Essay on Same-Sex Couples: A Debate Raging On Despite Growing Acceptance

Introduction

The divisive issue of same-sex couples has sparked heated public debates to the extent of seeking legal interventions. Over the years, there has never been a universal agreement regarding whether same-sex couples should get similar rights like opposite-sex unions. In the public domain, opinions vary, and justifications often quote religious doctrines and cultural norms among other reference tools. Gradually, things have changed drastically. There is more constitutional recognition of same-sex couples, and there is a high chance that more court decisions will continue stamping them as legitimate unions.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Supreme Court Requirements

As established under Section 1 of the Constitution in Article III, the Supreme Court settles critical matters which the lower courts cannot handle. Comprised of nine judges, the court has original and appellate jurisdictions. Therefore, it can be the first to hear a case, and it can also review the decisions that the lower courts make. As it stands, most of the cases that the Supreme Court handles are the appellate ones where the defendants feel that justice did not take place as per the constitutional principles and a review is necessary.

Even though the role of the Supreme Court is primarily to carry out appellate duties, it has several requirements for a case to qualify its attention. If parties to a case are not satisfied by a decision that a lower court makes, they petition the court by requesting a writ of certiorari. However, even though it is possible to get a writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court is not obliged under any law to review any case. For that reason, matters should be of significant weight. The inference, here, is that it should have some national significance such as in the case of presidential election matters. If that is not the case, it should help to harmonize conflicting decisions such as the case of same-sex arguments. The other aspect of qualification is a precedential value.

United States v. Windsor

In this landmark civil rights case decided in 2013, the United States Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to restrict the definition of marriage and spouse to apply to opposite-sex unions only. The earlier decision was that, under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), marriage is a typical union between a man and a woman. For this reason, anything against this principle violates the fundamental rule.

In this Supreme Court rule, the majority decision argued that the federal statute is invalid. The main reason was it somehow injures those whom the state seeks to protect by marriage laws. Furthermore, since marriage laws usually protect those it binds in personhood and dignity, it is unconstitutional to go against its purpose by discriminating a different group whose objective and view of marriage is the same. As a result, this rule expanded and better defined the meaning of a couple and eliminated the necessity of considering the gender element as the guiding principle.

The case referred to Edith Windsor argument. Edith and Thea Spyer resided in New York as a same-sex couple. Through a court decision later, their marriage was upheld. Unfortunately, Spyer died after some time. As usual, she left her empire under the mandate of Edith Windsor, where she went ahead to seek federal tax exemption which is valid for surviving couples. Since DOMA recognizes a spouse as a man or a woman, she was not granted her right since her exemption claim did not apply to same-sex marriages according to DOMA's principles.

After Windsor suing the federal government in the U.S. District Court seeking a refund, the court ruled that Windsor qualified for exemption, but the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group that stuck to the principles of DOMA petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. After hearing the oral arguments, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, affirmed the District court's decision. It declared DOMA unconstitutional. This judgment was because it deprived people the liberty that the Fifth Amendment protects. In principle, the courts expanded the social and legal view of what a couple represents by granting Windsor her exemption claim.

The Supreme Court judges had different opinions regarding the appeal. While ranking them, Chief Justice Roberts (1) led the dissenting team. Justice Thomas (2) also dissented, Ginsburg (3) was part of the majority opinion alongside Breyer (4), but Alito (5) disagreed. Sotomayor (6) affirmed the District court's decision alongside Kagan (7) and Kennedy (8) while Scalia (9) dissented. Overall, it was a case of mixed opinions, but all quoted the constitutional provisions and what the outcome would mean to those who support liberty as well as those opposed to universal human freedoms.

Anthony Kennedy aired the majority's decision. While supporting what the decision of the District Court of New York, this group argued that the Constitution requires the federal government to desist from treating state-sanctioned opposite-sex marriages differently from same-sex marriages. If the federal government behaved differently, the Constitution has a right to prevent it from doing so since differentiating people based on their sex is demeaning them. Also, it is an abuse to the moral and sexual choices that the Constitution is mandated to protect.

On the dissenting side, Chief Justice John Roberts and other members of the dissenting team raised different arguments supporting their dissenting opinion. Mainly, their issue was not the lack of evidence to defend same-sex rights but the lack of substance. They argued that the case was about the power of people to have self-governance regarding social matters. The other concern was that the case depicts those opposing same-sex marriages as enemies of the human race. To that extent, the case was all about the court's power to pronounce the law. Since neither party to the case was interested in undoing the judgment that Windsor got in the District's court, it was prudent for the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal.

