Obergfell v Hodges

Question: Read the case and determine whether the decision is defensible

Introduction

The central themes of this case are gay marriages and the Due process and protection Clause of the 14 th
amendment.

It goes without saying that it is a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States which rule
that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same -sex couples by both the Due process and the
Equal protection Clause of the 14th amendment.

Brief facts of Obergefell v Hodges

Obergefell, the appellant travelled to Maryland to marry his ailing partner who was suffering from ALS.
His partner died in Ohio, the couple’s home state, shortly after they were married.

Because laws of Ohio did not allow for same -sex marriage, Obergefell could not be listed as his
partner’s surviving spouse on Obergefell’s death certificate. Obergefell sued with the co-plaintiffs to
have his Maryland marriages recognized in Ohio so that her name could appear on her dead husband’s
death certificate. Other co-plaintiffs sued for adoption rights as well as for the right as well as for the
right to have their marriage stripped from them whenever they moved between states.

The case goes all the way to the Supreme Court of United States which ruled in the favor of the 14 same
sex couples who sued for the validity of their marriages to be upheld across state lines. It held that the
laws making same-sex marriage illegal violated the 14 th amendment.

Determination of whether the decision is defensible

Historically, discrimination against lesbians and gay people has had nothing to do with ability to
contribute to society, but has, instead rated on the discredited view that they are, for example, secure
deviants, mentally ill or immoral. The Supreme Court decision is justified for this reason, denying same
sex marriage like their counterpart is discrimination without any justifiable reasons. Moreover, same
sex like other people contribute immensely to the society, they pay taxes for the best interest of the
society.

The aspect that the court held ‘Marriage is true for all persons ,whatever their sexual orientation'. This
argument though may seem correct lies to be an hasty generalization fallacy. Not everybody
appreciates the nature and benefits of marriage. Some people don’t see the importance of marriage
and that is why you get old people who are not married in the society.

Banning same -sex marriages does not support procreation or the raising of children, but these dates
still allow those people to get married. If married parents are better for children, same -sex couples’
children should get this benefit. From the point of view, in laymen position, this can seem difficult.
Many questions are attached to this, take for example, two men who are gay, how can they get children
successfully if not through adoption. Research shows that the most of the options for same -sex female
couples to have a baby involve intrauterine insemination using a sperm donor. Then I don’t see the
essence of adopting a child or using sperm donors if the same -sex couples knew ab initio that their
relationship will not sire them a child.
The respondent’s view which the court of Appeal upheld that marriage as an only opposite sex
institution creates an incentive for two people who procreate together to stay together for purposes of
rearing offspring . This statement is a fallacy which rests on an unduly cramped view of marriage. It is
needless to say that marriage is much more than a government incentive program to encourage
biological parents to stay together. At its most fundamental level, marriage constitutes an expression of
emotional support and public commitments; regardless of whether a married couple ever has children.

It stands to reason that children needs both the father and mother. If same-sex civil marriage become
common, most same -sex couples with children would be lesbians couples. This would have yet more
children being raised apart from fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing
antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls. In other hand, among other
things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and
emotional. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical,
emotional and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence.

Conclusion

Having analyze both the pros and cons of same-sex marriages, I stand firm to differ with the decision of
the Supreme Court of United States . This conclusion is a pictorial image of the above discussed cons of
same-sex marriages. Therefore, all states should make laws which ban same-sex marriages.

Loving v Virginia

The central figures in the case were Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter, a couple from the town of Central
point in Caroline country, Virginia. This was a marriage between a white man and a black woman and
whose marriage was declared illegal according to Virginia State law with the help of American Civil
Liberties Union.

The Loving appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The court struck down the state laws banning
interracial marriages in the United States.

Types of arguments in the case

Inductive reasoning

In disagreeing with the notion that the mere ‘equal application ‘ of a state containing classification is
enough to remove the classification from the 14 th amendment; prescription of all individual racial
discrimination. To dispute this the Supreme Court used several case laws to illustrate why equal
application could be used in other scenario but was not applicable in the current case. The Supreme
Court stated that the mere fact of equal application does not mean that their analysis of these statutes
should follow the approach. The court has taken in several cases involving racial discrimination . It cited
the case of Inc v New York and exemption in Ohio’s and tax for merchandise owned by a non-resident
in a storage warehouse.

The court emphasized that in this case involving distinction not shown according to race, it had merely
asked whether there is any basis foundation for the discrimination.

Deductive reasoning
The loving were convicted of violating section 20 to 58 of the Virginia code which prohibits marriages
between whites and coloured persons. The code explained that a white person has no other colour
other than Caucasian and a black person who is not white. Therefore, according to the Virginia code,
Mildred was black and Richard was white. It goes without saying that in our case ,Virginia code which
prohibits interracial marriages, Mildred and Loving one of different races, when they get married they
violated the code and the conclusion is that they were guilty and therefore convicted.

Reasoning by analogy

In upholding the constitutionality of the provisions prohibiting interracial marriages, the court of Appeal
I Virginia referred to 1955 decision in Naim v Naim which states reasons supporting the validity of those
law.

The court upheld the fact that ‘Almighty God created the races, white, black and red and placed them on
separate continents. This is reasoning by analogy because the court of Appeal relied on the decision of
the earlier case which had similar issues with the current case to come to its conclusion of prohibiting
interracial marriages