Chosen Supreme Court Decision
Case Name and Citation: James Obergefell et al., Petitioners v. Richard Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al. (Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. __ (2015). Web.
Societal Issue: LGBTQIA+ rights
Name of Lower Court: District Court, Columbia
Name of Deciding Justice: Anthony Kennedy
Date of Justice’s Decision: 2015 June 26
Reasons to choose this decision to evaluate
The LGBTQIA+ community has faced discrimination in society for a long time. However, modern social conditions make it unacceptable for people to be segregated by any characteristics. Laws not only reflect the attitudes of society but shape them. Nowadays, it is important that the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community become acknowledged and protected. Drabble et al. (2021) note that same-sex marriages lead to a more positive perception of the members of the community, including reduced stigmatization and increased social acceptance. Another study by Flores et al. (2020) underlines that interaction with members of the LGBTQIA+ community results in a more positive attitude toward the group among older adults and the most conservative communities, such as religious and racial. Therefore, legal protection of the rights of minorities may lead to increased social acceptance and reduced resentment among the most opposing members of society.
Summary of the Decision
The Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry granted by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. The majority opinion of Justices stated that a ban on same-sex marriages violates the rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The decision requires all the states to grant same-sex marriages, as well as to recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.
Theory or Approach
The Justices used the cue approach as they referred to specific clauses of the law. In particular, the Justices appeal to the violation of civil liberties and human rights that are present in the case (Gresten, 2015). The opinion of the Court is based on the premises of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Therefore, they have no personal attitudes, and no rational choice is involved in the decision-making. Small-group analysis theory is irrelevant as well, as there is no evidence of Supreme Court members influencing one another’s decisions.
Additionally, the Court listed four fundamental reasons for same-sex marriages to be legal. All of them refer to the previous related case, United States v. Windsor (2013), which decided that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional and violated civil rights. The deciding Justice in the case was Anthony Kennedy, which may add some influence of attitude to the decision. However, as in the previous case, the current decision was held on the basis of legal clauses.
Impact of the Decision on Society
The decision faced both widespread support and opposition in society. Many companies in the U.S. reacted positively to the decision to change their logos to the colors of the community (Kim & Valiente, 2015). There were several pride parades held in New York and other cities of the country (Sarkar, 2015). The support could be expressed by people who had already been positive about LGBTQIA+ community rights before the decision. However, the outcomes of the case made the problems of members of the community more visible. As a result, people, notwithstanding their attitude, have more awareness about the civil rights of minorities.
Not all the people were supportive of the Court’s decision. Some of them, especially members of religious communities, expressed their resentment toward the changes. Specifically, they noted that the decision ignores the liberties and freedom of speech of millions of Americans (Barnes, 2015). This may raise the question of the rights of different groups within society. The decision highlighted the problems of civil liberties not only for the LGBTQIA+ community but also for other minorities. People now have more awareness of various groups existing in society, which may lead to conflicts of interest. Further development is required in order to determine how separate communities can live together without constraining each other’s liberties.
Impact of the Decision on the Rule of Law and Politics
The decision also had an influence on politics and laws. For example, in 2017, the Republican Governor of Tennessee, Bill Haslam, signed the bill HB 1111/SB 1085 (O’Hara, 2017). The bill requires all undefined words to have their ordinary and natural meaning. Therefore, people with different gender identities may not be specifically defined. This bill may lead to legal chaos when discriminatory terms and actions can be applied to people. Additionally, the bill may lead to minimization of the impact of the decision due to controversy that may arise in definitions and wording. The bill may result in ignoring different members of the LGBTQIA+ community as they would be defined according to their identity. Potentially, this would be the reason for discrimination and bias in the society. Additionally, some counties refused to comply with the Court’s decision, which led to legal uncertainty of the status of same-sex marriage in these territories.
The case also became the basis for decision-making in several subsequent cases. For example, in Pavan v. Smith, the Supreme Court decided that same-sex couples have the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples (Pavan v. Smith, 2017). However, the decision made in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) claims that the Constitution does not confer the right to abortion. This case was also based on the clauses of due process, which raised questions on the legitimacy of previous cases, including Obergefell v. Hodges (2013). Therefore, the case changed the opinion on similar cases referring to the problems of same-sex marriages. However, it did not impact other cases on human rights and civil liberties. In relation to laws and politics, the cases present the question of the interpretation of legal clauses and the Constitution.
Sources
Barnes, R. (2015). Supreme Court rules gay couples nationwide have a right to marry. The Washington Post. Web.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 US _ (2022). Web.
Drabble, L. A., Wootton, A. R, Veldhuis, C. B., Riggle, E. D., Rostosky, S. S., Lannutti, P. J., Balsam, K. F., & Hughes, T. L. (2021). Perceived psychosocial impacts of legalized same-sex marriage: A scoping review of sexual minority adults’ experiences. PLoS ONE. Web.
Flores, A. R., Mallory, C., & Condor, K. J. (2020). Public attitudes about emergent issues in LGBTQ rights: Conversion therapy and religious refusals. Research & Politics. Web.
Gersten, S. (2015). Supreme Court decision-making: An empirical analysis of 2013 certiorari-granting. Philosophy, Politics, and Economics Undergraduate Journal, 10, 67-98. Web.
Kim, S., & Valiente, A. (2015). Same-sex marriage: How companies responded to Supreme Court’s decision. ABC News. Web.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. __ (2015). Web.
O’Hara, M. E. (2017). Tennessee bill to protect ‘natural and ordinary’ meaning of words becomes law. NBC News. Web.
Pavan v. Smith, 285 U.S. __ (2017). Web.
Sarkar, M. (2015). Gay pride: How the world turned into a rainbow this weekend. CNN. Web.
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013). Web.