The case Obergfell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. _ (2015).

Full Answer Section

• Equal Protection Clause: The Court found that state bans on same-sex marriage discriminated against same-sex couples without a legitimate justification. They were denied the same legal benefits, protections, and societal recognition afforded to opposite-sex couples.

2. Intersection of Law and Politics

The Obergefell decision exemplifies the complex interplay between law and politics. Here's how:

• Social and Cultural Change: The Court's decision reflected a growing societal acceptance of same-sex relationships. Public opinion had shifted significantly in favor of marriage equality.
• Judicial Activism vs. Restraint: The decision sparked debate about judicial activism. Critics argued the Court was legislating from the bench, imposing its views on a social issue. Supporters saw it as upholding the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and individual liberty.
• State vs. Federal Power: The ruling overturned state laws banning same-sex marriage. This highlighted the tension between federal authority and states' rights.

Further Points

• The decision was a culmination of years of legal challenges to same-sex marriage bans.
• The dissent argued that marriage was a historical institution between a man and a woman, and redefining it was a legislative matter, not a judicial one.
• Obergefell stands as a landmark case for LGBTQ+ rights and continues to be a reference point in discussions about equality and the evolving nature of the law.

Sample Answer

Obergfell v. Hodges: A Landmark Decision on Same-Sex Marriage

1. Court's Decision and Reasoning

In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. The Court relied on two key provisions:

• Due Process Clause: The Court argued that marriage is a fundamental right essential to liberty and personal fulfillment, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Denying same-sex couples this right violated their liberty interest.