Same-Sex Marriage Becomes Legal | Obergefell v. Hodges
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 июн 2017
- I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy today! amzn.to/45Wzhur
Patreon: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedleroom.net/
Mr. Beat on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
In episode 12 of Supreme Court Briefs, a gay couple go to great lengths to get married, and ultimately help change how the Supreme Court interprets the 14th amendment as it pertains to same-sex marriage.
Check out cool primary sources here:
www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556
Additional Sources:
www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/06/s...
www.cincinnati.com/story/news/...
www.thenewcivilrightsmovement....
www.nytimes.com/interactive/20...
www.theatlantic.com/politics/...
www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner...
www.washingtonpost.com/local/...
Jim Obergefell (Ohberguhfell) reads a news story online about the Supreme Court decision in a case known as United States v. Windsor. In that case, the Court decided that part of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. This meant that same-sex married couples could have federal benefits as long as they were married in states where same-sex marriages were legal.
Jim turned to his boyfriend of more than 20 years, John Arthur, who was laying in bed. Arthur could no longer walk due to ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, which was quickly destroying his body. Obergefell kissed Arthur on the forehead and said, “let’s get married.” “Ok,” Arthur replied.
They chose Maryland as the state to get married in, as same-sex marriage was illegal in their home state of Ohio. Turning to friends and family on Facebook, the couple raised $13,000 to have an ambulance take them to the airport, where they then boarded a medically equipped plane to the Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport, just outside Baltimore. On that day, July 11, 2013, they were married inside the plane on the tarmac.
Unfortunately, once they returned to Ohio, they learned that Jim would not be listed on John’s death certificate as his surviving spouse. The reason? Ohio didn’t recognize their marriage for any purpose at all.
So Jim and John sued John Kasich. Ok, so really they sued the state of Ohio, but Kasich was the governor so his name went down as the defendant. And it was really just Jim at this point as John was too weak to act. Jim argued that Ohio discriminated against same-sex couples who had married legally outside of the state. On July 22, the District Judge, a dude named Timothy Black, recognized the marriage, preventing Ohio from leaving John’s name off the death certificate after he died. Just three months later, John Arthur did pass away.
While Jim’s name indeed did appear as John’s surviving spouse on the death certificate, Ohio had appealed this to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. As it turns out, several others were suing their states for the same reason. The Sixth Circuit combined six different decisions from four different states. Jim Obergefell’s case was just one of the six. On November 6, 2014, by a vote of 2-1, the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the states with the laws banning same-sex marriage. It cited the Supreme Court case Baker v. Nelson, a decision which said states can limit marriage to persons of the opposite sex, as justification for their ruling. Writing for the majority, Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote: "Not one of the plaintiffs' theories...makes the case for constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from the place it has been since the founding: in the hands of state voters."
Jim and all the others challenging the state same-sex marriage bans appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court agreed to hear four of the same-sex marriage cases that directly challenged state laws banning same-sex marriage. One of these was Obergefell v. Hodges. Wait a sec. Who is Hodges? Hodges was the new dude appointed by Kasich to be Ohio’s health director back in August 2014, so yay, now his name gets to randomly go down in history!
![Natanael Cano - Ya Te Olvidé [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xLig8I91SJQ/mqdefault.jpg)
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
Wow only three likes?
Overturn this case right now
@@Nila334-NO-MORE-GAYS How about no?
Why? @@Nila334-NO-MORE-GAYS
Obergefell and Hodges are actually on the same side. Hodges resigned in 2017 and is a supporter of marriage equality and is also a friend of Obergefell.
the good ending
That’s super cute honestly. Shame that his name will always represent the homophobic side of this famous case.
It’s crazy to think gay marriage has only be federally legal for less then a decade.
Ikr
it's even crazier to remember that it wasn't allowed for thousands of years too
@@patc6146 for thousands of years same sex relationships were normal so that doesn't make sense
@@patc6146 Hercules and Achilles would like to argue otherwise.
@@zbdmo4914 fr the greeks (and therefore romans) were hella gay
I remember this case quite well. I boarded a plane in North Dakota when same-sex marriage wasn’t legal in ND and when I landed in Chicago, it was legal everywhere in the country.
Didn't need Congress or the constitution as Roberts noted it had nothing to do with the constitution but was an act of will.All you need is leftist judges legislating from the bench
One time I was working as a life guard at my pool. and I accidentally hit an old man in the head with the vacuum's pole. I turned around and scared to death because I just hit Justice Kennedy. I sad sorry over like a hundred times. I just feel bad because he was the man that gave me the right to marry and I hit him.
Oof
You should send him a letter to remind him lol
I remember seeing then president Obama give a speech about it sometime in summer 2015. One of first truly historical events I was able to witness.
I miss dummer 2015
@@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 lol. how did I miss that?
Elijah Ford
Was that a typo or intentional?
@@anticorncob6 it was my typo originally, he was just making a joke.
try 9/11. That's a lil more important lol. Definitely more historical.
I'll never forget the decision was announced on the first day of San Francisco's Gay Pride weekend. 🏳️🌈 I had just recently came out and went with my new boyfriend who remains my partner to this day. It was such an amazing moment in history.
Feel bad for obergerfell, man lost his husband than was denied he even had one, sad.
it has been a heck of a uphill battle for a long time
have a good time at the vidcon
Thanks! I think I'll be the odd man out there, but it should still be a great time. :)
Hi
@@aishaish9894 👋
@@aidensanders2534 ya
@@aishaish9894 Indeed
It’s always nice to hear about when gay marriage becomes legal anywhere it previously wasn’t, I’m not gay but marriage is a union between two lovers, and I think gay marriage is a no brainier
oh, i like those car door open sounds from gta 3
OMG
Lmao Im so glad you pointed that out
I used to think conservatives were for small government.. USED TOO think that until I see that all their beliefs seem to want to regulate other people's lives.
