Part A: the Obergefell Et Al V. Hodges Case

Part A: The Obergefell et al v. Hodges Case

The Obergefell et al v. Hodges case (Supreme Court of the United States, 2014) can be considered as one of the very remarkable and most controversial legal battle that brought victory to attain equal marriage rights long fought by same sex couples and their defenders and advocates. The case originally comprised 14 lawsuits filed by same-sex partners denied by their states the right to marry or denied recognition of their marriage done in other states. The cases heard in the District Courts of Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan deny the rights to marry by same sex partners and also deny recognizing same sex marriage done outside the state since the state laws adhere to the principle that marriage pertains to union between man and woman. The plaintiffs held that the states denial of the rights to marry of same sex partners and state denial to recognize marriage done outside the state were in violation of the constitutional clauses of Due Process and Equal Protection of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. After series of appeals the circuits made split rulings on November 2014 with the 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10thcircuit stating that state-level ban of same sex marriage as unconstitutional while the 6thcircuit ruled the ban as constitutional(Supreme Court of the United States, 2014). The split rulings brought the cases for review in the Supreme Court. After extensive debates and arguments on the court cases, the Supreme Court decision on June 16, 2015 stated the ban as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court then ordered all states to issue marriage license and legalize same sex marriage throughout the United States and its territories.

The case significantly supports judicial activism that finally overturned previous court rulings on similar cases since the 1970s. The given opinions of the judges may not be obviously biased but heavily put in personal and political considerations in scrutinizing the given previous constitutional interpretations. The Constitution violation debated in the cases focused on the clauses of Due Process and Equal Protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The arguments carefully reviewed the fundamental liberties granted and protected by the Constitution for every individual is entitled to enjoy (Supreme Court of the United States, 2014). The US Constitution highly protects the right to choose in marriage which speaks of autonomy. The constitution protects the right to marry as fundamental right which supports union of two people, safeguards children and family, and for the reason that marriage is the keystone in keeping social order in the country. How judicial activism made great changes in the interpretation of the constitution could be explained by the judges exercising their own power far and beyond to bring lights to unconstitutionality within the law according to their interpretation as it relates to updated changes in the society. The interpretation of the constitution put heavy focus on the evolution in the institution of marriage highlighting the changes in the meaning of marriage over time. The Constitution has nowhere specified the requirements to marriage but federally specified marriage as union between man and woman as husband and wife through the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in 1996 after perceiving some conflicts following the Hawaii Supreme Court held in 1993 that Hawaii’s law restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples imply classification based on sex. The DOMA had been debunked unconstitutional in the Supreme Court June 20133 ruling in the United States v. Windsor case (Supreme Court of the United States, 2013). The battle for the rights to marry by same sex couple continued holding on the constitutional mandate that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Banning same sex marriage has been interpreted by many as a constitutional violation and had been even compared to interracial marriage ban in the past that the Supreme Court later held as obviously unconstitutional. The law may have not legally recognized the claims of the gays as a minority class but the strong arguments on the Obergefell et al v. Hodges case heavily highlighted the protected rights listed in Bill of Rights that include personal choices. The arguments emphasized the extent of freedom entrusted to future generation as they gain further understanding of full meaning of liberty thus the presented facts and evidences tried to give light on the changes in the meaning of marriage (US Supreme Court, 2014). The arguments emphasized on the interpretation of new dimensions of freedom individuals must enjoy by not keeping tied to keep the respect to history, traditional notions, and moral disapproval. The understanding of the liberty same sex couples must enjoy bypassed the history and tradition in the interpretation of what is covered by constitutional clauses of Due Process and Equal Protection. As such, the judges’ arguments went far to separation of powers of states and religions and also imbibed government interests that include economic benefits particularly from healthcare system savings as same sex couples gain improved health if given the rights to marry. The arguments significantly separated moral convictions from constitutional basis.

With poor defense presented, the Supreme Court eventually ruled that denial of the rights of same sex couples to marry and the denial of recognizing marriage done outside the state as unconstitutional in violation of the Due Process and Equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth amendment of the US Constitution.

Part B: Interest Groups- Greenpeace and PETA

The Greenpeace advocating for greener and peaceful world and the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are among the interest groups working on agenda for public interest. The environmental activistsGreenpeace advocates on restoring and keeping safe and healthy environment. The group has developed and had been actively working on their solid agenda to nurture life and diversity in the lands, forests, seas and oceans, and air around the world as the group works on issues related to global warming and climate change, use of fossil fuels and nuclear power, toxic wastes produced in manufacturing, overfishing including commercial whaling, and deforestation(Guilles-Philippe, n.d.).

The PETA defending and protecting animals from cruel treatment actively works and fighting forthe welfare and rights of the animals especially those subjected to factory farms, clothing and fashion trade, entertainment industry, and laboratories. The group tackles all issues that imply cruel dealing with wild, farm, and domestic animals such as issues on cruel killing of rodents, birds, and animals seen by the society as pests through public education and awareness, animal cruelty investigation, animal rescue operation, and imposing legislations such as on ethical handling of animals.

