Obergefell v. Hodges: SCOTUS Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage
This paper examines the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which established the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry. The paper outlines the constitutional questions at stake, focusing on how state bans on same-sex marriage were found to violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. It traces the precedent established by Baker v. Nelson (1972) and explains how the 5–4 majority opinion, delivered by Justice Kennedy, overturned that precedent. The paper also draws a parallel to Plessy v. Ferguson and its eventual reversal, arguing that prohibitions on same-sex marriage represent a comparable form of legal discrimination.
- Introduction: The Constitutional Question Before the Court: SCOTUS examines state same-sex marriage bans
- Baker v. Nelson and the State-Level Marriage Bans: 1972 precedent enabling state marriage restrictions
- The Fourteenth Amendment and the Court's Majority Opinion: Kennedy opinion overturns ban via 14th Amendment
- Agreement with the Ruling: Discrimination and Equal Protection: Author supports ruling, cites civil rights parallels
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper anchors its constitutional analysis in specific clauses — the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment — giving the argument legal precision.
- It uses a direct quotation from Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, allowing the Court's own reasoning to support the paper's analysis rather than relying solely on paraphrase.
- The historical parallel drawn between Baker v. Nelson and Plessy v. Ferguson strengthens the normative argument by showing a pattern of constitutional correction over time.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of case-based legal reasoning: it identifies a controlling precedent (Baker v. Nelson), shows how a later case (Obergefell) challenged and overturned that precedent on constitutional grounds, and then connects the outcome to a broader principle via analogy (Plessy v. Ferguson). This technique grounds opinion in legal history rather than personal assertion alone.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by framing the constitutional question before the Court, then provides historical background on Baker v. Nelson. The third section presents the majority opinion with a direct judicial quotation. The final section states and defends a personal position by drawing an analogy to racial segregation jurisprudence. References follow APA format.
Introduction: The Constitutional Question Before the Court
In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court confronted the question of whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. A number of states had enacted bans on issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, requiring instead that all applicants consist of one man and one woman. In response, several U.S. District Courts issued conflicting rulings on the constitutionality and legality of these laws, creating a need for the Supreme Court to resolve the matter definitively. Learn more about the case background at the Oyez project's summary of Obergefell v. Hodges.
Baker v. Nelson and the State-Level Marriage Bans
Many of the conflicting lower-court decisions relied on the precedent established in Baker v. Nelson, a 1972 case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that states have the right to enact laws determining the conditions under which marriage licenses are issued. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal and thereby upheld the ruling by default. Baker v. Nelson consequently became the standard that states used when drafting laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. ("Obergefell v. Hodges," 2015)
References
Davis, A. (1995). The Supreme Court, Race and Civil Rights. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Obergefell v. Hodges. (2015). Supreme Court. Retrieved from:
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.