Well you also have to factor in them also being deeply traditional and socially conservative. Being small government is not their sole ideology.
@@joshmorton7283 no, but they market themselves as small government though, and it's arguably the GOPs biggest hypocrisy.
You don't get to redefined marriage for all of us, the supreme court judges destroyed the definition of marriage by including homosexuality in it, which is the destruction of the act of sex, homosexuals cannot have sex, just like masturbation is not sex, hence with the inclusion of homosexuality in marriage, all notions of sex have been removed, which makes marriage akin to a roommate agreement which destroys its whole purpose, the regulation of sex between the man and the women and the responsibilities toward the children. Families are the basis of a society and they participated in destroying that. How about YOU just hold your private union ceremony and stop making it a government issue huh abuser?
@@forestmanification What tf does sex mean, then? Vaginal penetration? Straight couples do oral and anal sex too. Where's the line for you, exactly?
@@forestmanification schizo reply
Seems pretty clear (to me at least) that the 14th amendment would protect them. I somewhat understand the dissenting opinion, however the 14th amendment makes it pretty clear that they're protected.
Laika24102007 Care to elaborate? How does the 14th amendment violate human rights? Ensuring that arbitrary considerations don’t make it so people aren’t treated equally under the law don’t actually help human rights?
I agree since the 14th amendment actually was proposed with the idea to protect the rights of all Americans, but the dissent makes sense, mostly from Scalia
@@benjijacobs2049 I like Roberts dissent that Equal protection does not apply because the case seeked to change the institution of marriage and not enter it. In most countries gay marriage is considered a civil union and not marriage in the language of the law and he also added that the same argument could be used to legalise polygamy.
@@pedrorequio5515 To the contrary, almost all countries that established separate civil unions for same-sex couples eventually replaced them with same-sex marriage. Civil unions were an attempt to have their cake and eat it too - to grant same-sex couples some or all rights of marriage, without granting them marriage itself. It was the infamous "separate but equal" doctrine again. It didn't please either the proponents of gay rights (who wanted full marriage equality and wouldn't accept anything less, except as a stepping stone to same-sex marriage), nor the conservatives (who opposed any recognition of same-sex couples at all).
@@MikeRosoftJH Tradition matters where I live my mother is a clerk and performs civil unions, there are parents here who outright refuse to attend their daughter´s or son´s "wedding" just because they did not considered it to be the real deal when compared to a church cerimony, even in heterossexual marriage which was the case in this very recent example.
I remember having to vote in my first election to legalize same sex marriage in my state. It's been a long road.
I'm not gay but it's nice to see same-sex couples can get married.
Ok!? Weirdo
@@rip8399 How is that weird
Thank you for clarifying
Im homophobic
same
10K Subs Question:
Other than me obviously, who are your top five favorite RUclipsrs or RUclips channels?
The idea just popped into my head, no idea why.
+KnowingBetter Hahahaha
@@iammrbeat You avoided the question
@@nadafangirl he'd make an excellent politician then
Name explain
Holden it Down
JJ McCollough
Reuben the Bulldog
And a few others
@@ruaridh6744 True! 😂
When this decision was handed down, I was picking up my lesbian sister from her role as a summer camp counselor. I showed the news article to her on the way home, and her excitement was obvious by the grin on her face.
I think that gay marriage is private business of the two couples involved. Same sex couples in my opinion have just as much to equality as oposite sex couples!
Incest is an action taken by two parties, according to that same logic why shouldn’t incestious marriages be legal
@@hs5312 the problem with incest is bc of offsprings/genetical problems and bc of power dynamics, same way a pupil can’t consent to a teacher or a prisoner can’t consent to their security guard.
@@vfsdm gay people can’t produce kids so by similar logic to the unviable offspring of incest one could argue they shouldn’t be able to get Married, also the power dynamic between siblings just dies when everyone is an adult, so the power dynamic argument doesn’t work so well if both are adults. Your arguing that gays should be allowed to get married because it is a decision made by 2 consenting adults but than arguing against two people who are siblings doing the same that is inconsistent.
@@hs5312 Legal marriage ( not the cultural/religious marriage ) is more of a protocol to formalize a series of legal protections and benefits between a couple ( rights of inheritance, hospital visitation, medical decision making, differential taxation, adoption and artificial insemination, employee benefits for spouses and dependents etc ), it isn’t about having kids, that’s why people who won’t or can’t have kids get married ( sterile straight couples, gay couples ). Same sex marriage and incest are not comparable bc they simply are not the same thing. The illegality of incest is related to the degree of shared DNA ( more than 25% of shared DNA in classified as affinity incest, siblings have 50% of shared DNA ), which can bring genetical issues to their offsprings, not bc of the power dynamics aspect. The way of not encouraging it ( together with making it illegal) is restricting marriage rights of those relationships. This also ended being applied to other forms of incest even with less degree of shared DNA ( cousins etc ), but for more cultural reasons than the genetics pool issue, most forms of incest are taboo in most societies today bc of this association with the high percentage of shared DNA.
Just bc there isn’t the genetic pool factor in same sex marriage, homosexual incest is still a taboo bc it’s still a form of incest. No one in marriage equality activism is advocating for incestuous gay or straight marriage.
