitably brought for the Supreme Court review.
Constitutional Issue
The brief review of the history of the case would show that the main issue here was the second one. Obergefell v. Hodges’ case was originally about the legalization of same sex marriage. At that time, there was an existing state-level ban on same sex marriage. Because there was an existing ban on same sex marriage, what they wanted to attack then was the legality or in this case the constitutionality of those bans’ existence. If they were to successfully prove that those bans were unconstitutional, then they, in effect, would be able to prove that same sex marriage should be allowed in all states and not just in some. Since this case was already brought before the Supreme Court, the decision on whether same sex marriage should be allowed or not, would automatically be applied to all states. On June 26, 2015, Obergefell managed to overturn Baker. The United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the fundamental and constitutional right to marry should be granted and guaranteed even to same sex couples as stated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, under the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses .
The defendants managed to skillfully show to the court the unconstitutionality of the then existing bans. They were unconstitutional to begin with because there were certain clauses under the constitution that it violated. The issue on same sex marriage legalization was not just a legal battle; it was also a political, social, cultural, and a religious one. This is why prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2015, the states were largely divided on whether it should be legalized or not.
The first step in the process was the process of escalating the case to the level of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court rulings would almost always superimpose on all lower court rulings. Practically, that makes Supreme Court rulings more credible than that of other courts. The side of the defendant managed to convince the Supreme Court that two clauses were violated by the institution of the bans against same sex marriage and as a result, the bans were declared unconstitutional and it effectively got applied to all other state-wide bans against it.
Majority Opinion
The majority opinion, as authored by Justices Anthony Kenney, Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, held that statewide same sex marriage bans are in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution specifically the due process clause and equal protection clause .
In this case, the premise was that the continuation of the statewide bans on same sex marriage would be illegal mainly because of the fact that no less than the U.S. Supreme Court found it to be unconstitutional. In such case, the affected couples may file charges against the state government under the grounds that their constitutional rights are being restricted. In order to prevent this, the only logical legal solution was to fundamentally legalize same sex marriage.
Dissenting Opinion
One of the dissenting opinions was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. The opinion was based on the notion that the Supreme Court ruling based on the constitutionality of the bans may be used to maliciously issue claims that are aimed at expanding the fundamental rights of a citizen provided under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses . This may, in turn, give rise to incidents of legal misuse, something which lower branches of the courts may be unable to address. This is a valid opinion because this was essentially the same strategy that the people behind the Obergefell v. Hodges case used to fundamentally legalize same sex marriage and remove the then still existing statewide bans. If the Supreme Court sided on the abolishment of the bans, then same sex marriage would eventually be legalized all over the country, which evidently is what happened.
Works Cited
Cornell University Law School. "Griswold v. Connecticut." (2016): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/381/479. Web.
Madison, P. "Historical Analysis of the First of the 14th Amendment's First Section." The Federalist blog (2010): http://www.federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm#due. Web.
Our Documents. "Dred Scott v. Sandford." (1857): https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=29. Web.
Supreme Court of the United States Blog. "Obergefell v. Hodges." SCOTUS Blog (2016): http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/obergefell-v-hodges/. Web.
