Obergefell, Our Common Humanity, and Putting Children First

 

 

 


Tanner Bean is an Attorney with the law firm Fabian VanCott in Salt Lake City, Utah

Robin Fretwell Wilson is Director, Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois System & Roger and Stephany Joslin Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of Law

However a person viewed marriage equality in the run up to Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 United States Supreme Court case that opened marriage to same-sex couples, it showed that marriage matters to Americans. The plaintiffs in Obergefell sought access to marriage on the same grounds as heterosexual couples, for reasons as pedestrian as filing joint taxes (just one of over a thousand statutory benefits of marriage) to those as meaningful as joining their lives in ways that communities and families recognize as significant. (more…)

Continue Reading Obergefell, Our Common Humanity, and Putting Children First

Judicial Overreach and Reasonable Accommodation: Some British Reflection on the US Supreme Court Decision in Obergefell v. Hodges


Professor Mark Hill QC is an adjunct professor at Cardiff University, Pretoria University, Notre Dame University Law School, Sydney and King’s College, London; and is a fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University, Atlanta. He practices at the Bar in London and sits as a judge on the Midland Circuit.

The hallmark of good judgments is their brevity. Short sentences promote clarity. The best sentence in Obergefell v. Hodges is written by Chief Justice Roberts. It comprises seven words: “But this Court is not a legislature.” Unfortunately Roberts’s was a dissenting opinion. By a majority of 5:4, the US Supreme Court effectively legislated to permit gay marriage. I am not opposed to same-sex marriage. On the contrary, I am a champion of LGBT+ rights. Nor am I opposed to judicial activism. The common law is the better for the occasional gentle nudge. My unease, viewed from the UK, is with the starkness of the outcome and its failure to accommodate religious sensibilities. As Justice Scalia remarks in his barnstorming dissent,[1] the consequence of the decision was that the people of America lost “the freedom to govern themselves.” (more…)

Continue Reading Judicial Overreach and Reasonable Accommodation: Some British Reflection on the US Supreme Court Decision in Obergefell v. Hodges

Human Dignity, SOGI Claims, and the Obergefell Decision


Christine M. Venter is a Teaching Professor at Notre Dame Law School and Affiliated Faculty in Gender Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

It has now been five years since Obergefell, but one thing that even many opponents of the decision on religious freedom grounds might find common ground with, is the language used by Justice Kennedy when referring to the LGBTI+ community. In his opinion, Kennedy focused on the human dignity of the individual and what is required for dignity and full recognition of personhood. Obergefell represents the culmination of the Court’s gay and lesbian rights cases in that regard; previously Lawrence v. Texas, and United States v. Windsor, both established the idea of the centrality of the dignity of the human person. Lawrence mentioned it three times, while Windsor and Obergefell both referred to it ten times. (more…)

Continue Reading Human Dignity, SOGI Claims, and the Obergefell Decision