Gay Marriage Legalized: Obergefell v. Hodges

Gay Marriage Legalized: Obergefell v. Hodges

A run through of the major arguments in the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges which legalizes gay marriage in all 50 states.



45 Comments on “Gay Marriage Legalized: Obergefell v. Hodges”

  1. Do you think there's any chance for another case for SCOTUS regarding this issue? The same way the Affordable care act was brought to the supreme court several times.

    Great informative video, thanks a bunch!

  2. To make things simpler, why not separate the emotional choice of wishing to celebrate your union with another person and the state benefits that make it a central right?

  3. So the U.S. Cares about all 50 states legalizing same set marriage but the U.S. Doesn't care about mma in legal in New York which is the only state that hasn't legalized mma. I'm calling shenanigans.

  4. So, what happened to states' rights? Should we now just call our country the United States of America?

    Regardless, the South has always been stubborn and adamant to the federal government. Something happened 150 years ago that still leaves a sour taste in their mouth with respect to the federal government. They have done and will continue finding ways to deny gays in the South, regardless if many are still in the closet.

  5. Forgive my ignorance.
    Can someone direct me to the first circumstance that the United States government created laws and regulations on social issues.
    I do feel that in a nation where people have the right to truth, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that this would be a given right. Seeing the government interpret the law into having this social issue come to a conclusion is not something I fully understand.

  6. Happy equality day!

    There is a long way to more equal marriage, however.

    You are hateful if you disagree!

    [x] same sex marriage
    [ ] polygamy
    [ ] incest marriage (siblings)
    [ ] incest marriage (parent-child)
    [ ] zoophilia mariage (animal don't consent but I do, so I must be able to marry them. Also, I want to redefine marriage so I don't need animal consent)

    Again, You are hateful if you disagree!

  7. When a dispute is made against the Feds and the States, why do the Feds decide who is right? And why are we held hostage to be in this country even if it no longer represents that state?

  8. "Obergefell versus Hodges" (the name of the recent Supreme Court case that legalised same sex marriage throughout the USA), turns out to be an anagram of "U.S. begs God for severe hell".

    https://JohnAllman.UK – world class humorphobia since 2012

  9. Just a curious thought..the church isn't forced to conduct the marriage but what if the  court judge is Christian? Can he refuse?

  10. What the hell does it matter if somebody gets married as long as theyre both consenting adults and im only saying this pnext part because some guy down in the comments said people should be able to marry dogs- they should both be humans
    Dogs can not verbally communicate with humans
    Dogs can not concent to marriage
    Just like babies cant consent to marriage thats why you cant marry a baby
    Dog can not speak like we do
    So in an alternate universe where dogs walked around and talked just like us and were just like humans sure yeah marry a dog but thats not the universe were in

    Im completely for polygamy and polyamorous relationships if they want to be bonded by god or by state whether they believe in a god or not if they want to be married whats the harm
    Honestly it hurts no one people are just ignorant because its different
    Im completely for sibling marriage too
    I mean honestly again whats the harm why is it such a repulsive thought for people like if they are CONSENTING ADULTS they can do whatever the fuck they want like sorry they happened to come out of the same vagina but if they are CONSENTING ADULTS and they wanna choose to be married because they love eachother sure go for it

  11. you may agree or disagree, it makes no difference. This Country is Like Adam and Eve, But when God came out, He said, "Adam, where are you?"
    And Adam couldn't come out. He realized when he had to face God, that the religion that he had made for himself would not hold in the Presence of God. So is today, in the days of Lot and Noah's days it was as it's today.The WRATH OD GOD CAME DOWN IN NO MERCY. This county is so close to receive that treatment and even worse because they knew different, they knew not to do it… When Jesus come then wont run to meet him but they will run away for the know is destruction time due to all the perversion, lawlessness and hatred against one another.Our leaders are nothing but a bunch of immoral leaders with almost no moral values (with extremely few exceptions), they will now know what is like to be in the presence of a God full of rage! And Then It'll Be Too Late!!!!!
    The only empty tomb and a resurrected living Christ is in Christianity. Everything else is a deceit. Run for your life before is too late. Read John 14; He's the way, the truth, and the life. 
    God have mercy on our souls before is too late.

  12. First of all Mr. Hip Hughes I think a great deal of the quality of your videos. Your ability to explain so well the different sides of the things while keeping your own opinions out of the spot light make your explanations of issues and historical events very useful for allowing understanding and consideration of those subjects. That with your quirky sensibilities make for a lot of learning and interesting discussion in your classroom. If there were more people who could promote and facilitate intelligent understanding and good natured discussions the way you can then I think society would be much more productive. I hope you get many more subscriptions and as a school senior I wish I had more teachers like you.
    For anyone willing to read a lengthy comment I would like to offer my opinion. I personally am opposed to gay marriage and as it relates to others would go so far as to say that the federal government should not interfere with states that do not wish to recognize it. A big part of the reason I feel the way I do is due to my own religious beliefs which of course do not apply to those not sharing them but I have many others not driven solely by religion.

