scholarly journals Liberty, Equality and the Right to Marry under the Fourteenth Amendment

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-262
Author(s):  
Ian Loveland
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Right

Abstract The legitimacy of recent judgments in the Supreme Court, lower federal courts and State courts which have extended the scope of the Due Process and/or Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment has been a fiercely contested controversy in legal and political circles in the USA. The controversy has been especially sharp in relation to the question of same sex marriage, and specifically whether it is within State competence to refuse to allow same sex couples to marry under State law. This paper explores that legitimation controversy through a multi-contextual analysis of the Supreme Court’s starkly divided judgment in Obergefell v Hodges (2015), in which a bare majority of the Court concluded that a State ban on same sex marriage was incompatible with the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This paper critiques both the majority and dissenting opinions, and suggests that while one might applaud the substantive conclusion the Court has reached, the reasoning offered by the majority suffers from several obvious weaknesses both in narrow doctrinal terms and from the broader perspective of safeguarding the Court from well-founded criticism that it is overstepping the bounds of its legitimate constitutional role.

Family Law in America

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanford N. Katz
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Family Law ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
Full Discussion ◽  
The Right

This book examines the present state of family law in America. The third edition captures recent developments, including the transformation of the institution of marriage from being a relationship between a man and a woman to encompassing same-sex marriage. In this regard, the book includes a full discussion and analysis of Obergefell v. Hodges. Obergefell v. Hodges is the U.S. Supreme Court case that held in a 5-4 decision that the bans on same-sex marriage in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee were unconstitutional. The Court held that the right to marry a person of the same sex is protected by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore may not be denied in any state.

On the Obergefell Dissenters′ Selective Judicial Self-restraint

ICL Journal ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Turner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Due Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Right

AbstractIn its landmark decision in Obergefell v Hodges a five-Justice majority of the United States Supreme Court held that state laws depriving same-sex couples of the right to marry violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Four dissenting Justices - Chief Justice John G Roberts, Jr and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr - criticized the majority’s ruling and analysis. Calling for judicial self-restraint and deference to the outcomes of democratic decision-making, the dissenters argued that same-sex marriage bans enacted by state legislatures did not violate the Constitution. This essay argues and demonstrates that the Obergefell dissenters have not restrained themselves in other cases in which they voted to strike down legislative enactments and did not defer to democratic decision-making. This selective restraint reveals that the dissenters have not been unwaveringly committed to judicial self-restraint, and raises the central question of when should the Court defer to legislatures in cases presenting constitutional challenges to state or federal laws.

scholarly journals SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE SAME OLD CONSTITUTION*

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (2 & 3) ◽  
pp. 2005
Author(s):  
Ronalda Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Social Institution ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Do So

The Reference re Same-Sex Marriage1 is not a major opinion on the rights of same-sex couples in Canada, but it is nonetheless an important and fascinating case. There are only a few lines that are about the “rights” of same-sex couples. Did the Supreme Court of Canada “duck” the issue? Was the Court carefully gauging how much or little political capital it had and making a political decision to say as little as possible on this topic? The Court certainly displayed strategic brilliance, but it did not do so in the name of avoiding the “political” hot topic of same-sex marriage. It is factually difficult to maintain the view that the Supreme Court of Canada is loath to enter into this political debate. It has been the lead social institution in Canada in terms of responding to the claims of gays and lesbians to equality in law,2 and it has never been shy of dealing with topics simply because they involve controversial political issues.3 Rather, the Court’s brilliance lies in its minimalist and almost weary tone. This approach had the effect of taking the wind out of the sails of those opposed to same-sex marriage: the same-sex advocates definitely win the constitutional race, but they do so because according to the Supreme Court, there is no provincial constitutional headwind that can stop them. In short, provinces can complain all they want about the federal position in favour of same-sex marriage, but the wedding will go on despite and over their objections to the ceremony.

The Right to Religious Freedom, with Particular Reference to Same-Sex Marriage

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-179
Author(s):  
Michael J. Perry
Keyword(s):  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Civil Marriage ◽  
The Right

In this essay, I elaborate and defend the internationally recognized human right to religious freedom. I then pursue the implications of the right for government’s exclusion of same-sex couples from of civil marriage.

scholarly journals The Argument for Same-Sex Marriage

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nelson Tebbe ◽  
Deborah Widiss ◽  
Shannon Gilreath
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Equal Access ◽  
Equal Protection ◽  
University Of Pennsylvania ◽  
Gay Identity ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Substantive Due Process ◽  
The Right ◽  
Made In

