Case Analysis: Obergefell V. Hodges

Obergefell v. Hodges is the Supreme Court Case that gay marriage legal in all fifty states. The case required that all states allow gay marriages and recognize gay marriages that happened in other states. It was a 5-4 decision that was based on the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th amendment. Obergefell wanted his marriage in Maryland to be recognized in Ohio, so he could collect the benefits from his partners death. Hodges is the director of the Ohio Health Department. The Supreme Court decided to grant cert for Obergefell v. Hodges for numerous reasons. There had been several cases in the lower courts that contradicted each other over the legality of gay marriage. In the district courts there were many different cases that made gay marriage
Breyer historically has followed a more liberal ideology. Breyer has written several books on how it should be a judges duty to make rulings that promote the democratic intentions of the constitution. This leads to Breyer falling under both decision making processes. For example in DC v Heller ( the case that ended a hand gun ban in DC), Breyer says that it wasn’t the creators of the constitutions intent to have zero control over where guns were located or who owned them. The attitudinal model is prevalent in this idea, since he is obviously for increase in gun control. It is also flexible interpretation because this is a change in what most judges have believed for a long time. 
 Justice Antonin Scalia voted in the minority in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges. Scalia follows the attitudinal model and is a very strict originalist when it comes to the constitution. An example of this decision making process is Scalia’s position on abortion. Scalia has been against abortion in multiple cases such as Webster v Reproductive Health Services and Sternberg v Carhart. Scalia is very much against abortion and believes that people will look back on these cases the same way they look at the Dred Scott Decision. This shows how his values have affected his decisions in the past and in this
A civil liberty is something that protects a person from the government. A civil right is something that every person is guaranteed. It could be a civil liberty because several state governments have made gay marriage illegal. This can be used to show that this needs to be protected from the state governments. It could be a civil right since in the past laws against interracial marriage and other forms of marriage laws have been overturned. This makes it a guaranteed right that has been created. Whichever is chosen then affects how it is argued. Depending on whether its a right or a liberty affects which amendments are used and how effective they can be