@@vfsdm first you brought up power dynamic, I fefuted it. Reread your first reply you mentioned power dynamic as a reason is illegal. Second yes marriage confers a lot of benefits not relating to children. But one of the original reasons for marriage is the rearing of children and a lot of benefits were given to married because they could have children and giving some of these benefits would encourage people to have children. Second you may not for incestious marriages being legal, but if you are going to argue that they should be illegal than arguing that the state can restrict interactions taking place purely between two consenting adults, which goes against supporting same sex marriage on the grounds that it is between two consenting adults.
Thanks for making case law easy to understand.
Flash forward to 2022, and now Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act (or RFMA),which makes same-sex marriages legal nationwide. This should help tremendously against it's opponents in the future!
To clarify it only acknowledges existing marriages between couples. If the SC overthrows this case, it goes back to the states. That could make it where a state that decides to make i illegal that new gay couples could not get married there.
Lock them up lock Joe Biden up
@@BatmanFanGirlNot totally. Obergefell solved two issues at hand about SSM:
1. Interstate recognition - marriage is still valid in states where SSM is illegal as long as it is celebrated in states where it is legal.
2. Full state recognition - all states shall recognize SSM celebrated within their borders.
Respect for the Marriage Act only codifies item #1. If Obergefell is overturned, same-sex couples may resort to celebrating their marriage out of the state and go back again with a marriage license.
I also predicted that there would be a massive protest and would lead most states to legalize it thru the state legislature, hence item #2 will be solved but in a more painful manner.
How about no?@@Nila334-NO-MORE-GAYS
This and Roe v. Wade made me notice that Common Law is a bit problematic, because the SC can just simply overturn Obergefell just as it did with Roe.
This terrifies me. I just wanna live my life and love whoever I love. Is that too much to ask?
Obergefell is a blemish on the USSC and should be overturned immediately. Should've never happened. So is Lawrence v Texas.
With that being said, I support gay marriage 100%. Get your gay on.
That’s why it’s important to bring about social change you want enshrined in policy through Constitutional amendments, not court decisions. Or federal law, which now mandates that states recognize the marriage of other states so basically the right to same sex marriage would essentially still exist with some strings attached if Obergefell gets overturned. Both sides do it. Now the Prolifers want SCOTUS to define life as beginning at conception and ban abortion under the fifth and fourteenth amendments even though all those sections are saying is that you can’t execute someone without due process. It’s unfortunate that we always use the Court to force social change instead of trying to achieve it through the hard but necessary process of political debate
Man it was only 6 years ago. I was in 3rd grade lol
Pretty sad that it was that recent. Progress in America is slow.
I was 26 that year lmao
yes it is slow in the US of A
in my country:
-Sexual intercourse between two people of the same gender has been legal since 1933
-provided legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the form of a "registered partnership" law since 1989
-which in 2012 was replaced by a new, gender-neutral marriage law
@@crazydinosaur8945 In the US same sex intercourse was illegal in 14 states under sodomy laws until 2003, laws overturned by the supreme court case Lawrence vs Texas.
@@SOMEONE-cd9wf yep as i said the US is slow
But remember just a few years back in 2004 Bush won reelection in large part thanks to a deliberate strategy of driving conservative turnout by putting anti gay marriage referendums on the ballot in many states. Which all passed. The "traditional family" was saved.
It's always darkest before the dawn, as they say.
high quality content all around, I really appreciate this channel and especially the supreme court briefs and state comparisons, keep up the good work.
It's actually insane that people can be against gay marriage
There's nothing wrong with it whatsoever
Such a heartbreaking yet warming story
It’s incredibly sad. I’m fearful now because Clarence Thomas has suggested that the Supreme Court looks back at Obergefell, which gave people the right to same sex marriage. It terrifies me that Obergefell could be overturned and my rights as a bisexual woman taken away. Take care and stay safe.
@@Thathestiadevotee Same sex marriage support is in all time high which 71% in 2022 compared to merely 60% when Obergefell ruling was announced. This is higher than the number of people favoring abortion. Besides, what would be the status of married gay couples if obergefell is overturned? How about who are in the process of getting license, adoption and other marriage-related transaction? See? It would do harm than good and SC will receive public backlash if they do that. Let's wait till the gay marriagr approval reach 80 to 90%, that's the point when the federal government can make an affirmative law for marriage equality.
@@rainb5987 Obergefell ruling being overturned would serve as proof that we don't live in a real democracy, rather a country ruled by a theocratic minority.
"There's nothing wrong with it whatsoever" except for the fact that it completely goes against the principles behind marriage which has always been a religious institution first and foremost.
@@buffmordecai1498 How does it go against the principles of marriage?
I thought I would come appreciate this case before the Supreme Court reverses this one too.
They should it's as wrong as could be.
@@nebiyubogale285 i do think that gay marriage should be legal, however there really isnt any constitutional basis for it i agree. i would have made more sense for congress to pass a amendment, not that it would ever happen
@@JD-yn8ceI mean marriage would probably be one of the enumerated rights at the very least
And there really shouldn’t be any restrictions on marriage seemed that would go against the whole constitution and what not about equality and liberty
as bad as things seem to be right now, one thing that astounds me is how quickly outright homophobia has vanished from the overton window. just 10 years ago, both party's presidential nominees opposed same sex marraige. now, i cant think of a single politician against it. theres still a long ways to go, but its so lovely seeing progress made.
They at least had to change the language to talk about religious freedom and State's rights for opposing homosexuality.
you're right. the GOP has switched their party platform away from talking about same sex marriage, and mostly even rights of LGBT persons in the workplace and other areas. to Trans rights. Now they talk about banning trans women who are on hormone therapy from playing on women's sports teams "Because they are still male". Or they go on fits about pronouns and recognizing non-binary genders.
"Good" news is, now it's only one party that opposes same-sex marriage [the Republican party; read their 2016/20 party platform for more info].
