M5 Blog: Marriage as a Civil Right
Type of document Essay
1 Page Double Spaced
Subject area Political Science
Academic Level High School
Style MLA
References 3
Order description:
As you look at the matter of civil rights and the Constitution, it is worth taking some time to explore areas that we consider to be fundamental rights. Some of these are pretty easy: voting, speech, religion. Other rights are considered to be fundamental, but are subject to considerable debate. For example, the right to marry is considered a fundamental right, but should it extend to same-sex couples? This was the legal question at the heart of the Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Remember that the Court ruled in this case that states must allow same-sex couples to marry. It was a 5-4 decision.
However, this is not the first time that the Court has tackled the topic of marriage and its shifting parameters.
To highlight this debate, let’s consider a couple of decisions and opinions from the Supreme Court.
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Mildred smiling with Richard Loving’s arm draped warmly over her shoulders
Mildred and Richard Loving, an inter-racial married couple, were arrested and convicted of violating Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law (bans inter-racial marriage). Forced to move from the state or face incarceration, they challenged the constitutionality of the law as it violated the 14th Amendment.
Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Chief Justice Warren struck down Virginia’s law and concluded that, “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
This opinion would become part of the Court opinion in the following case.
This particular case is really a collection of six different legal challenges coming out of states in the 6th Federal Circuit (Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio). While the circumstances of the plaintiffs varied in each of the six cases, at the core was the challenge brought to state laws banning same-sex marriage.
Writing for the majority of the Court, Justice Kennedy stated, “Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.”
However, this opinion was not shared by all members of the Court. Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. … Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.”
Later in the same opinion he states: “If you are among the many Americans – of whatever sexual orientation – who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”
Finally, although the Court has issued the decision, the implementation of the law was not without challengers. Most notably, Kim Davis (a clerk in Kentucky) created quite a media spectacle by refusing to issue marriage licenses citing her religious objections to same-sex marriage. (Time: 4:14; closed caption available)
ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos
As you consider the topic:
How do you feel about the Court decision?
Do you think Kim Davis was acting appropriately? (Is there really a conflict of rights here?) Accepting the Court’s decision in Obergefell, what types of future challenges to marriage statutes (age requirements, polygamy, etc…) can you see coming forth?
How do you think they Court would decide them – based on the opinions they’ve previously issued?
