THE FREEDOM TO MARRY IN THE UNITED STATES
Marriage is “the foundation of family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” (Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, (1888).) However, progress cannot be made if all couples are not given the right to be a family. The modern family may look different from a family of 1888 but the fundamental foundation of what makes a family has not changed. The rights of couples who want to legally commit to each other continues to be questioned and their rights violated. The rules are basic, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all citizens of the United States “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” (Lawson, Gary, “Due Process Clause,” The Heritage Guide to the Constitution.) For 127 years the Supreme Court justices have regularly been called upon to solidify what the current era deems as a legal marriage. Time-and-time again they have upheld the rights afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment and have affirmed landmark cases which lift bans that states place on couples who want to marry. In 2015 the Supreme Court issued yet another historical opinion lifting all bans any state held on same sex marriages. The value of equality fortified through the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution stands strong in the face of diversity and is exemplified as the Supreme Court legalizes all of its citizens the freedom to marry.
1. History of issues concerning same sex marriages. The freedom to marry in the United States has long been an issue before the courts. In 1970 Richard Baker and James McConnell filed suit against Hennepin County, Minnesota for violation of their rights when the county refused to issue them a marriage license. The trial court dismissed the claim. It was then brought before the Minnesota Supreme Court, again they were dismissed. Baker and McConnell then moved the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and again were denied. Minnesota was the first state to pass legislation banning same-sex marriages. But this was only the first in many lawsuits before the Obergefell v. Hodges case of 2015 (discussed below) which supersedes and overturns all past bans on same-sex marriages.
2. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Each state provides its residence with its own set of rights but those legislative authorizations cannot conflict or undermine those of the United States Constitution. The framers of the United States Constitution could not foresee the future and therefore wrote a clause in the Constitution allowing for future amendments. The first ten amendments were written and passed with the Constitution and are known as the Bill of Rights. The later amendments have all been crafted to serve the needs of the United States. Following the Civil War, the country was in a reconstruction period and to that end passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These amendments were implemented to abolish slavery, allow for citizenship to the freed slaves and guaranteeing all male African American citizens the right to vote.
On July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. The Amendment included several clauses, Citizenship Clause, Privilege or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause in an effort to guarantee the civil rights of the freed slaves. Although each clause is equally important, the Due Process Clause has been regularly cited in cases relating to civil rights. The Amendment’s language specifically prohibits any state or local government official from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process.” (Lawson, Gary, “Due Process Clause,” The Heritage Guide to the Constitution.) The due process clause prohibits states and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. Further, every citizen is entitled to the right to be protected by the laws of the United States, regardless of race.
Regardless of the original framers reason for writing the Fourteenth Amendment, it has provided a solid foundation for civil rights.
3. The Supreme Court sends a loud message in favor of equal rights.
The history of same-sex marriages has been an on-going battle in the courts since 1972, but in more recent history, the courts have applied and interpreted the United States Constitution to cases concerning same-sex couples. The following two cases are opening opportunities and creating equality for those who want to marry and offer them the same legal benefits as a heterosexual couple. The basis is that family is the foundation of what creates America and marriage is a “keystone of our social order.” (Liptak, Adam, “Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide”). The opinion in Obergefell explained, “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were…marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage…They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) at page 28.)
Below is a summary of each case.
United States v. Windsor, 570U.S. __ (2013):
In 2007, two residents of New York, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, were married in Ontario, Canada. Spyer died in 2009 and left her entire estate to her spouse, Edith Windsor. Windsor sought spousal exemption from the estate tax as provided under the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”). However, the state stated same sex partner were excluded under the definition of “spouse.” She agreed to pay the taxes but filed suit against the state. The district court found that her constitutional rights were violated and ordered the United States to refund the taxes she paid. The United States appealed and the court of appeal affirmed. The United States then petitioned to the Supreme Court and they granted review. The Supreme Court agreed and affirmed the ruling. (United States v. Windsor, 570U.S. __ (2013).)
The majority’s ruling stated that DOMA “humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples,” and makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in community and their daily lives.” (Reilly, Ryan; Siddiqui, Sabrina, Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriages Ban Unconstitutional.)
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015):
The petitioners in this case consist of 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased. The respondents are state officials responsible for enforcing the laws in question. The petitioners each filed suits in their lawful district courts and each court ruled in their favor. The respondents for each appealed and the cases were affirmed. The respondents then requested the U.S. Supreme Court to review and eventually affirmed.