159 University of Pennsylvania Law Review PENNumbra 21 (2010)Professors Tebbe and Widiss revisit the arguments they made in "Equal Access and the Right to Marry" and emphasize their belief that distinguishing between different-sex marriage and same-sex marriage is inappropriate. They lament the sustained emphasis on the equal-protection and substantive-due-process challenges in the Perry litigation and suggest that an equal-access approach is more likely to be successful on appeal.Professor Shannon Gilreath questions some of the fundamental premises for same-sex marriage. He challenges proponents to truly reflect on "what there is to commend marriage to Gay people," and points to his own reversal on the question as evidence. Though he stands fully in opposition to critics of same-sex marriage who use the stance to veil attacks on equality generally, Gilreath argues that marriage can be seen as a further institutionalization of gays and lesbians that risks "assimilationist erasure of Gay identity." Gilreath concludes by noting that to the extent that marriage is assumed to be normatively good, the Tebbe-Widiss equal access approach to same-sex marriage recognition may be the most successful; still, he invites those on all sides of the debate to vigorously challenge that assumption.

Just Married

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Macedo
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Gay Marriage ◽  
Public Institution ◽  
Marriage Equality ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Critical Juncture ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Right ◽  
Marriage Reform

The institution of marriage stands at a critical juncture. As gay marriage equality gains acceptance in law and public opinion, questions abound regarding marriage's future. Will same-sex marriage lead to more radical marriage reform? Should it? Antonin Scalia and many others on the right warn of a slippery slope from same-sex marriage toward polygamy, adult incest, and the dissolution of marriage as we know it. Equally, many academics, activists, and intellectuals on the left contend that there is no place for monogamous marriage as a special status defined by law. This book demonstrates that both sides are wrong: the same principles of democratic justice that demand marriage equality for same-sex couples also lend support to monogamous marriage. The book displays the groundlessness of arguments against same-sex marriage and defends marriage as a public institution against those who would eliminate its special status or supplant it with private arrangements. Arguing that monogamy reflects and cultivates our most basic democratic values, the book opposes the legal recognition of polygamy, but agrees with progressives that public policies should do more to support nontraditional caring and caregiving relationships. Throughout, the book explores the meaning of contemporary marriage and the reasons for its fragility and its enduring significance. Casting new light on today's debates over the future of marriage, the book lays the groundwork for a stronger institution.

What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Social Movement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Gay Rights ◽  
Political Struggle ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Right

The authors of this book, sitting as a hypothetical Supreme Court, rewrite the famous 2015 opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which guaranteed same-sex couples the right to marry. In eleven incisive opinions, the authors offer the best constitutional arguments for and against the right to same-sex marriage, and debate what Obergefell should mean for the future. In addition to serving as Chief Justice of this imaginary court, the book's editor provides a critical introduction to the case. He recounts the story of the gay rights litigation that led to Obergefell, and he explains how courts respond to political mobilizations for new rights claims. The social movement for gay rights and marriage equality is a powerful example of how — through legal imagination and political struggle — arguments once dismissed as “off-the-wall” can later become established in American constitutional law.

NeJaime and Siegel, JJ., concurring.

2020 ◽  
pp. 112-128
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Equal Protection ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Equal Protection Clause ◽  
Majority Opinion ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Right

Today the Court holds that laws banning same-sex marriage are a form of caste or class legislation that violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Court recognizes the right of same-sex couples to marry under the suspect classification and fundamental rights strands of our equal protection case law. We join the majority opinion holding that equal protection guarantees the right of same-sex couples to marry....

Courts and Same-Sex Marriage in Latin America

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maximiliano Campana ◽  
Juan Marco Vaggione
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Latin American ◽  
The United States ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Historical Developments ◽  
The Right ◽  
Lgbt Movement

Same-sex marriage has become one of the LGBT movement’s main demands in Latin America in the past decade. Argentina was the first Latin American country to recognize same-sex marriage in 2010, and it has been replicated in other countries such as Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Mexico. In all these cases, the courts have been an important ally of the LGBT movement, generating the constitutional grounds and decisions for the recognition and expansion of the rights of same-sex couples. In this sense, litigation has proved to be a powerful strategy for LGBT groups for their demands of recognition, and in the analyzed cases, the judiciary has been receptive to these petitions and claims assuming different roles. The litigation experience in Latin America has been shaped by the U.S. litigation model for the advancements of civil rights, a model that has had an impact in the LGBT campaigns for same-sex marriage, and as a result it is possible to identify different roles that the Latin-American courts have played in protecting same-sex couples and legally recognizing their partnerships in the region. Thus the historical developments of the strategic litigation have been crucial for the recognition and advancement of rights, generating a type of litigation that was originated in the United States and later replicated in Latin America, thanks to institutional changes and successful experiences of same-sex marriage litigation. However, the courts have assumed different roles when recognizing the right to marriage between same-sex couples in the region, according to the legal, social, political, and international context where they are inserted, showing that the “politization of the justice” and the “judicialization of politics” are two interconnected procceses that combine in different and complex manners when debating sexuality in the region.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document