The Greenpeace maintaining very clear visibility around the world plays roles in American politics. Though the group may have not established very strong influence on the decisions and agenda of the American politicians and legislators, the group mainly interplays by stirring public sentiments and noise pushing the politicians to deal with the raised issues. While supporters of the group highly appreciate its causes for environmental safety actively participate in the campaigns, protests, and demonstrations, some parties also disapprove of its agenda and direct actions. The multimillion funds raised from the group public supporters and the big numbers of participants in their staged protests and demonstrations in different parts of the world speaks more than enough on how great influence the group has made to the world. It admiring to note that the group does not accept financial support from the governments, corporations, and private politicians to sustain the funding of their activities. However, the fraud involvement allegations on the group sound discouraging. Though the group lists admirable agenda for a safer and healthier environment and the world, its involvement in some illegal and direct actions that sound quite illogical can be undeniably frustrating. The destruction of GMO wheat pilot test and Golden rice test fields (Andrews, 2012), and the destruction of UN World Heritage site in Nazca line in Peru as manifest of their protest against global warming ( Kozak, 2014) are just among the direct actions of the group that calls for critical review. The group unquestionably campaigns for noble cause but very surprising to realize that some direct actions and activities of the group imply contradictions to its agenda. For instance, the group advocates for promoting democracy and protection of human rights yet some of its active actions such as the group’s aggressive interference on the Statoil oil drilling site in Norway (Hovland, 2014) and the fraud and rape cases associated to the group in India contradicts the true essence of the principle of democracy. The group claims advocacy on sustainable development yet bars scientific efforts to find ways to sustain the needs of the growing people such as food. Quite astonishing to realize that the group advocates on promoting cleaner and healthier world yet misses to think deeply on the practical aspects on the current and future impacts of the environmental damages to life. Ruling back to ways without the use of fossil fuels and advances in technology may not be able to sustain the needs for survival of the people since reversal of high number of population will not be that easy. The quick fix remedies the group thinks to clean up and fix the damages the world has obtained over time may not be the best.

PETA has the right to say that animals have rights and that has influenced great impacts on the American political spheres stirring differing political actions, reactions, opinions, and sentiments in America and across the world. As a non partisan, the group works with American legislators and politicians on laws on protecting animals (PETA, n.d.). With the works of PETA, the government has strongly been strongly enforcing the federal Animal Welfare Act giving due actions and punishments for any violation of the law. For example, the publication of mistreatment of animals in the City of Hope in California in 1985 pushed the suspension of the more than a million dollars federal funding for the laboratory. (PETA, n.d.). The group has been influential on the implementation of the laws on animal welfare protection and had been pushing the government to punish those exposed by PETA as involved on cruelties. The group also demonstrated very strong influence to the operations of corporations that include giant food chains like Burger King and McDonalds, clothing and fashion corporate like H&M and Abercrombie, cosmetic companies, and experimental laboratories that had expressed commitments to animal welfare improvements in their business practices. The group demonstrates really admirable good jobs particularly in their undercover operations, police raid on laboratories, and convictions of animal abusers. How the group facilitate in implementing the law on protecting the welfare of animals is unquestionably wonderful. However, quite sad to think that the group seems to be at times demonstrating more concerns on the welfare of the animals than humans. The advertisement of the group in protesting against animal cruelty like those ads against McDonalds seems to be exaggerated and disregarded the impacts to affected humans. Their goal to waken up human conscience on animal cruelty is great but affected humans indirectly involved in the cruelty can feel very bad and may suffer from emotional disturbances. The PETA campaigns discouraging the use of great apes in advertising are not that surprising but very surprising to hear the case, to which PETA is behind, naming the enslaved orcas in SeaWorld as plaintiffs in a lawsuit in violation of the 13th Amendment of US Constitution. Such stirs a surprising assumption and question whether PETA would eventually strive to seek equality of animals to humans.

References

Andrews, L. (2012). GM crop destroyers given suspended sentences. Retrieved from

sentences-20121119-29l66.html

Guilles-Philippe. (n.d.). Greenpeace campaign strategy. Retrieved from

Hovland, (2014). Norway police order Greenpeace ship to leave Statoil drilling site. Retrieved

from

greenpeace-protest-1401481129

Kozak, R. (2014). Peru says Greenpeace permanently damaged Nazca lines. Retrieved from

1418681478

PETA. (n.d.). About PETA. Retrieved from

PETA. (n.d.). PETA’s milestones for animals. Retrieved from

peta/milestones/

Supreme Court of the United States. (2013). United States v. Windsor. Retrieved from

Supreme Court of the United States. (2014). Obergefell et al v. Hodges. Retrieved from