The court heavily relied on the fourteenth amendment and explained, “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.” (Pg. 11 of Opinion of the Court)
The continued struggles for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community.
Although progress has been made in the fight for civil rights for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (“LGBT”) community, there is still further work ahead of them. Adar v. Smith, 639 F.3d 146 (2011) is sent to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether same sex partners are entitled to equal parental rights when faced with divorce.
Other opposition the LGBT community faces is general public opinion. As demonstrated in Hon. J. Alito dissent, “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) at pg. 7 of dissent.) I am positive those who opposed the freeing of slaves felt the same way and this discrimination cannot discourage the LGBT community from fight for equal rights.
Conclusion.
The Fourteenth Amendment was drafted long before the issue of same-sex marriages and in fact the Fourteenth Amendment never mentions the right to marry. However, the Fourteenth Amendment allows everyone to enjoy the privileges of American citizenship without legislated discrimination. From this the Supreme Court interpreted that this includes the right for every couple, regardless of one’s sexual orientation, to legally marry with all of the benefits a couple is entitled to. Ultimately, the freedom to marry is not a privilege afforded a select few but a fundamental right of every American citizen, regardless of race or sexual orientation, and protected by law.
Work Cited:
Adar v. Smith, 639 F.3d 146 (2011)
Capehart, Jonathan, “The Internal challenges facing the LGBT movement,” The Washington Post. February 9, 2015. Internet.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)
Lawson, Gary, “Due Process Clause,” The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. 2012 The Heritage Foundation. Internet. http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/amendments/5/essays/150/due-process-clause
Liptak, Adam, “Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide,” The New York Times. June 26, 2015. Internet.
Reilly, Ryan; Siddiqui, Sabrina, “Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriages Ban Unconstitutional,” Huffingtonpost.com. June 26, 2013. Internet. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-doma- decision_n_3454811.html
United States v. Windsor, 570U.S. __ (2013)
1. History of issues concerning same sex marriages. The freedom to marry in the United States has long been an issue before the courts. In 1970 Richard Baker and James McConnell filed suit against Hennepin County, Minnesota for violation of their rights when the county refused to issue them a marriage license. The trial court dismissed the claim. It was then brought before the Minnesota Supreme Court, again they were dismissed. Baker and McConnell then moved the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and again were denied. Minnesota was the first state to pass legislation banning same-sex marriages. But this was only the first in many lawsuits before the Obergefell v. Hodges case of 2015 (discussed below) which supersedes and overturns all past bans on same-sex marriages.
2. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Each state provides its residence with its own set of rights but those legislative authorizations cannot conflict or undermine those of the United States Constitution. The framers of the United States Constitution could not foresee the future and therefore wrote a clause in the Constitution allowing for future amendments. The first ten amendments were written and passed with the Constitution and are known as the Bill of Rights. The later amendments have all been crafted to serve the needs of the United States. Following the Civil War, the country was in a reconstruction period and to that end passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These amendments were implemented to abolish slavery, allow for citizenship to the freed slaves and guaranteeing all male African American citizens the right to vote.
On July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. The Amendment included several clauses, Citizenship Clause, Privilege or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause in an effort to guarantee the civil rights of the freed slaves. Although each clause is equally important, the Due Process Clause has been regularly cited in cases relating to civil rights. The Amendment’s language specifically prohibits any state or local government official from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process.” (Lawson, Gary, “Due Process Clause,” The Heritage Guide to the Constitution.) The due process clause prohibits states and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. Further, every citizen is entitled to the right to be protected by the laws of the United States, regardless of race.
Regardless of the original framers reason for writing the Fourteenth Amendment, it has provided a solid foundation for civil rights.
3. The Supreme Court sends a loud message in favor of equal rights.
The history of same-sex marriages has been an on-going battle in the courts since 1972, but in more recent history, the courts have applied and interpreted the United States Constitution to cases concerning same-sex couples. The following two cases are opening opportunities and creating equality for those who want to marry and offer them the same legal benefits as a heterosexual couple. The basis is that family is the foundation of what creates America and marriage is a “keystone of our social order.” (Liptak, Adam, “Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide”). The opinion in Obergefell explained, “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were…marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage…They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) at page 28.)
Below is a summary of each case.