Supreme Court's Refusal to Hear Appeals

Upon dissatisfaction by a lower court's ruling, a person, group, or an organization can formally appeal the case in the Supreme Court for review. This is after getting a Writ Certiorari. However, there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will review a case- it can turn it down. Upon denying a review, it means that the decisions from other courts stand as final. But it is crucial to understand that denial does not mean agreeing or disagreeing with the other decisions or the case will not be reviewed someday.

In 2014, the Supreme Court refused to hear appeals affecting same-sex marriages. In a major surprise, it meant that all the pending cases before it could not undergo further scrutiny. As a result, the three U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal were to stand as law in the various affected states. In these cases, the federal circuit appellate courts affirmed the decisions that the lower courts made- they had struck down the state laws that sought to prohibit gays from marrying. After the Supreme Court refused to hear these cases, it meant that gay marriages remained legal in the various states including Virginia, Indiana, and Utah alongside Oklahoma and Wisconsin. The situation could only change if the Supreme Court decided to hear them later.

Obergfell vs. Hodges

This case also strived to review the rights that same-sex couple have in the United States and scenarios that lead to their abuse. In this case, the court ruled (5-4) that states bans and their recognition of same-sex marriage are unconstitutional under the due process clause. As preserved in the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the court ruled that banning same-sex marriage was a denial of the fundamental right of marriage. To them, it was unconstitutional denying same-sex couples this right.

Obergfell vs. Hodges presented two questions. The first was the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans. The second question was the legality of the bans as per the constitutional principles in their recognition of same-sex marriages. To a significant extent, the joint case assessed the validity of marriage as per the Constitution's requirements. Also, it looked for an in-depth explanation regarding the issues of liberty and equality as the Fourteenth Amendment provides.

While holding different opinions, five judges upheld the legality of same-sex marriage and claimed that the ban was unconstitutional. Also, they affirmed the claim that the recognition of these marriages is constitutional while four dissented. As per their rank, Chief Justice Roberts (1) led the dissenting team and was the author of the dissenting opinion. Thomas (2) also dissented, Ginsburg (3) was part of the majority opinion alongside Breyer (4), but Justice Alito (5) dissented. Sotomayor (6) termed the bans as unconstitutional alongside Kagan (7) and Kennedy (8) while Scalia (9) disagreed. In this decision, the judges held the same opinion they had in the United States v. Windsor case.

Regarding the arguments and reasoning that the Justices used, the majority's opinion as Justice Anthony Kennedy authored assessed how the bans violated the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. To them, the constitution provides liberty to all people within its reach. Liberty, in this case, refers to the specific rights within the legal framework, which allow people to express their identity. As a result, this provisional constitution extends to marriage and guarantees everyone the fundamental right to marry.

In their dissenting opinion, Justice Roberts and the rest did not overlook the need to recognize the due process and equality of fundamental rights. Instead, they were concerned with how the Due Process Clause is misused to expand some perceived rights. Justice Roberts added that same-sex marriage did not violate the quoted rights, including the right to privacy and equal protection. Since it did not also change the core component of marriage, the same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause although referring it as the basis for determining the case was opening an avenue for abuse.

The two Supreme Court decisions embarked on redefining what marriage represents in legal and social domains. Over the years, same-sex couples have faced a lot of mistreatments due to the lack of constitutional protection. Due to their current recognition, it is right to argue that the U.S. Constitution has made a significant step towards the protection of all while promoting equality and justice.

Bibliography

Croy, Anita. Supreme Court decisions. New York, NY : Lucent Press, 2019.

Denniston, Lyle. Opinion analysis: Marriage now open to same-sex couples. SCOTUS Blog, 2015. Retrieved from https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/opinion-analysis-marriage-now-open-to-same-sex-couples/Farris, D. Nicole, Mary Ann Davis, and R. D'Lane, eds. Illuminating how Identities, Stereotypes and Inequalities Matter Through Gender Studies. Springer Science & Business, 2014.

Greenhouse, Linda. The U.S. Supreme Court: a very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Premark, Paul JD, and Premark, Benjamin JD. Thinking Beyond Tomorrow: Organizing, Planning & Settling Your Estate (8th Edition). San Antonio, Texas: Longview Publishing, 2017.

Ungar, Rick. Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Same Sex Marriage Cases. Forbes, 2014. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/10/06/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases/#63614a82579e