# data[].attributes.body
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
"Obergefell v. Hodges." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556. Accessed 20 Nov. 2020.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

https://www.heritage.org/life/commentary/judicial-activism-marriage-isnt-the-end-heres-what-do-now

https://www.equalrightstrust.org/files/ertdocs/Equal%20Rights%20Trust%20Case%20Summary%2C%20Obergefell%20et%20al.%20v%20Hodges%2C%20Director%2C%20Ohio%20Department%20of%20Health%2C%20el%20al.%20576%20US.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
this impact us today by being a huge landmark decision which affect same-sex marriages throughout the nation

# data[].attributes.body
it was judicial activism because The majority of the Court simply replaced the people’s opinion about what marriage is with its own

they established new legislation so wouldn’t it be judicial activism by necessity

# data[].attributes.body
Chief Justice:
John Roberts
Associate Justices:
Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan

# data[].attributes.body
The majority held that state same-sex marriage bans are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

# data[].attributes.body
same-sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states' bans on same-sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages that occurred in jurisdictions that provided for such marriages

they said their fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

held that the states' bans on same-sex marriage and refusal to recognize marriages performed in other states did not violate the couples' Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process.

# data[].attributes.body
Petitioner : The couples
The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.

Respondent : argued that the petitioners did not seek recognition of the right to marry, but sought recognition of a new and non-existent “right to same-sex marriage”. They argued that marriage was by nature between a man and a woman and recognition of same-sex marriage would demean the institution of marriage

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rWSvCNBZxY&ab_channel=Quimbee

# data[].attributes.body
Justice Kennedy(opinion)
The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. wrote a dissent in which he argued that, while same-sex marriage might be good and fair policy, the Constitution does not address it, and therefore it is beyond the purview of the Court to decide whether states have to recognize or license such unions

# data[].attributes.body
(1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
A: yes

(2) Q; Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state?
A: yes