Full Answer Section

1. Equal Protection Clause: The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from denying any person “the equal protection of the laws.” The Court found that same-sex marriage bans discriminated against same-sex couples by denying them the same legal benefits and social recognition afforded to opposite-sex couples. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage was deemed an irrational act of discrimination.

The Court acknowledged the historical tradition of marriage being between one man and one woman. However, it argued that this tradition doesn’t outweigh the fundamental rights of same-sex couples and the harms caused by marriage bans.

Intersection of Law and Politics:

Obergfell v. Hodges exemplifies the complex interplay between law and politics. Here’s how:

• Public Debate: The issue of same-sex marriage had been a subject of intense public debate for decades, with strong opinions on both sides. The Court’s decision reflected the culmination of a social and political movement advocating for LGBTQ+ equality.
• Legislative Stalemate: Despite growing public support for same-sex marriage, many state legislatures remained opposed to legalization. The Court’s decision effectively bypassed the legislative process and imposed a national standard on marriage.
• Dissenting Opinions: The 4-justice dissent argued that the decision on same-sex marriage belonged to the states and the democratic process, not the federal judiciary. This highlights the ongoing debate about judicial activism and the role of the Supreme Court in shaping social policy.

Overall, Obergfell v. Hodges stands as a significant intersection of law and politics. The Court’s decision not only legalized same-sex marriage nationwide but also reflected the evolving social and political landscape regarding LGBTQ+ rights.