    1. Saying this is comparable to civil rights for races is ludicrous. The inherent  differences, both physiological and especially psychological between the sexes are far greater than those between races. Therefore where a black man marrying a white woman has little to no real difference compared to a white heterosexual couple except that the children of parents of different races benefit from the varied genetic information the same cannot be said of the difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. Therefore the results of accepting and even promoting it are much different

    2. I firmly believe the evidence points toward homosexuality being caused largely by hormonal imbalance during development. There may be other factors but by enlarge it is not a choice. I apologize if this sounds offensive as I really do not mean to be but this clearly fits the definition of a birth defect. This is not how people are meant to develop. Whether you believe in a God(s) or macro evolution it is indisputable that sex came about at least primarily for the purpose of reproduction. Pleasure from that is meant to get an organism to reproduce more. As a Christian I do believe there is more to it and that pleasure in itself was part of the reason for its creation but there aren't many Christians who take the Bible as a whole literally who need to be convinced that gay marriage is not a great thing. But from a purely naturalistic stand point anything that causes desires or behavior that inhibits reproduction is a disorder because that is the purpose of sex. I fully understand that even so it is different than, say, a cleft pallet because it is not necessarily physically harming the individual and certainly is causing no physical harm to anyone not consenting to risking that harm. None the less I still find it a rather strange that we celebrate something that is technically a disorder and there are reasons that while not a cleft pallet, it is not ideal by any means. On the other hand racial features came about to aid that race in being successful where they originated from. This is the opposite of homosexuality.

    3. The primary physical harm related to homosexuality is the danger posed by sodomy. Obviously this really is a non issue for lesbian couples and actually has an impact for some heterosexual couples so I of course admit it neither is exclusive nor all inclusive to homosexuals. But it is related and as we accept homosexuality I at last think that we really need to be especially frank and active in discussing the dangers of sodomy in sex education and in general. Just as people aren't really meant to be homosexual the act is the rectum is not meant for sex. The walls are thin and incapable of sustaining that level of trauma without ripping. This creates an open path for the bacteria that dwell and are necessary in the gut and to get into the blood stream and from there they can create quickly fatal septic infections. In fact I have heard of male gay couples who do not engage in sodomy because they are aware of the risks. However, this is far from the majority. As well as creating a risk of infection from pathogens already in a person sodomy makes it easier to transmit STD's like HIV. This in conjunction with the promiscuity levels of gay men makes, which I believe are likely contributed to largely by the lack of danger of conceiving children they are not ready for, it unsurprising that HIV infections in this country began in the gay community and is much more prevalent there still.

    4. As for kids I am aware there have been studies done that found no difference in how well kids raised by a homosexual couples vs heterosexual turned out. I am inclined to be skeptical as to whether these studies were not extremely biased. Since its inception psychology has studied and found different impacts made by both the mothers and fathers, although Sigmund Freud's findings on the subject were I tend to think disturbed and mostly inaccurate, I find it ludicrous  to think that a child missing a mother or father is not missing out on something important. I know not everyone who supports gay marriage supports them adopting children but it is the redefining of gender and marriage that has opened this Pandora's box. Further more I find the definition of marriage important because for the sake of children I think it is an institution that should b primarily devoted to raising families. I know there are heterosexual couples who do not have children but they are not the majority and the reason they do not have children is that it is not their intention. I am disgusted that the government has shutdown catholic adoption agencies because they favored giving kids to heterosexual couples because they felt that a homosexual couple could never offer the child what the former could. Are they wrong? Love is vital but is not every thing. Further down the slippery slope is Massachusetts. There kids in school are told they can be whatever gender they want when they want for as long as they want and their parents will never be told. This is idiocy I would never accuse all gay marriage supporters of condoning but shows there is validity in the ever popular slippery slope argument. I that this policy will be more popular among heterosexual boys than anyone else. And while it is over used and not the same I would  mention that the new APA manual is essentially declaring pedophilia not to be a mental disorder as long as the person never plans to act on it. The evil of engaging in pedophilic sex is almost universally agreed on and far different than homosexual acts but this change in how it is being viewed is eerily similar to how views on homosexuality changed. Worse still a small number of liberal extremists are in favor of outright legitimizing pedophilic relationships but then these are small in number and similar in mind set to those who seek to make post birth abortion legal up to age six. Not a popular movement. In the end this celebration of homosexuality is, I think, disingenuous to those who genuinely were born homosexual because I think It has attracted A LOT of posers. I doubt giving school boys the right to go in the girls locker room while the cheer leaders are changing helps.

