Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Obergefell v. Hodges

No description

Gayle Diane Tumampos

on 12 November 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Obergefell v. Hodges

Under the Ohio State Law, they didn't recognize the marriage in Maryland and refused to put Obergefell's name on John's death certificate
Relevant Facts
Brief Summary
After the defensive Marriage Act was struck down in 2013, they wanted to get married before John died
Relevant Facts
Should marriage be defined between a man and a woman because it is the only bonding that can produce a child?
On June 26, 2015, the outcome was a 5/4 decision to allow same-sex marraige in all states (Ruth Ginsburg, Elena Jagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer in the majority)
Obergefell v. Hodges
By: Annieshka Theodotus, Rita Samardjian and Gayle Tumampos
It all started with James Obergefell & his partner John Arthur who has been dating for over 21 years
In 2011, John Arthur was diagnosed with ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis), that soon brought him to his death bed
They flew from Cincinnati Ohio, a state that doesn't recognize same sex marriage to Baltimore Washington International Aiport in Maryland, a state that does recognize same sex marriage
They said "I do" on the plane, signed papers and flew back to their home state where John died 3 years later
Obergefell then sued the state under the claim that the states actions violated:
14th Amendment =
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. (1)
Equal Protection Clause =
The constitutional guarantees that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws that is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances in their lives, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. (2)
Is it in the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to define marriage? Or should it be determined by the states through a popular vote or legislation?
First Issue: The answer is no. Old and infertile people can still get married with the plans of NOT having a baby and the majority opinion said that it should be more about love and commitment (3)
Second Issue: The answer is no. This is why all the opposed voted no because they would rather have the states hold a popular vote to decide on this matter (3)
"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right." - Anthony Kennedy (3)
Justice Antonin Scalia stated that no personal opinion would affect his decision but an unelected commitee of nine should not be making this decision (3)
Our Opinion
We agree with the 5/4 decision because just like what the majority stated, marriage should be about love and commitment and nothing more. Two happy people loving each other is what matters in a marriage and it doesn't matter who those two people are. We also live in a more modern society that have different values and tradition so marriage today should not be defined as marriage in the 17th century.
Works Cited Page

(1) "14th Amendment." Cornell University Law School. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2015. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv>.

(2) "Equal Protection Clause." TheFreeDictionary. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2015. <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Equal+Protection+Clause>.

(3)"Obergefell v. Hodges: Same Sex Marriage & Cultural Jousting at the Supreme Court." The Brookings Institution. N.p., 29 June 2015. Web. 12 Oct. 2015. <http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2015/06/29-obergefell-same-sex-marriage-lempert>.

Should marriage be defined between a man and a woman because it is the only bonding that can produce a child?
Is it in the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to define marriage? Or should it be determined by the states through a popular vote or legislation?
Should marriage be defined between a man and woman because it has always been the tradition?
Discussion Questions
Full transcript