Same Sex marriage 14th amendment

Obergefell v. Hodges Decided June 26, 2015
Questions presented
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
Holding
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed.

Majority Sotomayor, Kagan - Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent Roberts, Alito, Thomas - Scalia

Sotomayor, Kagan are still on the court.
Roberts, Alito, Thomas are still on the court

Kennedy -> Kavanaugh
Scalia -> Gorsuch
Ginsburg -> Barrett
Breyer -> Ketanji Brown Jackson

Quote: Pacomartin

Obergefell v. Hodges Decided June 26, 2015
Questions presented
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
Holding
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed.

Majority Sotomayor, Kagan - Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent Roberts, Alito, Thomas - Scalia

Sotomayor, Kagan are still on the court.
Roberts, Alito, Thomas are still on the court

Kennedy -> Kavanaugh
Scalia -> Gorsuch
Ginsburg -> Barrett
Breyer -> Ketanji Brown Jackson

Considering Roe vs Wade
This won't last long
I have no doubt a gay marriage will not be recognized in some states
That's just the reality with this court
This court is a court that sides with religion over separation

Quote: terapined

Considering Roe vs Wade
This won't last long
I have no doubt a gay marriage will not be recognized in some states
That's just the reality with this court
This court is a court that sides with religion over separation

Well the court did not mention anything about the ethicality of abortion, only that it was not covered by the 14th amendment and hence was a matter for state law.
The 2015 Supreme court decision on gay marriage was also based on 14th amendment, and 3 of the sitting justices dissented on that opinion in 2015. The three Trump appointees are also likely to have the same opinion.

The 14th amendment (1868) famously was used in many landmark SCOTUS decisions
(1) made citizenship in the US the "right of soil" so that if you are born on US soil you are a citizen even if your parents are not
(2) in the 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson, ruling that segregated public schools did in fact violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
(3) the use of contraception (1965’s Griswold v. Connecticut),
(4) interracial marriage (1967’s Loving v. Virginia),
(5) abortion (1973’s Roe v. Wade),
(6) a highly contested presidential election (2000’s Bush v. Gore),
(7) gun rights (2010’s McDonald v. Chicago) and
(8) same-sex marriage (2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges).

Obergefell showed the mood of the court was to give imprimatur to a progressive idea

was the use of the 14th a bit of a stretch? Probably, but basically 'equal protection of the law' is there, so it was the one to use I think if the court was going to do it.

Marriage is often cited as necessary to protect children. It is seldom said, but also very true, that it protects women as well. Women certainly know this. So I had never been sure that gays need official, *legal* marriage. As it turns out, observing various relatives, I've reconsidered. We may not need 'gay marriage' but 'gay divorce' is definitely needed. Some of these people have really gotten themselves in a jam buying houses together and such, then breaking up. Divorce laws would have given protection to some that wound up really getting screwed.

Quote: odiousgambit

Obergefell showed the mood of the court was to give imprimatur to a progressive idea

was the use of the 14th a bit of a stretch? Probably, but basically 'equal protection of the law' is there, so it was the one to use I think if the court was going to do it.

Marriage is often cited as necessary to protect children. It is seldom said, but also very true, that it protects women as well. Women certainly know this. So I had never been sure that gays need official, *legal* marriage. As it turns out, observing various relatives, I've reconsidered. We may not need 'gay marriage' but 'gay divorce' is definitely needed. Some of these people have really gotten themselves in a jam buying houses together and such, then breaking up. Divorce laws would have given protection to some that wound up really getting screwed.

Tom Leykis had it pretty right when he said that marriage brings virtually no benefit to men. As to divorce laws helping I think only if one partner was not working but instead was keeping the house. Instead of marriage they would mostly be better off just having a lawyer draw up some kind of legal partnership with breakup terms.

Quote: AZDuffman

Tom Leykis had it pretty right when he said that marriage brings virtually no benefit to men. As to divorce laws helping I think only if one partner was not working but instead was keeping the house. Instead of marriage they would mostly be better off just having a lawyer draw up some kind of legal partnership with breakup terms.

Probably could be done, but if the notion 'we should get married' is strong enough, they don't have to think, just do it.

I think there are plenty of gays who want nothing to do with it for that matter.

Quote: AZDuffman

Tom Leykis had it pretty right when he said that marriage brings virtually no benefit to men.

Do you think a guy that has been divorced four times might be a little biased?

Quote: DRich

Do you think a guy that has been divorced four times might be a little biased?

I think he might be more an expert on what happens when it does not work out.

Point of Clarification:
No State
(1) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
(2) nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
(3) nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Supreme Court decision in repeal of Roe V. Wade, was based on the conclusion that RvW made an inappropriate appliaction of the 3rd clause of the 14th amendment.

They may do the same and overthrow the 2015 decision, but the SCOTUS deicision is not really challenging the ethics of abortion or gay marriage per se.

Quote: Pacomartin

Point of Clarification:
No State
(1) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
(2) nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
(3) nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Supreme Court decision in repeal of Roe V. Wade, was based on the conclusion that RvW made an inappropriate appliaction of the 3rd clause of the 14th amendment.

They may do the same and overthrow the 2015 decision, but the SCOTUS deicision is not really challenging the ethics of abortion or gay marriage per se.

Correct. The perfect example is people saying "gays were not free to marry." When you point out that they always were and many did, just they had to marry someone of the opposite sex the people get angry and say "not free to marry who they wanted to!" Then you point out that straight people could not marry someone of the same sex either.

Nothing was more equal than that!

The 2015 decision ignored law and ruled on emotions. The real danger of it is that such a precedent can be used to stretch the clause to ever more things it was not intended for.