Case Study: Obergefell V. Hodges

Obergefell v Hodges 2015

Obergefell v Hodges (2015) is a landmark 5 to 4 decision in favor of legalizing gay marriage. James Obergefell petitioned the state 's ban on same sex marriage. He argued that it is a fundamental guaranteed under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Obergefell v Hodges first originated when same-sex couples sued the state governments of Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee in disagreement to the constitutionality of those states ' bans on same-sex marriage and refusal to recognize any legal marriages that took place outside the jurisdiction of the state. The couples argued the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated by the state 's’ exclusion of same-sex marriages. In the trial courts of the fourth, seventh, ninth, and tenth districts, state level bans on same-sex marriage were declared

The dissenting opinion included: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. Roberts took a strict-constructionist approach and stated that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction because same-sex marriage was not explicitly stated in the constitution. He stated that although same-sex marriage may be a good policy it is not the Supreme Court’s duty to make that decision. He held that the right to same-sex marriage should be given to the states rather than the national government. The constitution protected the right to marriage and requires states to implement these laws equally but the Supreme Court should not engage in judicial policy making. Scalia argued that change should be enacted by elected officials as stated in the constitution and allowing the majority of the Supreme Court to decide would go against what the constitution outlined for policy making.

The Supreme Court’s ruling creates a questions based on religious freedoms: Is it legal for business owners, with objections to same-sex marriage, to refuse wedding goods and services to a same-sex