Gay marriage and the 14th amendment

The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. Obergefell v. Hodges Overview Obergefell v.

supreme court gay marriage 2024

Hodges is a landmark case in which on June 26, , the Supreme Court of the United States held, in decision, that state bans on same-sex marriage and on recognizing same sex marriages duly performed in other jurisdictions are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States.

Obergefell v. Hodges, U.S. () (/ ˈoʊbərɡəfɛl / OH-bər-gə-fel), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

The 5–4 ruling requires all 50 states, the District of. The Supreme Court has greatly expanded LGBTQ+ rights in its constitutional cases, including a decision that the Fourteenth Amendment requires marriage equality. The denial of marriage impedes many legal rights and privileges, such as adoptions, parental rights, and property transfer. The Court has long held that marriage is a fundamental right.

Here, the Court held that states must allow and recognize same-sex marriages under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The issue: Does the Constitution protect homosexual conduct? What limitations does the Constitution place on ability of states to treat people differently because of their sexual orientation? The Court first considered the matter in the case of Bowers v Hardwick , a challenge to a Georgia law authorizing criminal penalties for persons found guilty of sodomy.

Although the Georgia law applied both to heterosexual and homosexual sodomy, the Supreme Court chose to consider only the constitutionality of applying the law to homosexual sodomy. Michael Hardwick, who sought to enjoin enforcement of the Georgia law, had been charged with sodomy after a police officer discovered him in bed with another man.

Charges were later dropped. In Bowers , the Court ruled 5 to 4 that the Due Process Clause "right of privacy" recognized in cases such Griswold and Roe does not prevent the criminalization of homosexual conduct between consenting adults. One of the five members of the majority, Justice Powell, later described his vote in the case as a mistake.

Interestingly, Powell's concurring opinion suggests that were Georgia to have imprisoned Hardwick for his conduct, that might be cruel and unusual punishment. In , the Georgia Supreme Court struck down the statute first challenged in Bowers as a violation of the Georgia Constitution. The provision, Amendment 2, effectively repealed anti-discrimination laws in Boulder, Aspen, and Denver. By a 6 to 3 vote, the Court found the Colorado provision to lack a rational basis, and therefore to violate the equal protection rights of homosexuals.

Justice Kennedy's opinion concluded Amendment 2 was "born of animosity" toward gays. Justice Scalia, in his dissent, accused the Court of "taking sides in the culture wars. The Supreme Court in considered a challenge to a Texas law that criminalized homosexual sodomy, but not heterosexual sodomy. The case, Lawrence v Texas , raised both substantive due process and equal protection issues.

Voting 5 to 4, the Court overruled its earlier decision in Bowers v Hardwick and found that the state lacked a legitimate interest in regulating the private sexual conduct of consenting adults. Justice O'Connor added a sixth vote to overturn the conviction, but rested her decision solely on the Equal Protection Clause. Predictably, Justice Scalia dissented, accusing the majority of "largely signing on to the so-called homosexual agenda.

As of , twelve states recognize same sex marriage see map. In several states, the state supreme courts Massachusetts, Iowa, and Connecticut found bans on same-sex marriage to violate state constitutions and in other states, legislatures moved to allow same-sex marriages. In California, where the state legislature legalized same sex marriage only to have the voters overturn that law by initiative Amendment 8 , a federal district court found Amendment 8 to violate federal equal protection principles and the state chose not to appeal.

In , the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Perry dismissed an appeal by proponents of Amendment 8 for lack of standing, a decision which effectively will open the doors to gay marriage in California. In a 5 to 4 decision by Justice Kennedy, the Court said "careful consideration" had to be given to "discriminations of unusual character.

In dissent, Scalia suggested that the decision would soon lead to another declaring state bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, and argued the matter was better left to the states to decide. Map States recognizing same-sex marriage at time of Obergefell decision in Edith Windsor right and her spouse, Thea Spyer. Introduction Two Supreme Court decisions involving gay rights, one decade apart, have left a lot of people wondering just where the law now stands with respect to the right to engage in homosexual conduct.

In , facing a circuit split, the Supreme Court resolved the question of whether state bans on gay marriage violated the Equal Protection and. In Obergefell v Hodges , a five-member Court majority concluded that the bans did indeed violate both 14 Amendment provisions. Writing for the Court, Justice Kennedy said the Framers of the Constitution "did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as me we learn its meaning.

Justice Scalia ridiculed the reasoning of the Court, indicating in a footnote that he would hold his head "in a bag" if he were compelled to join the majority's opinion. Cases Bowers v.