Obergerfell v. Hodges

Transcript

00:00

Obergerfell v. Hodges

00:03

What Questions did this Case Ask?

00:04

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

00:06

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state?

00:11

Before the ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges in June of 2015, a person’s right to marriage was an issue handled by the states and by the end of 2014, only 17 had extended this right to same sex couples.

00:16

Jim Obergefell and John Arthur, a couple from Ohio, had been together for 20 years and for the latter portion of that time Arthur had been suffering from ALS. Knowing that his partners death was inevitable and nearing, Obergefell offered to marry him before he died.

00:22

However, the state of Ohio had not made same sex marriage legal so they flew to Maryland where they held the ceremony in a medically assisted plane before flying back to Ohio.

00:28

As Arthur’s death grew closer, the couple realized that on his death certificate, Obergerfell would not be labeled as his spouse because same sex marriages are not recognized in Ohio, even if they are legally married in another state.

00:35

They sued the state of Ohio for violating their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection stated in the Fourteenth Amendment and took the case to the state district court where the judge ruled that Obergefell would be recognized as Arthur’s spouse on his death certificate. Just three months after the ruling, Arthur died.

00:42

Even though the case was no longer in court, the state of Ohio took the case to the Court of Appeals of the Sixth Circuit where the ruling was reversed and combined it with 5 other related cases from Tennessee, Kentucky, and Michigan into Obergefell et al v. Hodges.

00:48

The court cited Baker v. Nelson in their ruling, a case that ruled that states are allowed to restrict same sex marriage.

00:54

The couples immediately filed for certiorari and while in conference in January of 2015 the Supreme Court agreed to hear 4 of the cases.

00:59

Between January and April when the oral arguments would took place, the Supreme Court received 149 amicus curiae briefs from law professors, religious organizations, and academic institutions.

01:05

On June 26, 2015 the final opinion of the court was that the Fourteenth Amendment does in fact protect marriage as a fundamental liberty that should be recognized in both opposite sex unions and same sex unions by all states.

01:10

This was ruled in a 5/4 majority swayed by conservative Justice Kennedy.

01:13

Dissenting Opinions

01:14

Chief Justice Roberts

01:15

Accused the judiciary of expanding their power to policy making as marriage is an issue that should be left entirely to state representatives as not doing so would be taking away the power of the people.

01:15

Justice Scalia

01:21

Dissenting Opinions

01:22

Justice Thomas

01:22

Wrote that the constitution’s purpose is to prevent government intervention and that it should not be used as a vessel for government entitlement.

01:27

Dissenting Opinions

01:27

Because same sex marriage is not mentioned in the constitution, its validity is entirely up to the state.

01:27

Justice Alito

01:32

Concurring Opinions

01:34

Justice Breyer

01:34

Justice Sotomayor

01:34

Justice Ginsburg

01:34

Justice Kagen

01:34

Justice Kennedy

01:34

Marriage is a liberty of every person protected by the Fourteenth amendment as it is crucial to the concept of individual autonomy.

01:39

Denying same sex couples the right to marry would violate their rights to due process and would strip them of equal protection under the law as they would not receive the legal benefits opposite sex unions have.

01:45

Because of this case, the idea that marriage can solely be a union between people of the opposite sex has become outdated and the exclusion of people who do not fit this mold is longer just an archaic ideology, but one that even the government no longer supports.