What issues was the court asked to decide?Posted on 06/26/2015 11:19:36 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
What was the same-sex marriage case that was decided by the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court issued its ruling on the case of of Obergefell v. Hodges, which is consolidated with three other cases—Tanco v. Haslam (Tennessee); DeBoer v. Snyder (Michigan); Bourke v. Beshear (Kentucky). These cases challenged two issues concerning whether the Fourteenth Amendment must guarantee the right for same-sex couples to marry.
What issues was the court asked to decide?
The two issues that were answered in this case are:
1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2. 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?
These are known as the “marriage” and “recognition” questions, respectively. The Court answered the first question in the affirmative but did not address the second.
What did the Court rule?
That the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex, that is, States are required to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed out of State. As Justice Kennedy wrote, “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. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”
Why did the argument rely on the Fourteenth Amendment?
The Supreme Court rarely recognizes new “fundamental rights” in the Constitution that have previously existed, which is what many opponents of same-sex marriage say was being demanded. Because of this obstacle LGBT marriage advocates claimed that the right to marry is already well established and they simply want access to it in order to marry a person of their choosing.
What is the argument that the Court is creating a new “fundamental right” by allowing same-sex couples to marry?
As the ruling notes, marriage is currently considered a “fundamental right” by the Supreme Court and clearly applies to opposite-sex couples. When considering whether an asserted right is “fundamental,” says Chris Gacek, we are to rely on the test that the court set out in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997).
First, the court requires the presentation of a “‘careful description’ of the asserted fundamental right or liberty interest.” The claimed right must be described precisely. Second, such rights must be “deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.”
Furthermore, the right must be “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” The sought-after right must be “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” so that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if (it was) sacrificed.”
In the current cases, a broad definition like “being able to marry the person of one's choice” does not describe what the plaintiffs seek. They are permitted to marry at present, but they must marry a person of the opposite sex.
That is how the right to marry has always been understood, but that is not the type of marriage the challengers want. Rather, they seek the legitimation of a new right—a right to a governmentally recognized conjugal arrangement for persons of the same sex.
Why didn’t the Supreme Court let the American people decide the issue?
Justice Kennedy explained the Court’s reasoning by saying, “While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right.”
Who wrote the opinion for the Court?
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, which was joined by Ginsburg, Bretyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia and Thomas joined. Scalia also wrote an opinion that was joined by Thomas. Thomas also filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Scalia. And Alito filed a dissent that was joined by Scalia and Thomas.
Prior to this ruling, in how many states was same-sex marriage already legal?
37. Of those 37, 6 were decided by court decision, 8 by the state legislatures, and 3 by popular vote. The breakdown is as follows:
By Court Decision
Alabama (Feb. 9, 2015), Alaska (Oct. 17, 2014), Arizona (Oct. 17, 2014), California (June 28, 2013), Colorado (Oct. 7, 2014), Connecticut (Nov. 12, 2008), Florida (Jan. 6, 2015), Idaho (Oct. 13, 2014), Indiana (Oct. 6, 2014), Iowa (Apr. 24, 2009), Kansas (Nov. 12, 2014), Massachusetts (May 17, 2004), Montana (Nov. 19, 2014), Nevada (Oct. 9, 2014), New Jersey (Oct. 21, 2013), New Mexico (Dec. 19, 2013), North Carolina (Oct. 10, 2014), Oklahoma (Oct. 6, 2014), Oregon (May 19, 2014), Pennsylvania (May 20, 2014), South Carolina (Nov. 20, 2014), Utah (Oct. 6, 2014), Virginia (Oct. 6, 2014), West Virginia (Oct. 9, 2014), Wisconsin (Oct. 6, 2014), and Wyoming (Oct. 21, 2014).
By State Legislature
Delaware (July 1, 2013), Hawaii (Dec. 2, 2013), Illinois (June 1, 2014), Minnesota (Aug. 1, 2013), New Hampshire (Jan. 1, 2010), New York (July 24, 2011), Rhode Island (Aug. 1, 2013), and Vermont (Sep. 1, 2009).
By Popular Vote
Maine (Dec. 29, 2012), Maryland (Jan. 1, 2013), and Washington (Dec. 9, 2012).
How many states had banned same-sex marriage?
13. Of those 12 were by constitutional amendment and state law and 1 by constitutional amendment only; 8 of them have had their bans overturned by the courts, but the appeals were still in progress at the time of this ruling. The breakdown is as follows:
By Constitutional Amendment and State Law
Arkansas (2004, 1997), Georgia (2004, 1996), Kentucky (2004, 1998), Louisiana (2004, 1999), Michigan (2004, 1996), Mississippi (2004, 1997), Missouri (2004, 1996), North Dakota (2004, 1997), Ohio (2004, 2004), South Dakota (2006, 1996), Tennessee (2006, 1996), and Texas (2005, 1997).