While it'd be nice to have both parties fully in favour, unfortunately humanity is always filled with people who go against the rights of others.
Im against same sex marriage.
@@chickenflavor9880 then have fun with chronic stress, and not being able to wipe your rump because it's "feminine" lol. probably a cultist as well
Conservatives: “Get the government out of our personal business!”
Progressives: “Yup.”
It’s crazy to think that now this might get overturned..
We existed 239 years without it. I don't think a country without Obergefell v Hodges is that unprecedented.
@@abren5974 it also wouldn’t be “unprecedented” if slavery was made legal again. Not a great argument.
@@abren5974 My guy, slavery was around for decades before the 13th amendment was a thing. Just because injustice happened in the past for a long time doesn't mean we should grow accustomed to it.
I doubt it would happen; unlike abortion, where it's pretty divided along party lines, same-sex marriage isn't as controversial. Even my father is a Trump, religious kind of Republican; he's good friends with our gay neighbors.
It's crazy that they are now trying to force Uganda to be gay, thinking that that's an acceptable thing to force upon another culture, it's like a poisoned gift.
Super late to this video but if you want to hear more about the case, Jim Obergefell told a story about his experience on a podcast called the moth. It's super moving and definitely worth a listen.
better late than never
going through the supreme court brief videos to see all the rulings potentially at risk
Wild to think if this case was heard with today's scotus, it'd be shot down
Not really the current court wouldn’t really have a reason to shut it down
Pretty much they all accept Marriage is a right anyone has
Now just applying the equal protection clause would be enough
They’d have to try really hard to argue againist this
And the only thing they can say is that it’s not up to the Supreme Court but the states
And atm in the country no state legislatier would risk punishing same sex marriages as they’d be out of a job VERY quick
wow this is recent
I can’t believe how recent it is.
Shocking how new this is
Several of the arguments used in Loving V Virginia (1967) proves this was so long overdue. So many clear parallels that people were intentionally blind to
Parallels which are abused to call people who disagree with this decision “bigoted” and claim that they want to go after interracial marriage when a vast majority of people who don’t support the Obergfell decision do not.
Is it just me or others too find it disgusting people opposed this in the 21st century?
Just you
@@controversialtopicswithcad9296 No, its not just them. Many people agree with them.
It's the current year people
Not really. Just, to quote from one famous book: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." It's easy to overlook the discriminatory nature of a law, especially when it's you who the law favors. (And that's precisely the point that the court was making, in both the 'Obergefell' and 'Lawrence' verdicts.)
@@FirstLast-qf1df REMAIN RELEVANT AT ALL COSTS!
President during this time: Barack Obama
Chief Justice: John Roberts
Argued April 28, 2015
Decided June 26, 2015
Case Duration: 59 Days
Decision: 5-4 in favor of Obergefell (Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer, Kennedy. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia for Hodges)
Hodges was actually pro gay marriage but he needed to represent Ohio.
Who's here after Clarence Thomas wrote that this case needs to be reevaluated?
He asked a lot of cases that abuse the due process clause (And enumerated privacy)
But this one’s pretty safe using the equal protection clause
Equal happiness, Equal strife, Equal freedom to love who they want
Even though I support gay marriage, for the most part I agree with Scalia that Anthony Kennedy's "Dignity comment" wasn't an actual legal argument. That said, it's common sense that if one state or multitudes of states already recognize marriages of a sort, and another state does not, some form of discrimination is legally being applied, and that should be unconstitutional...as far as I can see it (within the U.S.)
"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."
14th amendment covers this IMO. A state is clearly taking someone's privilege to marriage in this case, and taking away their equal protection.
@@AF-nh2ux it doesn’t mention marriage once, just like how it doesn’t mention abortion. It’s made up by the court.
You could say the same thing about smoking weed or any other thing that one state bans and another does not.
@@AF-nh2ux "Privileges and immunities" does not mean literally any right you can possibly conceive. It means the privileges and immunities endowed in the Bill of Rights and by Congress in their enumerated powers. The Equal Protection case is much more coherent, though.
i mean... "equality" would have sufficed
Anyone else find it ironic that Republicans only bring up the "it should be left up to the state", argument when they know they'll lose support if they against X.
Both parties tend to do this. It's a good strategy.
@Laika24102007 Dude, why can you not write in English?
Can't wait to read the comments!
Kennedys closing statement really hits hard man. I consider myself pansexual I really couldn't have put it better. The queer community wasn't doing this to shit on anyone's religion but too enjoy the same freedoms as the rest of the country.
"PaNsExUaL" Shut up dude
Don't listen to Nila334. He's a right wing extremist who shoves religion down other people's throats.
Me being gay of course I support my decision to marry whoever my man will be :3
Crazy to think that it was a big deal, in a few decades people will be surprised that it was ever illegal. Hopefully anyways.
god i was only 15. I had no idea how much hate existed in the world until i learned not everyone could get married with their beloved, but at least i only learned with it being legalized
"It is important to note that the 4 justices who dissented weren‘t necessarily against gay marriage" is a stupid take. If you read any of Scalias opinions on Same Sex couples (think of his dissent in Lawrence v Texas) you can easily see that he is a reactionary religious homophobe that tries to veil his political positions under incoherent methods of constitutional interpretation.
He also supported jailing people for burning US flag(protected under freedom of expression)
@@zainmudassir2964 no Scalia actually was in the majority in the flag burning case
“Is a stupid take”- it’s really not. Sometimes the federal government shouldn’t do the job of the state government; that is assuming we don’t want a totalitarian state.
