WRFH/Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM - In Media Res: Obergefell v. Hodges

Episode Date: February 4, 2025

Join Stephanie and Hershey this week as they discuss the legality of the Supreme Court Case that legalized same-sex marriages nationwide.

Beautiful people and welcome to our show on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. My name is Hershey. And my name is Stephanie. And we're your host for In Media Res, a show where we examine a landmark court case starting from the middle of the action. In this episode, we will be discussing the 2015 Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges, a decision which legalized same-sex marriages in the United States. Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff of this case, was married to his husband, John Arthur, in Maryland.

However, in his home state of Ohio, same-sex marriages were outlawed, and Ohio therefore refused to recognize his marriage. Among other things, this prohibition prevented Obergefell from being listed as a surviving spouse on his husband's death certificate when he died from ALS in 2013. The institution of marriage is a prerequisite for many legal rights and privileges, such as adopting a child, parental rights over children, and in cases of property transfer, should a person's spouse die. When his husband passed, O'Bergelfel dedicated his life to the cause of legalizing same-sex marriages nationwide to accord for marriages like his own, the recognition he was denied. While his husband was still alive, they filed suit against the state of Ohio in a case known as a Bergerfell v. Cassich, which they won. However, the state of Ohio appealed the case and won in the U.S. Court of Appeals. The case was appealed once more to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was granted a writ of Serti-Irari

and was joined by other petitioners with similar grievances from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee on their state's marriage laws. And for our listeners, a writ of certiorari is a legal term used to denote a request of a high court to review the judicial processes of a lower court or agency. The term certiorari is Latin for, to be made more certain. Yes, and when it was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the two fundamental points in question were over the 14th Amendment. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the 14th Amendment's due process and equal

protection clauses require states to license same-sex marriages and require other states to recognize these marriages when they are performed in other states. In a five-word decision, the court ruled yes on both accounts that the 14th Amendment required states to license and recognize same-sex marriages. Writing the opinion for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, quote, a first premise of the court's relevant precedence is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy, like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation and child rearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. Indeed,

the court has noted it would be contradictory to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society. This privacy argument was the first of four arguments Kennedy used to justify the decision. Other arguments include that the right to marry is the best support for a two-person union in guards against loneliness, marriage protects and safeguards families, and that marriage is a keystone of social order. The four dissenting judges in this case each wrote their own opinions. In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that the fundamental right to marry does not require states to change their definition of marriage, and the Constitution

gives the state's individual liberty to expand their definition. But to rule that every state should license and require same-sex marriages bypassed that Democrat process. Roberts argued saying, for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority approach is deeply disheartening. Justice's Scalia and Thomas shared similar sentiments, adding that the majority overstepped its bounds by acting with legislative power rather than judicial power. In other words, this decision, much like Roe v. Wade, was seen as legislating from the bench. Thomas also added that the majority stretched the definition of substantive due process much too far in this legislative act and thereby infringed upon

normal democratic processes that would have taken place at the level of state legislatures. Justice Alito also agreed with this argument, adding that the court essentially created a new right, which greatly expanded the power of the courts beyond what was prescribed in the Constitution. I think these words from Robert's opinion illustrate the feelings of all four dissenting judges. He says, The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people. at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question,

and it answers that question based not on a neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own understanding of what freedom is and must become. I have no choice but to dissent. It's safe to say that this was and continues to be a contentious decision of the court. I'm afraid that's all we have time for on this episode of the MediaRes. We are your host, Hershey and Stephanie. We thank you for joining us, and we'll catch you next time on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. Thank you.