How many same-sex couples currently have marriage licenses?
A new research paper suggests that the number of married same-sex couples in the United States in 2013 was around 170,000.
What happens now?
This ruling requires states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, though it doesn’t necessarily say that their own state laws must change. The effect, though, is that recognition of same-sex marriage by all 50 states is now the law of the land.
Will never embrace you perversion of law. Just because you demand something because you want it doesn’t mean you are entitled to it.0, worthy of receiving it, or will ever get it. I will do jail time first and take advantage of my tax $$$ at work. It may be the only timw I ever actually received a benefit of it rather than driving on newly paved roads.
Will never embrace this perversion of the law. Just because you demand something because you want it doesn’t mean you are entitled to it, worthy of receiving it, or will ever get it. I will do jail time first and take advantage of my tax $$$ at work. It may be the only timw I ever actually received a benefit of it rather than driving on newly paved roads.
So will American Muslim men now be entitled to up to four wives?
After all, it’s in their religion. And who’s to say who can’t marry who after today?
How about lovestruck 12 yr old Romeo and Juliets? I mean, who are the states to set an age limit?
And what will happen to Imams who refuse to marry homosexual couples?
What an effing slippery slope.
Nothing; the left will turn on a dime. This is a war against Christianity and the Muslims are allies.
No. It says all states must issue the licenses, not just recognize the marriages of other states. It is a full trump card for the left.
I am far more personally affected by the horrible bill passing the CA legislature. Reading all of the arguments above by kennedy, how is it we have a fundamental right, inherent in our Gd given liberty, to marry whom we want, but NO RIGHT TO REFUSE HARMFUL INVASIVE MEDICAL TREATMENT (vaccines the manufacturers refuse to back)???
Sorry, I can’t stop being upset over the vaccine bill having passed. I knew the gay marriage thing would pass and it doesn’t affect me personally. But now I have to live as if in the USSR and find doctors willing to break the law, or leave CA.
To me, that is far worse. I didn’t trust the supremes and I told y’all this thing would pass. Gay marriage was toothpaste out of the tube as soon as we gave them the word marriage. It could have been so much better if conservatives had fought for all rights for gays BUT that word. I got flamed for this for years. But I was right.
What if a state simply stops licensing marriages?
Can states get out of the marriage licensing business altogether and require people to be married by churches or by Federal judges when churches have objections? Can a state say we don’t do any licensing of any marriage?
“What if a state simply stops licensing marriages?”
That would be the correct response.
The two issues that were answered in this case are:My take, on brief reading of the case, is that both questions were answered in the affirmative. States are required to issue same sex marriage licenses, and states are required to recognize same sex marriages licensed by every other state.1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2. 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?
These are known as the "marriage" and "recognition" questions, respectively. The Court answered the first question in the affirmative but did not address the second. ...
This ruling requires states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, though it doesn't necessarily say that their own state laws must change. The effect, though, is that recognition of same-sex marriage by all 50 states is now the law of the land.
I’ve posted on this before, but to me it’s all about the word “marriage”. Should it refer only to a union (or a holy union) between a man and a woman? Should it have a legal meaning?
I posted earlier a piece from wikipedia saying that gays are simply unsatisfied with terms such as “civil union” because they they don’t command the respect of “marriage”.
The Supreme Court should have ruled that all pairs of people have the right to enter into a ‘civil union’ which brings with it various privileges. The Supreme Court should have scarcely mentioned the word “Marriage”.
And Liberals are trying their best to give animals the same rights as humans....Hmmmmmm.....that means ole Joe down the street will soon be able to marry his dog....ole Joe has been saying for a long time he’d like to marry that bitch.
There’s gonna be a LOT fewer straight marriages, that’s for sure.
Marriage will be seen even more as meaning nothing.
As far as I can tell, this directly affects only about 3% of the population. Why would someone think there will be a decrease in normal, real marriages?
Nobody would invite me to a homosexual wedding, so it is not going to spoil my life. Only theirs.
Which also means you can marry as many people as you want. Also, is there really a limit on whether it needs to be a person? Can it be a monkey, dog, sheep or tree?
Psalm 2
1. Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagion a vain thing ?
2. The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3. Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh : The LORD shall have them in derision.
5. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Get ready, God is getting ready to shake the heavens, and the foundations of the earth shall be moved.
The sun shall be blotted out and many will fear the signs in heavens.
That is their goal.
Destroy the family and elevate the State.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.