Obergefell v. Hodges aka The Case That Can Make Same-Sex Marriage Legal

[Rare]

So, if you all have been living under a rock, the good old U.S. Supreme Court starts arguments about a state's right to refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions and a state's right to refusal to license same-sex marriages. To ask your questions (people who have been living under a rock or not for the US), HRC (Human Rights Campaign) has put up a FAQ for y'all. It should answer any questions you have.

Since this case has been around since 2013, the main reason why it's active now is to answer two questions:

1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

- Wikipedia, Obergefell v. Hodges

But, the main reason why this thread exists is to watch what happens. I mean, this case might cause same-sex marriage to be recognize in America. It might become an amendment. Which is one of the important moments in history. So, you guys or I will post updates of what's going on. Or talk about your side of the this case. Do you believe that LGBT+ members should be able to marry or not? Post anything that's related to the topic.

Remember, this isn't a debate thread. So, no bitching towards each other because your views aren't the same. Anyways, let's move on. Shall we?

 

[Zachary-Sama]

Well I find that the tenth amendment should be enough to allow same sex marriage, since the main problem comes from the religious implications of sex-sex couples. But there is the people who claim that it is immoral because somehow, people think that gay or lesbian couples cannot properly raise children.
Granted, Gay couples cannot reproduce on their own (Unless they have that weird gene that causes male impregnation), but they can still raise babies.
And Lesbian couples can reproduce a baby. In fact, it's more likely to be at a moment of choosing and financial readiness when a lesbian couple conceives, since they have to fill out paperwork, prove that they are worthy of parenthood, and go through the procedure of sperm injection.

I may be biased however, as I was raised by a lesbian mother. I'm not going to explain the situation of my birth, other than I was conceived before my mother left the closet.

On another note. This is a bit weird, but I also believe in same bloodline marriages. I have a cousin who has been with another cousin (His cousin, not mine) for several years, and has had two beautiful sons with them. They are both great, devoted parents and the children are incredibly smart, and are enthusiastic about learning new things, watching disney movies, and playing Halo 3. I'm sorry, had to add this in.

 

[Koschei]

Well I find that the tenth amendment should be enough to allow same sex marriage, since the main problem comes from the religious implications of sex-sex couples. But there is the people who claim that it is immoral because somehow, people think that gay or lesbian couples cannot properly raise children.
Granted, Gay couples cannot reproduce on their own (Unless they have that weird gene that causes male impregnation), but they can still raise babies.
And Lesbian couples can reproduce a baby. In fact, it's more likely to be at a moment of choosing and financial readiness when a lesbian couple conceives, since they have to fill out paperwork, prove that they are worthy of parenthood, and go through the procedure of sperm injection.

I may be biased however, as I was raised by a lesbian mother. I'm not going to explain the situation of my birth, other than I was conceived before my mother left the closet.

Just going to add something to the whole argument that gay couples can't have biological children. Don't mistake it for critique or anything of the sort, just thought I'd add this.

Gay couples can in fact have children which are genetically theirs. If one of them is transgender and didn't have a hysterectomy, it is possible for him to carry child, granted he stop the hormone injections before and during the pregnancy. There is also the possibility of having eggs frozen in advance, and finding a surrogate mother to carry out the pregnancy.

And it works roughly the same way for a lesbian couple. Not all men have dicks, and vice versa. And excuse the somewhat poor explanation, it's too early in the morning for an in-depth commentary.

Anyway, this whole "should LGBT couples be allowed to marry or not according to this or that?" is ridiculous. Of course they should. It isn't like their love is any different than that of a heterosexual pair.

 

[Jorick]

So far all signs point to the Supreme Court ruling that the 14th Amendment protects both of those things. A majority of states have already said it's all good and a majority of the Supreme Court members have already expressed firm support for this it other LGBT rights issues.

It's abortion all over again: the only ones opposing it are strict social conservatives and that viewpoint doesn't hold a majority of the Supreme Court. In the same vein, the likely ruling will in no way stop those folks from trying to fight or undermine the decision. It'll be one more step forward, not the end of the road.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

Do you believe that LGBT+ members should be able to marry or not?

Yes, that just basic equality and human decency.

Though I've never looked at the amendment, being Canadian it doesn't apply to my everyday life.
So I can't take any specifics out of it.

 

[Quiet One]

I support everything that has been said above, but excuse my idiocy for asking this question: I thought the 14th Amendment made freed slaves citizens after the Civil War, didn't it? I didn't think it had anything to do with marriage.

 

[Jorick]

I support everything that has been said above, but excuse my idiocy for asking this question: I thought the 14th Amendment made freed slaves citizens after the Civil War, didn't it? I didn't think it had anything to do with marriage.

Nah, the 14th Amendment had extremely far reaching effects beyond just making freed slaves into citizens. It was the driving force behind a lot of Supreme Court decisions about all sorts of civil rights, especially the ones where they've decided the protections from the federal government that are granted by the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, bear arms, etc.) also apply to state governments. Here's the first section of it, which is the only highly relevant one.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The first sentence in plain speak says all people born or naturalized in the US are citizens of the nation and the state, meaning they can't just decide that some group doesn't count as citizens. That's the big kicker that constitutionally outlawed slavery since it declared all slaves born here to be legal citizens and protected like any other citizen, so you're not wrong on that count; however, since the language is broad it can be applied to other groups, such as how it was one of the legal arguments used in support of giving women the right to vote. The next sentence says that the state can't make laws that violate the civil rights granted to citizens by the federal government and the Constitution (well, that's the modern understanding of it after lots of Supreme Court battles at least, constitutional law is tricky like that), that states have to give citizens due process in the legal system (which later Supreme Court rulings said encompasses most of the rights of the original Bill of Rights, both because a lot of them are tied up closed to due process and because of that bit about not depriving liberty), and the "equal protection" bit says that the law has to treat all citizens equally (meaning you can't have a minimum 1 year jail sentence for assault by white people alongside a 5 year minimum sentence for assault by black people).

It says nothing at all about it specifically applying only to freed slaves. It lays out the rules for what constitutes a citizen with the word "persons," then says all citizens must be treated and protected equally in a variety of ways. The reason it's being applied to same-sex marriage is because various applications of the 14th Amendment have included protection of the right to marry (due to that part about liberty mainly), and it was one of the major reasons why the Supreme Court struck down state level interracial marriage bans back in 1967. They're using basically the same arguments as were used against interracial marriage because it's the same thing as far as they're concerned: citizens are being denied the liberty to marry the person of their choice, thus it's a violation of rights granted by the Constitution.

 

[Rare]

So, the oral arguments had begun yesterday and it was heated up. Here are the transcripts of the argument and if you want to hear it, here is the audio of the arguments. It sounded good for same-sex marriage in all fifty states.

What do you think of yesterday's argument? Did it cover the questions good? Was there parts of the argument that you hated/liked? Go ahead and answer them!

If you want to share images, links, etc. to this thread, go ahead. Just as long as it's on topic (like pictures of protesters, pictures at the court room, articles that share their option of the argument, etc.).