But obviously, Scalia was bias for traditional marriage; besides religious reasons he had good reasons too.
we homophobes are defending natural law, the family and human dignity
@@patc6146 Is it really Natural Law if it excludes a portion of nature on the basis of an arbitrary judgement held as a result of human prejudice? Nature is not inherently exclusive nor is it of any opinion; the universe is indifferent. If differing sexuality was a violation of nature, why would nature allow it to exist? The only law that restricts nature is that of physics itself. Homosexuality exists in nature, therefore it is natural.
Any attempt to define naturality on the merit of morality or any other subjective human-based system of principle erroneously assumes nature is innately bound by its conformity to human ideas and exaggerates the universal significance of human beliefs. Ultimately, such an attempt fails to recognize that nature is independent of human qualities, such as bias, prejudice, intention, awareness, discontent, and any such quality by which such an attempt is founded, and that any imposition of these qualities is inherently subjective and is not universal enough to be considered a law of nature. Those who justify discrimination by means of a defence of the laws of nature are really defending the laws by which they choose to govern their own life in order to preserve a system of principles they hold, because they refuse to accept change as it is seen as an affront to their beliefs which they have internalized as objectively correct and use the argument of universality to validate, rather than recognize that their beliefs are simply a result of personal experience and societal conditioning and that, perhaps, they don't warrant perpetuation, and instead warrant reevaluation and should be open to amendment.
If you are still talking questions for your
Q&A I have two questions to ask.
1. What States/Countries flags do you like the best
2. This year my Social Studies teacher could not teach all thing things he wanted because of time. So do you ever run out of time to teach things in Social Studies and if so what do you have to skip?
I can add these. I haven't made the video yet, but hopefully I'll be making it soon if you know what I mean.
Beat hurry up :)
Ah, I remember this case well…
When I was in middle school, my mom married my stepmother in Oklahoma because it wasn’t legal in Texas yet [06/05/2015]. But only 3 weeks later, this ruling rendered that whole trip kinda unnecessary…
I mean it was kinda cool to go to Oklahoma though.
I feel sorry for you
+Jonathan TD Dude, just come out of the closet already. You will feel so much better when you do.
That quote at the end was beautiful and brought a tear to my eye.
In my country, Ireland, we passed a referendum in favour of gay marriage (to ammend our constitution it requires a popular vote) the first country to pass gay marriage by popular vote. We also did the same recently with abortion, the first referendum I've voted in.
Ireland is quickly becoming a progressive country. What did you think about the recent Pope visit?
@@iammrbeat Not nearly good enough for the survivors of sexual abuse unfortunately. I feel like it's all talk but no action. Again and again Ireland has been disappointed by the nothing replies from the church.
You have to understand the Catholic Church before the mid-90s was powerful. A priest could walk into a shop or a café and just get things for free, they were extremely respected in the community. Priests could literally and figuraivly get away with murder.
An ex papal nuncio leaked information about the papal archives. They knew about priests abusing children since the 50s and in 99% of cases the church did not punish the priests in question. For most of them they moved them to a different country or parish to sweep the problem under the rug.
To young people (most people under 35) in Ireland the church is seen as an old institution from a by gone era stained in controversy from the Magdalene laundries, Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home and the clerical sex abuse (Look them up).
But I must give Francis credit. In his short premiership as pope has done more than his predecessors on clerical sex abuse.
Overall the trip can be sumed up as ehhh.
Westportlad
Good to see that your country did things the right way, instead of disgracing the law and and mocking the rights of the people to govern themselves!
I’ve met and shaken hands with Obergefell. Nice guy
Anthony Kennedy is a legend
It’s crazy how this case probably won’t be here much longer
Arthur: *OKAY*
Everyone has the right to have the same happiness, frustration, joy of commitment, the sadness when a union does not work. In this type of journey I give these people the same reverence & deep respect for their sheer resilience as couples of interracial relationships & marriage. Just the knowledge that everyday you might encounter a person who would object put strain on individuals which then impacted the relationship. To have to actually put your private life out there for public consumption was as also a stress to the relationship. It was again the few trying to dictate what is acceptable. The silent majority believe that so long as what another does with their private life has little to no impact on their lives or families, so let them be. It takes just one individual with aversion to this lifestyle to create havoc.
Live & let live builds a much more stable & happy world
Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle. It's a sexual orientation and nothing more.
@@RyanFeatherston
Yes it is an orientation, yet there are clubs specifically considered a homosexual club. Heterosexual couples may also go there but that is there. These clubs are really quite nice.
Lifestyle is a point view maybe. I do not mean to be making a judgement
@@victoriabaker6943 I see.
This is one of those cases that shouldnt be as controversial as it is today, like ppl are gay big whoop sometimes states shouldnt be as powerful as they are.
I'm hoping this, like Loving V. Virginia never is overturned. They need to make an Amendment to the Constitution that says marriage is defined as between two living breathing people.
Love the principle but if an ammendment with that exact language were to be enacted it would also allow for child marriages lol. Id recommend it as being defined by two or more people eligible to give consent.
@@michaelmilam7285 respect and thank you for your knowledge. You're absolutely correct.
it can no longer be!
Two? What about polyamory? It's valid too and if marriage still exists, we might as well include poly people in it.
@@pixer415 isn't polygamy illegal in the United States?
Justice Kennedy's words are actually really sweet
What they say: “Same sex marriage should be left up to the states. It’s a state’s decision.”
What they mean: “We don’t support gay marriage.”
My immediate response to that is: replace "same-sex marriage" with "interracial marriage". Should it have been left up to states whether or not to have anti-miscegenation laws? Do you think the court has overstepped its authority in 'Loving v. Virginia'? (True, the constitution does not *specifically* protect same-sex marriage; but the same is true for interracial marriage.)
@@MikeRosoftJH the sad part is that there’s at least 5 incumbent senators who would probably say “yes” to that question.