United States v. Windsor, 570U.S. __ (2013):
In 2007, two residents of New York, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, were married in Ontario, Canada. Spyer died in 2009 and left her entire estate to her spouse, Edith Windsor. Windsor sought spousal exemption from the estate tax as provided under the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”). However, the state stated same sex partner were excluded under the definition of “spouse.” She agreed to pay the taxes but filed suit against the state. The district court found that her constitutional rights were violated and ordered the United States to refund the taxes she paid. The United States appealed and the court of appeal affirmed. The United States then petitioned to the Supreme Court and they granted review. The Supreme Court agreed and affirmed the ruling. (United States v. Windsor, 570U.S. __ (2013).)
The majority’s ruling stated that DOMA “humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples,” and makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in community and their daily lives.” (Reilly, Ryan; Siddiqui, Sabrina, Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriages Ban Unconstitutional.)
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015):
The petitioners in this case consist of 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased. The respondents are state officials responsible for enforcing the laws in question. The petitioners each filed suits in their lawful district courts and each court ruled in their favor. The respondents for each appealed and the cases were affirmed. The respondents then requested the U.S. Supreme Court to review and eventually affirmed.
The court heavily relied on the fourteenth amendment and explained, “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.” (Pg. 11 of Opinion of the Court)
The continued struggles for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community.
Although progress has been made in the fight for civil rights for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (“LGBT”) community, there is still further work ahead of them. Adar v. Smith, 639 F.3d 146 (2011) is sent to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether same sex partners are entitled to equal parental rights when faced with divorce.
Other opposition the LGBT community faces is general public opinion. As demonstrated in Hon. J. Alito dissent, “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) at pg. 7 of dissent.) I am positive those who opposed the freeing of slaves felt the same way and this discrimination cannot discourage the LGBT community from fight for equal rights.
Conclusion.
The Fourteenth Amendment was drafted long before the issue of same-sex marriages and in fact the Fourteenth Amendment never mentions the right to marry. However, the Fourteenth Amendment allows everyone to enjoy the privileges of American citizenship without legislated discrimination. From this the Supreme Court interpreted that this includes the right for every couple, regardless of one’s sexual orientation, to legally marry with all of the benefits a couple is entitled to. Ultimately, the freedom to marry is not a privilege afforded a select few but a fundamental right of every American citizen, regardless of race or sexual orientation, and protected by law.
Work Cited:
Adar v. Smith, 639 F.3d 146 (2011)
Capehart, Jonathan, “The Internal challenges facing the LGBT movement,” The Washington Post. February 9, 2015. Internet.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)
Lawson, Gary, “Due Process Clause,” The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. 2012 The Heritage Foundation. Internet. http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/amendments/5/essays/150/due-process-clause
Liptak, Adam, “Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide,” The New York Times. June 26, 2015. Internet.
Reilly, Ryan; Siddiqui, Sabrina, “Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriages Ban Unconstitutional,” Huffingtonpost.com. June 26, 2013. Internet. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-doma- decision_n_3454811.html
United States v. Windsor, 570U.S. __ (2013)
Learning Reflection:
The feedback on the essays is always essential for this class. For this essay it was very important to receive the feedback because it was our first critical essay. It was different from our other essays and without the draft and opportunity to re-draft the essay may lose its purpose, learning to write a critical essay. I was appreciative for the student feedback.
I felt this essay helped to develop my ability to write an interpretative essay using specific textual evidence, including quoted material.
For this essay I was able to dig deeper than I thought for interpretations of the poems. I did not realize I would be so emotionally linked to the poems once I started annotating them. It was like they came alive and I could imagine what the author was describing.
I find creating a thesis difficult and would like to work on that on my next critical essay. I would also start my process differently. Instead of from a blank page I would create a clear point-by-point. I felt I went backwards and it took much longer than it should have.
The feedback on the essays is always essential for this class. For this essay it was very important to receive the feedback because it was our first critical essay. It was different from our other essays and without the draft and opportunity to re-draft the essay may lose its purpose, learning to write a critical essay. I was appreciative for the student feedback.
I felt this essay helped to develop my ability to write an interpretative essay using specific textual evidence, including quoted material.
For this essay I was able to dig deeper than I thought for interpretations of the poems. I did not realize I would be so emotionally linked to the poems once I started annotating them. It was like they came alive and I could imagine what the author was describing.
I find creating a thesis difficult and would like to work on that on my next critical essay. I would also start my process differently. Instead of from a blank page I would create a clear point-by-point. I felt I went backwards and it took much longer than it should have.