The Final Exam

Can Gay Marriage truly be supported? According to the U. S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, is the legal arguments in favor of and against a U. S. Constitutional Right to Gay Marriage supported by the fourteenth Amendment?

In the majority legal argument during the  Obergefell v. Hodges, the judges argued that each state was required to provide marriage licenses. Because each State had its own individual rules, it was difficult for same sex couples to be leguly married to their spouces in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Because there was discontent in those particular States that banned same sex marriage, the Original Intent of the fourteenth Amendment was reevaluated, which then altered the comprohension of the original penned words. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. argued in the dissent that " while same-sex marriage might be good and fair policy, the Constitution does not address it, and therefore it is beyond the purview of the Court to decide whether states have to recognize or license such unions. Instead, this issue should be decided by individual state legislatures based on the will of their electorates. The Constitution and judicial precedent clearly protect a right to marry and require states to apply laws regarding marriage equally, but the Court cannot overstep its bounds and engage in judicial policymaking. The precedents regarding the right to marry only strike down unconstitutional limitations on marriage as it has been traditionally defined and government intrusions, and therefore there is no precedential support for making a state alter its definition of marriage" (Oyez).  But it states  in the Constitution  that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge 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" (Fourteenth Amendment Section 1). The Majority holding of the U. S. Court of Appeals held a 5-4 for Obergefell. The Majority opinion was given by  Justice Anthony M, Kennedy, by which he stated " The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same sex-couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples...Judicial precedent has held that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty because it is inherent to the concept of individual autonomy, it protects the most intimate association between two people, it safeguards children and families by according legal recognition to building a home and raising children, and it has historically been recognized as the keystone of social order"(Oyez).  In many States there are outdated gay marriage bans.  Justice Scalia stated in his dissent that the majority opinion broke the Court's abilities by not using judicial power by exercising the legislative instead. He also mentioned that by using a judge that was currently unelected, that it went against the precepts of the Constitution. Because the political change didn't take place by the votes of proper representatives, they departed to create a right that wasn't supported in the Constitution. Justice Thomas stated that the due process rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment was overused and distorted when used under the judicial power. He also mentioned that "the Due Process Clause in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments...were meant to protect people from physical restraint and from government intervention, but not grant them rights to government entitlements"(Oyez).  It is important to allow the legislature of the state to decide the interests and proper code of right and wrong because the Constitution never mentioned the type of marriage unions.  Like in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, Bowers v. Hardwick and Baker v. Nelson cases also dealt with same-sex realationships.  In the  Bowers v. Hardwick case the acts of being intimate between same sex coubles engaging in sodomy is not only unconstitutional but also states can outlaw it.  In the Baker v. Nelson case it was unconstitutional in  Minnesota  for gay couples to marry. The Minnesota Supreme Court stated  '"The institution of marriage as between a man and a woman, uniquely involving the procreation of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis." The court further held that the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia did not apply because "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex"' (The Forgotten Same-Sex Marriage Case). I personally chose these two as the Case Presedent because they both are against same sex relationships. I feel that those who break federal rules that are unconstitutional will have less privacy. Rationally thinking I perceive that those who go against nature's laws and the constitution will ultimately be more miserable than their fellow men who follow the rules. Laws were made for man to know what is right and wrong. When the rules are broken, then the harmony of marriage is forsaken for the burning of lust. The Defense of Marriage Act and the Homosexual Conduct law were created to create more law structure in the United States.  The Homosexual Conduct law was impemented to criminalize those engaging in unlawful sexual intimacy.  The Original Intent was to protect society from sodomy relations, keep the People thriving, and provide healthy future generations. The Living Document was used when deciding whether or not the couples were guilty of breaking the Federal rules of the United States. One thing I noticed was either the people who were found guilty and case dismissed or the same-sex couple ended up with being labled a criminal. In the Lawrence v. Texas  and the Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case, the same-sex couples were also discriminated against. I chose these last two cases because they fit under the same-sex relationship issue. Whether same-sex couples chose to be open or private about their relationships, there will always be oppositions and the Federal system that will oppose their union. Whether the people in question choose to be lesbian or gay they will be discriminated by the court system or by those who for religious purpuses choose to refuse their service. The Original Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment originally was meant for I believe the people of lower  education status or poverty levels such as the Afrocan Americans. I think the Fourteenth Amendment originally was designed to protect them more than their counterpart brothers and sisters in the LGBTQ comunity. 

Gay Marriage is sodomy and crimminal in many states and can not be properly supported. According to the U. S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, the legal argument is against an U. S. Constitutional Right to Gay Marriage and unsupported by the fourteenth Amendment.

Cites:

"Obergefell v. Hodges." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556. Accessed 10 Dec. 2020.

"Bowers v. Hardwick." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1985/85-140. Accessed 10 Dec. 2020.

"Lawrence v. Texas." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-102. Accessed 10 Dec. 2020.

    "Romer v. Evans." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1995/94-1039. Accessed 10 Dec. 2020.

    "Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111. Accessed 10 Dec. 2020.

"Baker v. Nelson: The Forgotten Same-Sex Marriage Case." Constitutional Law Reporter, 22 Oct. 2016, constitutionallawreporter.com/2012/12/20/baker-v-nelson-the-often-forgotten-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-case/.

Law, Tara. "9 Supreme Court Cases That Shaped LGBTQ Rights in America." Time, Time, 8 Oct. 2019, time.com/5694518/lgbtq-supreme-court-cases/.