@@MikeRosoftJH The constitution doesn't protect any marriage, because marriage isn't in the constitution.
@@killergoose7643 Even though marriage isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution, courts have repeatedly ruled that marriage is a constitutionally protected right under the 14th and 5th amendment. (See also the 9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") In Loving v. Virginia the court has ruled that states cannot criminalize interracial sexual relations, or forbid interracial marriage; to do so would violate the 'due process' and 'equal protection' clause of the 14th amendment. In other cases courts have ruled that other restrictions (e.g. of men who had failed to pay child support, or of prisoners serving their sentence) are also contrary to the constitution. So likewise, in Lawrence v. Texas, United States v. Windsor, and Obergefell v. Hodges the court have ruled that states cannot criminalize homosexuality, or forbid same-sex marriage; that would violate the 'due process' and 'equal protection' clause of the 14th amendment. Under the 5th amendment, nor can the federal government.
@@MikeRosoftJH I have no problem with gay marriage or any other kind of marriage, but it should either have been left up to the states or the law should have been changed by constitutional amendment. The SCOTUS making things up where they don't exist is an outrage. Marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution and they should not have pretended it does. The writers of the amendments would be stunned to learn they meant anything at all about marriage, let alone gay marriage.
As a gay man in the south I remember this one well. A lot of verbal public pushback but the queer community definitely was happy to be legally recognized
I'm surprised the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article 4 of thr Constitution wasn't brought up in this case. I would think it would be more pertinent than the 14th Amendment.
Actually, there are two main questions being considered.
1. Does the 14th amendment require states to recognize gay marriage in which it is legal? (interstate recognition).
2. Does the 14th amendment require states to legalize same-sex marriage? (Full legalization).
I think Full Faith and Credit should be used as an additional argument in favor of the question #1 rather than relying solely on the 14th amendment.
Anyway, there is no need since Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act which codifies the interstate recognition (question no. 1) of gay marriage.
@@rainb5987Yeah, everyone in the comments is freaking out because of Thomas’ Dobbs concurrence even though it was not joined by anyone and there is no indication that this SCOTUS is willing to revisit that case. And even if it did, the federal law would make it that people have to go to a state which allows it to get there license
@@CD-tw9tv
Overturning a precedent that overturns contrary laws requires an enactment of a new contrary law to have legal standing to challege that precedent. You may win if the Court's composition has changed.
In short, even if the Court is composed of 9 superconservative justices, they cannot act agaisnt Obergefell without a state passing a new same-sex marriage (SSM) ban. None has been heard so far since SSM gathers bipartisan support and 81% population approval.
Unlike Obergefell, Roe has been in constant challenge since 1973. When Kennedy and Thomas replaced two less conservative justices, the conservatives had somehow IMPAIRED Roe through Casey which abolishes trimester framework.
Kennedy (pro-Casey) was replaced by a more conservative justice Gorsuch (anti-abortion) in 2016. Plus RBG died in 2020, the court's composition changed from 5-4 to 6-3 in favor of conservatives. Hence, Dobbs made a successful challenge. If RBG and Kennedy were still there, Dobbs won't prosper.
In my own opinion, the SCOTUS today is the most conservative since 90 years ago when 6-3 composition was last achieved.
Me before seeing this video: **watching videos for homework**
Me seeing this while watching a different video: not homework but oh well
Hahaha, just stop calling it Holy Matrimony cause there's nothing Holy about it only man and wife are blessed and sanctioned in the kingdom of heaven its what God has put together (MALE and FEMALE) Gen 1:27, Gen 2;18, Gen 2:22-24, Mark 10-6, confirmed by Jesus in Matt 19:5...😊😊😊😊😊
@@armymanssg508 ,,,i didn't ask? Fuck off
I feel sad for the ruling not being an unanimous decision as it happens in Loving v. Virginia :\
Eric Alvaro it would have been hard for this decision to be unanimous seeing as there really is no mention of marriage in the constitution and as it could be argued that equal rights laws wouldn’t apply to sexuality, ofc now they do.
Back in 2015 support for same sex marriage wasn't as high as it is in 2020, and its support is continuing to grow with Alabama and Mississippi being the only states where a majority oppose its legality. In recent polls 70% of Americans support its legality, with 90% of Democrats and 40% of Republicans.
@@jaydenbrockington4525 It should have been easy 9-0 as the law does not always mean the constitution it also mean laws of congress like laws of getting married and the 14 Amendment forces equal treatments
@@getyourgameon1990 How is it equal treatment to grant people a "right" to force the state to redefine the word marriage? If anything, it is preferential treatment
The Constitution in no way protects same-sex "marriage" and this ruling should be overruled.
@@ianmiller07 14 amendment is why it should legsl
I wish I could go to meet you but I'm at a stay away summer camp
At least you still have access to RUclips!
After overturning of Roe vs Wade this is next to go away
As it should, another case that makes a right out of nothing. I am for gay marriage but we need to use the proper legislative channels and NOT rely on the courts
@@AdamSmith-gs2dv Well if that's true, then overturn every nearly case going back to Griswold dealing with the 14th Amendment and rights. Do you truly realize the implications of that?
@@iammrbeat These people aren't very bright. Actually, I don't think there are any mental gymnastics one could do to even begin to justify why marriage shouldn't fall under equal protection as well as due process
Overturning Obergefell may do harm than good. Besides, the arguments behind obergefell are stronger compared to Roe.
@@iammrbeat it is very interesting to me that the US needs/needed a written constitution to stop the government picking on minorities etc. The system seems to work and majorities who would have voted against interracial marriage, marriage equality, school integration or give suspects lawyers and not taking a statement until they know that etc will accept rules they disagree with if it is based on the constitution.