    5. While my religious beliefs make me personally opposed to anything that legitimizes homosexuality as a good thing including civil unions I DO NOT HATE THEM, I am not disgusted by them, and according to my beliefs the ultimate cost of the long term continuation of their actions concerns me and given those beliefs it would not be logically possible for me to not wish them to stop and care about them. Any Christian who hates gays or says God hates gays is probably not a real Christian and doesn't take the Bible literally and I have reasons I find the Bible credible but that is another conversation. However, my religious beliefs are not for the government to impose on people. I do think freedom of association means that gays do have the right to civil unions But I think that celebrating homosexuality the way we do is harmful to the country religion aside. As for marriage it has as much of a root in religion as in government if not more. And given the tenth amendment I believe the people of a state have the right to determine what is defined as marriage as they see fit. In the end we are democratic republic and states like Massachusetts have the right to allow gay marriage if their people so desire regardless of what i think but Alabama has the right to say what we will recognize as marriage is a union of a man and a woman. And if Oregon wants they can open it up to a woman and a tree or whatever they want. I think its wrong but freedom means the freedom to make wrong choices as long as that choice is only hurting you which is why I oppose gay couples adopting children no matter where they are from.


  13. While the outcome of this case is fantastic and certainly will go down in history as one of the biggest landmark civil rights cases, I am sad to read once again that Kennedy failed to classify sexual orientation as a suspect class.  Why do you think that is? 

    I've asked my law professors, and they kind of laugh and give a funny response "well no one really knows what any of them think.  We just know what they say".  I guess they don't realize I was just asking for a theory why haha  I see it as a reminder that Kennedy is still center-right, and not really center if you want to try to quantify it.

  14. Great overview here.

    I'm happy gay marriage has become legal, I believe it was a matter of time and I don't see why we can't extend the same rights to every individual.

    I am not happy HOW it happened though, I agree with the Roberts descent that it's stretching the Constitution and having them do something that is not within their authority.  I would have much rather seen a Constitutional amendment passed forth -I think the Constitution should be what it is and if we need to adapt to modern times we should change it to fit the current situation rather than keep it the same throughout all these years and bend the hell out of it on vast interpretations and assumptions.  

    We got gay marriage, which is a win in my book, but at the cost of more federal power provided by stretching the Constitution.  The slippery slope of this practice is what worries me.

  15. Thanks, Keith, for your videos.  As a 53 year old MAT Grad student, I find your videos engaging refreshers, (if not "serious research"  🙂   ).  The majority Court opinion nailed it in this ruling and this is a great demonstration of the appropriate adaptability of the Constitution to the gradually shifting paradigms of the Nation.  With the abundance of Federal Supremacy case precident, I am astonished that a Court Clerk can be so humored when injecting her hypocritical regligious perspective as a justification to be negligent in her duty of oath or affirmation.  Thanks, again!

  16. Unfortunately gay marriage is legal. But that's a persons choice. But that should not allow such couples to be able to sue a large or small business for not being part of a ceremony such as baker, florist, dj, photographer, caterer etc. They should be able to deny service for the event only. Not naturally for regular non ceremony business though.

  17. The government can make anything legal. Churches don't have to be involved for now, but christian bakers have to be involved or they will have to pay to agrieved party big bucks. So much for freedom. Do what you want you are redefining marriage. Male and female compliment one another, and become one in the marriage union. Of course Kagan and Sotameyor would do this, they were hand picked by America's first homosexual president. Having abandoned thr foundations that our country was founded upon, we have launched into uncharted waters. The future is uncertain, except that we know that if you forsake God, nothing good wiill come from it.

  18. Just saw this video for the first time. Great video. Love all the information. I haven't read all the comments. If this was already said, sorry. I ask this question. Could the court rule the act of marriage unconstitutional? Marriage at its base is a religious sacrament. Violating the first amendment. So the act of a state issuing a marriage license unconstitutional. Civil partnerships the state can issue. Allowing anyone to be with anyone and receiving the same government benefits as different sex couples. There are societal, psychological and biological differences between men and women. Which not as a direct consequence of this decision you have the LGBQT that have even through their influence made non-binary gender birth certificates.

  19. Another perfect explanation of a legal and historic topic. I spent a couple of hours listening to this case on Oyez and you have a great way of summarizing the information and raising points that my mind naturally numbs out. You will be a huge reason I obtain this MA degree in my adulthood (almost 40!) 🙂

  20. Sorry Hip Hughes, but you are totally wrong. This ruling was completely UNconstitutional, because the 10th amendment gives the states the authority to make this kind of decision, not the federal government. Basically, the Supreme Court forced the states to legalize same-sex marriage even though the states had every right to ban it. Does that sound constitutional? I think not. In fact, the Supreme Court knew this ruling was unconstitutional because justice Roberts said, "Do not celebrate the constitution, it had nothing to do with it".

Comments are closed.