In this blogpost, Saumya Agarwal, Student, Amity Law School, Delhi, writes about how gay marriages were legalized in the US and how people celebrated the decision.
The US Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment on 27th June 2015 which affected many lives in the USA and worldwide. The American Supreme Court recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry.
The decision has affected 14 states in USA- Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, most of Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas.
A 5-4 majority judgment was given by the Justice Anthony Kennedy in favour of the petitioners. Each of the four Justices- Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Tomas and Justice Alito gave their dissenting opinion.
FACTS
The plaintiffs were 14 gay couples and two other men whose gay partners had died. They had brought cases to their respective districts challenging their right to marry or recognition of their marriage if they have married in some other state. Each of the state’s respective district court favored the plaintiffs. So the defendants, who were state officials in each case who were responsible for the enforcement of these rights appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases into one as Obergefell v. Hodges and reversed the decisions given by the District Courts. The petitioners then appealed against the decision in the Supreme Court, which was decided in favour of the petitioners.
James Obergefell was one of the plaintiffs and named defendants, Richard Hodges, is the Director of Ohio Department of Health.
James Obergefell and his partner have been in a relationship for over twenty years. They travelled from Ohio to Maryland in order to marry. His partner died after three months as he was suffering from amyotropic lateral sclerosis but Ohio law prevented him being named as his partner’s surviving partner on his death certificate. This is one such case. There were many more.
One of them was of April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse who had three adopted children. They lived in Michigan, but the state law permits only opposite-sex married couples or single persons to adopt. They did not recognize their adoption. They said that they treated each child as having only one parent, and if that parent passes away, the other partner has no legal right over the children.
LAW
According to Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution:
(…) 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
ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH THE SIDES
Each of the petitioners felt that Fourteenth Amendment was being violated. Either they were not allowed to marry or denied recognition to their marriage legally recognized in other states. They asked for the recognition of their marriage.
The respondents argued that the marriage is a union between a man and a woman. They said that the petitioners were not asking for changes in the already existing law, rather they are asking for a new and non-existent “right to the same sex marriage”. Further, they argued that fewer opposite sex couples will marry as there is a direct link between marriage and procreation. They said that the institution of marriage will be severely affected as less number of people will believe in it. The institution of marriage will be severely harmed.
DECISION
The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp 3-28
The majority held that the institution of marriage has evolved over the years. Marriage was considered as a union between a man and a woman. The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. Changes like the decline in the number of arrange marriages or ban on the law of coverture have transformed the structure of marriage. They have strengthened the institution of marriage.
Earlier same-sex intimacy was considered to be immoral, and homosexuality was considered to be an illness. But later on with the social and political developments, they were allowed to live their lives more openly. There was a shift in the attitude towards them. More and more dialogues were held to advocate their rights. Soon the question of their treatment reached the court. In 2003, the Court overruled its 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld a Georgia law that criminalized certain homosexual acts, concluding laws making same-sex intimacy a crime “demea[n] the lives of homosexual persons.”
There are four principles or reasons on which the Court relied while considering the right to marry is a fundamental right which needs to be protected.
- The first premise was the right to intimate choices which are inherited in the concept of individual autonomy.
- The second premise that was relied on was the right to marry is fundamental as it supports a two-person union unlike other.
- The third basis was the protection of children and families. As there is a direct link between marriage and procreation. Marriage safeguards children and thus draws a meaning to child rearing, procreation and education.
- Lastly, the held that the Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make it clear that marriage is the keystone of the nation’s social order.
DISSENTING JUDGMENT
Chief Justice Roberts held in his dissenting judgment that the Constitution does not allow the judges to interpret the definition of marriage and that it should be left to the legislature to decide. There was no legal basis for the judges to reach the conclusion.
REACTION
With the judgment in favour of the petitioners, the people all over the world have rejoiced and shown their support by changing their facebook dps to rainbow colour. The White House was lit up in rainbow colour after the judgment was passed. There were hugs and smiles everywhere. Some broke into tears of joy. Hundreds of Americans walked to the Court and sang the National Anthem in the emotional moment, clapping wildly after singing that “USA is the land of the free.”
Justice Kennedy granted the gay and lesbians the right that they deserved. While granting so he said, “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
President Obama congratulated everyone. He called up Obergefell and told him that under his leadership the country has forever been changed.Later in the morning at the White House, Obama said “Americans should be very proud.”
The Democratic Presidential candidate just stated the word “proud” which shows how proud she was with the judgment.
“It’s my hope that gay marriage will soon be a thing of the past, and from this day forward it will simply be ‘marriage,’,” an emotional Mr Obergefell said outside the court.
CONCLUSION
Seeing this, we hope to see similar changes in India. The Delhi HC’s judgment in favour of gays and lesbians gave certain relief, but the SC overturned the judgment and criminalized homosexuality again. The judgment affected lives of many people to a great extent. The people that came out of the closet and declared themselves to be homosexuals were ridiculed by the people after the SC judgment. Section 377 of the IPC characterizes homosexuality as “unnatural offence” as it is against nature.
Shashi Tharoor on 18th December introduced a private member’s bill in the Lok Sabha to decriminalize homosexuality which was defeated in the Parliament by 71-24. The bill was seeking to amend Section 377 of the IPC.
Two top leaders of BJP and Congress have also supported the view. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, speaking in his personal capacity, said that the SC must review its decision on Section 377 and should allow gay relationships. He said that SC’s view did not sync with jurisprudence followed worldwide.
Congress Minister P. Chidambaram also said that the Delhi HC’s decision was a wonderful one, and the SC should have stayed with it.