I'm a conservative republican and I'm glad the court came to this decision!
No, King Peppy. I have a confession to make. It is YOU I love.
*O W O w h a t i s t h i s*
Spicy meme. I love you, too. Don't worry. But don't tell the others.
beat pls
Slade Wilson well I'm doubting your conservatism, you can be for gay marriage but this was wrongly decided.
damn, didn't know that same sex marriage legalization happened because of my city
I love Cincinnati! Cool bridge!
They got married on my birthday 🥳
Can you do one of these about the case of the NLRB vs. J. Weingarten?
How does the court decide what name to have a combined case named as?
Petitioner vs. Respondent
Obergefell is the MAIN petitioner and Hodges is the MAIN respondent.
@@rainb5987 I know that for single cases but how do they determine what case do the consolidated cases fall under especially if it’s from another circuit.
@@Speedster___ The one who is defeated in the lower shall be the petitioner in the higher court (only losing party can elevate the case). Circuit split triggers SC judicial review so when 6th circuit court INTENTIONALLY ruled in favor of the state, circuit split happened because only 6th circuit court do this ruling. Usually, the court who causes the circuit the split is usually the one where the main petitoner and main respondent can be named. Since, obergefell lost in 6th circuit court, then he shall be the MAIN petitioner in the Supreme Court
@@rainb5987 there were like 5 cases about this case from 6th circuit states so why was Obergfell picked as lead?
@@Speedster___ Honestly, I don't know
Thank you so much for covering this topic! I'm enamored!
Today’s court would have voted differently
Based court
You misspelled biased@@Nila334-NO-MORE-GAYS
@@GeoffreyTButler9096 I didn't
@@GeoffreyTButler9096 I meant based
@@GeoffreyTButler9096 I meant based
So this is the next huh.
U know - just thank God, just THANK GOD!
God outlawed gay marriage, but I mean, yeah thank him
@@JMZReview Seethe
@@mansonsacidtrip6862 ?
@@JMZReview How do you know - have you asked him?
@@MikeRosoftJH nah but I read his fantasy fiction book. 4/10 too repetitive, too long, useless parts in the middle
Please remember that same sex marriage, abortion, contraceptives, and pornography were originally legal in the U.S. It wasn't until Bowers v. Hardwick, Comstock laws, and Baker v. Nelson (all ruled by unconstitutional means like Christian doctrine alone) that they became illegal.
What the do two consenting adults have to do with any of that?
Homophobes what do u have to say
Don’t Worry we are working on banning it soon
Lil Tree you will fail. The next time you try, support for gay marriage will only have grown. By that time, you will lose any attempt to overturn the ruling by an even wider margin, and will likely never get the chance again
don't do gay marriage in russia or mexico, they still have tradition, real culture
@@patc6146 I prefer countries that aren't authoritarian shitholes or corrupt and violent hellholes :)
@@liltree8382 Nice concern trolling
Idk why but i teared up a little when in the first minute. I hope obergefell is still happily married
DAMN IT!! 😭😭😭😭😭😭
Jim Obergefell's husband died in 2013.
What about _full faith and credit?_ I should think that's more relevant to the whole thing. And it's in the main part of the Constitution to boot.
Full Faith and Credit of SSM was already codified under Respect for Marriage Act signed last December, 2022
5:26 such a good written and worded opinion. Marriage is a human construct between two consenting people(hopefully adults) that most people, Americans included, strive fore in life. Who you decide to marry is yours and your partner’s choice, same sex or not, and should be decided by them alone and not others. Just accept that marriage is a legal matter not a religious or belief one. Humans have decided to partner up way before a belief in some higher power.
💯
Wouldn't a civil contract like a marriage license automatically fall under the commerce clause (interactions across state borders fall under federal jurisdiction as involving several states) as it has implications for legal interactions crossing over state borders like e.g. closing an life insurance contract with the spouse as beneficiary, getting common health care plans as registered partners and what's more of similar events that cannot reasonably be expected to only happen in ONE state's juridiction... with Amazon sitting legally in Seattle, wouldn't even ordering something under your new married name trigger such a clause if some states do not want to recognize the legal status?
And commerce clause is automatically the way in for federal responsibility, at least that's the way I understand it...
Ugly German Truths woah that is a very good point, I never thought about that.
That applies to one of the points in this case, that marriages performed in other states must be recognised but the part that said they had the right to marriage in any state was the court overstepping its powers.The first part would be enough to have any marriage legalised everywhere but the like in Roe v wade the inability to cross state lines could be enough.
That was the second question asked in this case. The first question asked if laws that banned county clerks from authorizing marriage licenses to same-sex couples was unconstitutional.
The second question was whether or not states violated the constitution by not recognizing a same-sex marriage license that was valid from another state.
The court recognized that if the first question found the bans were unconstitutional, then the second question is moot because then states would HAVE to issue licenses to same-sex couples. However, if the court held that same-sex marriages could be banned by a state by state level, then they could have ruled in question two that even though Ohio would not issue same-sex licenses they would have to recognize same-sex licenses that were validly issued in other states
This'll make one hell of a movie one day
One of the best case. ever decided.
In truth, the SCOTUS could have also ruled that laws forbidding marriage between persons of the same sex violated the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, as such laws existed as a matter of respect to religious objection of the same.
Should the state argue that marriage should be restricted to persons who can procreate with one another, then it is a very easy argument to suggest that states enact a fertility law to prevent sterile or otherwise infertile persons from marrying as well. Further on that same basis, one could argue that a marriage certificate by the state may be worded as a contractual obligation by married persons to make any and all attempts to conceive a child, despite personal preferences by one or both parties to not conceive and/or raise children for any reason.
