Marriage Rights: Voting For
the Obvious
Just this
year, SCOTUS has had many a case brought before it that can be deemed
controversial. Gay Marriage Rights was finally ruled upon in a case called Obergefell v. Hodges. This
was tied to five other cases of similar style calling for the Court to decide
if homosexuals had the right to marry in the eyes of the law. The Court ruled
that marriage is a right for all consenting adults be they homosexual or
heterosexual (576 U.S. ___). This has caused a backlash all over the
country from people who think that such actions are illegal and in their
opinions against "God's Laws".
Obergefell
v. Hodges was years in the making, it started with DeBoer v Snyder (576 U.S. ___). This was a Michigan case
that was filled in 2012 due to the
couple being black balled from sharing parenthood of their son because they
weren't in a legally recognized marriage (772 F.3d 388). Deboer's case was focused on the state's
adoption laws but was refocused towards the marriage law as that was the true
thing holding the couple back (772 F.3d 388). This
worked and the couple went on to sue the state claiming that anti-gay marriage
laws were against the United States Constitution(772 F.3d 388). This snow balled into 5 cases making the
equivalent of a class action law suit against the Fed under the claim that anti
gay marriage laws violated people's rights under the Constitution. Obergefell
came a year after in 2013 when one half of a gay marriage died and the other
half requested that he be placed on the death certificate as his husband and surviving
spouse (576 U.S. ___).
The
five cases were combined under the title Obergefell v. Hodges (576 U.S. ___). The claim was that the
laws in each state violated the claimants 14th Amendment rights to Due Process
and Equal Protection (576 U.S. ___). The court agreed with the petitioners and
ruled that the Fed and states must recognize and issue same sex marriage
licenses or violate the inherent spirit of the 14th Amendment. SCOTUS has a
heavy burden each year while they are in session to analyze each case presented
carefully and weigh the cost of agreeing with the petitioner or tossing the
case out for precedent (576 U.S. ___).
Over
the past couple of years cases have been brought before the Supreme Court that
have systematically destroyed all legal argument for denying two consenting
adults under the spirit and heart of the United States Constitution. Obergefell
and the various petitioners have been given the same rights as those in
heterosexual relationships (576 U.S. ___). The Constitution cannot be taken literally
or else laws on marriage wouldn't be allowed in the first place as the lack of
writing upon them would create a void in the government. The Constitution has
to be taken in the spirit it was written instead.
The 14th Amendment states: "
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized
in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No 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." (Cornell University Law School). The spirit of
the law in this passage is how cases such as "Brown v. Board of
Education" those cases were looked at not in the letter of the 14th
Amendment, but in the spirit of the Amendment it guarantees each child,
regardless of ethnicity or gender, an education that is the same as everyone
else. There is no logical reason that marriage rights shouldn't fall under the
same thought process as education. Before this case was put before the Supreme
Court, the law couldn't legally tell two heterosexual adults they couldn't get
married because of the color of their skin, that was ruled unconstitutional years
before, gender is no different. In this case I agree with the majority that to
deny homosexual couples the same right that their heterosexual counter parts
enjoy each day is turning our back on the keystone of social order that
marriage is in our country. I also agree with the majority that the idea of
same sex marriage harming the marriages of straight couples is ridiculous and
that no lasting harm can happen to any current or future heterosexual marriage
by allowing same sex couples to marry (576 U.S. ___).
Marriage is a fundamental right
promised in the Constitution by its promise of the right to freedom and
happiness for every person in this nation. By denying gay couples because of a
small group's ideal of moral propriety is to thumb our noses at the spirit that
was engrained into the very parchment our founding fathers wrote it on. By
denying a portion of our nation the same rights that a majority of the nation
gets is turning our backs on the basis of our society that all men are equal.
Resources
Cornell
University Law School. (n.d.). 14th Amendment. Retrieved September 19, 2015,
from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