Actually, your argument is false. The First Amendment also applies against your presented position; as some, but not all, religions prevent same-sex relations. As such, the argument falls apart at the seams. This isn't even bringing into account the separation of religion and state in the United States, which would prohibit a ruling like your hypothetical to begin with.
Are same sex couple really comparable to sterile couples? I mean sterility is a defect, can you admit that homosexuality is also a defect? If so you can then recognize that people who think that they are sterile mat actually not be sterile, because sex between a man and a woman makes children by definition, in contrast, homosexual couples have an absolute 0% chances of reproduction, they cannot have sex, they can only engage in sexual perversion. Add to this that sterility is not a choice but choosing the wrong sex to have sex with is, so it's moral defect.
@@forestmanificationsterility is not a defect. Post menopausal women are sterile
@@Nimish204 Sterility is a defect, it's a natural expected defect for old women just like a bunch of other defects appear as you grow older. Saying that sterility is not a defect is you admitting that you see no difference between life and death and that is extremely sinister, sterilizing an entire population is a genocide but you won't even see it as a defect.
The Government shouldn't even be involved in marriage or give benefits based on it.
Are you married and have kids?
😆😅😂🤣
I find “states rights” is just a “soft” “no”.
Equality won in the end. :D. I remember when this happened as it was just a month or so after we voted on it here in Ireland. It was wonderful to see!
Oh that's right! I forgot they happened around the same time.
BUT WHAT ABOUT CHRISTIAN MORALS :(
noob BLOXXER Don't forget the separation of church and state!
noob BLOXXER how the hell Cares equality baby
@Laika24102007 Here in America separation of church and state is written in the constitution. Couples can choose how they want to get married. A church is not the only way. A friend, parent, or who ever can perform the marriage ceremonie.
🏳️🌈
hi
As a GAY, CONSERVATIVE man (unmarried at that) this decision brings tears to my eyes. I remember being overwhelmed with emotion that if I were to chose a partner in life that I could have the same protections as any other couple. Now, I don't agree with a lot of the liberal thinking the gay community stands for, however I believe marriage is a right open to all.
I respectfully disagree because I believe that marriage is definitionally between one man and one woman. I completely support gay couples having the same rights as straight couples, I would just rather the term “civil union” be used instead of “marriage,” due to the latter’s cultural and religious implications.
Why are you conservative?
@@Gingermaasmarriage is not just between one man and one woman.
@@vulpes7079 Why am I conservative. I believe in the sanctity of life at conception. I believe in low taxes and less government. I think you can achieve things without having to wear your sexuality on your sleeve. I'm very independent minded and believe in hard work, education, can achieve great things. The history of the Democratic party really bothers me advocating for keeping slavery. I know everyone will not agree with me and I can accept that. A few reasons.
@@bfun4615 that makes sense, I guess, but you do understand the party switch, right?
In Uruguay it was the Congress that pass the law of same sex marriage, not the SC so another SC could reverse this decision, and lets fe fair it has more weight is the elected members of Congress pass a law.
Supreme Court power is inherently anti-democratic unlike Congress.
decisions like these are why i think ruth bader ginsburg is the GOAT
It always bothered me to hear anyone, particularly justices, say “the people should decide/have spoken”.
WHY should complete strangers I’ve never met decide whether or not I’m allowed to be married to my husband?
Because our laws apply to all of us
@@uploadvidz4490 then why dont make a law that makes so you specifcly cant use the Internet anymore?
Because you can’t be married to a man if you are a man since marriage is by definition between one man and one woman.
I wish I wasn’t literally 5 at the time 😭 then I could’ve join the celebration
You are disgusting
Don't listen to Jonathan TD. He's a right wing extremist who shoves religion down other people's throats.
Yay
So i did some searchin after noticin how clearly these rulings shud also apply to polyamorous marriages and found out that my arguments were literally made by Justice Roberts in his dissent to this ruling xD He used it as like some kind of slippery slope fallacy of how first theyll let gay ppl marry and then next theyll let polyamorous ppl marry cuz of this ruling...
But honestly yeah, we shud be allowed to have polyamorous marriages. It is inequal discrimination towards us to deny such a privilege to us bcuz of a fundamental belief, that is founded in religion, that marriage is between two ppl.
No one wud be hurt by polyamorous folks beim able to marry more than one person in their polycule. And it wud give all parties equal ability to visit each other in hospitals and be listed as heirs for insurances and to get tax benefits and to all be at any parent teacher meetings and all the other rights currently denied to us polyamorous ppl bcuz of bigoted laws based in religious views
Law made by state or federal gov't are presumed to be Constitutional unless challenged with overwhelming preponderance of arguments and evidence about its constitutionality. So far, no one has ever filed a case about polyamory/polygamy and even if they did, the court will look at its merits.
hi
Everyone is saying how they remember this case and were alive for it but most of you were also alive for Lawrence vs Texas, the supreme court case which made homosexuality legal.
I was five back then and had zero clue what homosexuality was.
So why didn't the SC hear the other 2 same sex cases/appeals?
JAQing off, I see...
I go back and forth on the conservative view that things should be left up to the states, when you think so much is left up to the decision of 9 people. But so many states get shxt wrong. Something as fundamental as equality and dignity for all should be a no-brainer.
I feel the Equal Rights Amendment will add even more protection to such couples in the U.S.
Even more now, because the court has just recently ruled that discrimination by sexual orientation constitutes discrimination by gender.
I'm gay so I guess I have to support it!
61-39 still qualifies as controversial
It's 61-37, not 61-39.
It’s pretty sad that this was not a 9-0 decision.