States rights are a belief that states shall have powers which differ from those at the

federal level. Under this belief, the national government and the state government are responsible
for their own set of responsibilities. States thus oppose too much federal power and believe in
limiting the national government. Same-sex marriage has been widely discussed in both the state
level and the national level. Those who oppose same-sex marriage believe that marriage needs to
simply be kept between a man and a woman. They believe in tradition but by neglecting the
rights of these individuals, they are rejecting their amendment rights. Those who are for samesex marriage believe that love has no restraints; Love is realistically possible between same-sex
individuals as it is for straight individuals. According to the article from U.S. History in Context
Marriage Protection Amendment, edited by Adrienne Lerner, as the issue of homosexual
marriage spread, some states were beginning to recognize it and thus, passed laws protecting
them from discrimination1. Other states, however, outlawed same-sex marriage because they
believed it was unconstitutional. As controversy spread, Bill Clinton decided to sign and pass
the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 which recognized homosexual marriages as
unions1. Although the use of unions was filed unconstitutional later on, the bill still held up
and now allows same-sex marriages to be recognized at the federal level. Those opposing this act
believed that the federal government surpassed their authority and thus pitched the Marriage
Protection Amendment1. This amendment proposed that the federal government treat marriage
solely between a man and a woman. DOMA still presented issues that were later changed and
fixed.
New generations are more accepting of same-sex marriages and believe that no one
should limit who you marry. No one should have the right to decide who you are allowed to love
and marry. After DOMA was passed, new politicians have arisen and have decided to take this
law further. The article Same-Sex Marriage Supreme Court Decision from the U.S. History in
Context discusses how the supreme court ruled on the issue of same-sex marriage here in the
United States2. As same-sex marriage was becoming more and more widely accepted, states were
creating laws either outlawing these marriages or legalizing them. Tensions were steadily
increasing until a court case finally made it to the Supreme Court. After much protest and
controversy, they ruled same-sex marriage constitutional and decided same-sex couples had the
right to marry in all fifty states. These decisions were tough because the Supreme Court had to
decide what aspects of state laws were unconstitutional and whether every state should recognize
same-sex marriages2. Although many states had already legalized same sex marriage, this law
now requires all states to issue marriage licenses to these couples.
Although DOMA was passed by congress, it still allowed states to deny same-sex
marriages. They had the choice whether or not to recognized and legalize it. It was first
recognized at the federal level but then transitioned to becoming recognized at the state level too.
Many states still advocated against same-sex marriage laws because they believe that marriage
should only be between a man and a woman. States opposing these marriages still deny to give
marriage licenses out to these couples and are still trying to pass the Marriage Protection
Amendment in order to outlaw same-sex marriages. They believe that the federal government
hold too much power regarding this issue. The federal government, however, believes otherwise.
It is their authority to protect the right of individuals and thus hold the authority to make a law

that is supreme from those of the states. The federal government does hold the right to federal
courts and thus, are allowed to make certain laws at a national level.

Bibliography
1.) Lerner, Adrienne W. "Marriage Protection Amendment." Edited by Lee K. Lerner and Brenda
W. Lerner. U.S. History in Context.: 67-70. Accessed September 11, 2016.
http://ic.galegroup.com.ezp.pasadena.edu/ic/uhic/PrimarySourcesDetailsPage/PrimarySourcesDe
tailsWindow?
disableHighlighting=false&displayGroupName=PrimarySources&currPage=&scanId=&query=
&source=&prodId=UHIC&search_within_results=&p=UHIC&mode=view&catId=&u=pasa198
71&limiter=&displayquery=&displayGroups=&contentModules=&action=e&sortBy=&documentId=GALE|
CX2688300039&windowstate=normal&activityType=&failOverType=&commentary=.
Marriage Protection Amendment
During the 1980s and 1990s, federal courts began examining state statutes dealing with
homosexuality, overturning several that outlawed homosexual practice. Several state legislatures
also passed laws protecting homosexuals against employment discrimination, and in 1991 three
same-sex couples sued the state of Hawaii to obtain marriage licenses. That case reached the
state Supreme Court, setting the stage for a ruling that could potentially legalize gay marriage in
the state. Of broader importance, U.S. law requires states to recognize legal marriages performed
in other states; such a ruling would implicitly legalize same-sex marriage throughout the United
States.
Opponents of gay marriage quickly organized to avert such an occurrence. In 1996, the U.S.
Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act. This bill specified that all federal
legislation dealing with marriage would refer solely to heterosexual marriages. It further
absolved states of any requirement to recognize same-sex unions approved by other states.
President Clinton, a strong supporter of gay rights, signed the legislation into law. In the years
after the act's passage, supporters and opponents of gay marriage continued to battle in the courts
and through various state legislatures. In the following decade, forty-one states passed their own
versions of the fed-eral Defense of Marriage Act, and several states adopted constitutional
amendments codifying marriage as an exclusively heterosexual union.
Despite these legislative decisions and the progress, they represented, gay marriage opponents
faced further threats. Critics of the Defense of Marriage Act claimed that Congress had
overstepped its authority in passing the law, circumventing the principle of "full faith and credit"
by which state legal decisions are reciprocally accepted by other states. Concerned that a federal
court ruling could potentially set aside both the federal and state laws, gay marriage opponents
launched a campaign to settle the issue at the Constitutional level. The proposed amendment,
titled the Marriage Protection Amendment, contained fewer than one hundred words. It stated
simply that marriage in the United States consists of a union between a man and a woman and
that no state could redefine marriage.
Amending the U.S. Constitution is a time-consuming, difficult procedure. Amendments must
first be approved by a super-majority of two-thirds in both the House of Representatives and the
Senate. Following this approval, the amendment must be ratified by three-quarters of the states,

with each state choosing when and if to hold its own election. A seven-year time limit is typically
imposed on the process, and if the proposal receives the necessary votes, it becomes part of the
Constitution. Of several thousand amendments proposed to date, only twenty-seven have been
enacted.

2.) Same-Sex Marriage Supreme Court Decision, June 26, 2015." U.S. History in Context.
Accessed September 11, 2016.
http://ic.galegroup.com.ezp.pasadena.edu/ic/uhic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindo
w?
disableHighlighting=false&displayGroupName=Reference&currPage=&scanId=&query=&sour
ce=&prodId=UHIC&search_within_results=&p=UHIC&mode=view&catId=&u=pasa19871&li
miter=&displayquery=&displayGroups=&contentModules=&action=e&sortBy=&documentId=GALE|
BT2359039968&windowstate=normal&activityType=&failOverType=&commentary=.
Same-Sex Marriage Supreme Court Decision, June 26, 2015
Summary of Event
On Friday, June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled by a majority of 5-4 that
same-sex couples could legally marry in all fifty states of the country. The landmark decision
was a huge victory for gay rights activists, following decades of activism and growing public
support for gay marriage.
The lead plaintiff in the landmark case, Jim Obergefell, legally married his partner John Arthur in
Maryland, just a few months before Arthur's death in 2013. However, in Ohio, Obergefell's home
state, gay marriages are prohibited, and the couple's marriage was not recognized. Obergefell
sued the state of Ohio to be recognized as the widower of his late partner. However, when his
case reached the Supreme Court, the outcome had the potential to affect marriage laws across the
nation.
The question before the Supreme Court was twofold: 1) whether it was unconstitutional for states
to discriminate between gay and straight couples in granting marriage licenses; and 2) whether
the Constitution required every state to recognize legal marriages of same-sex couples who were
married in another state. Before the hearing, Obergefell said that the potential monetary benefit,
which was minor in any case, was not the main reason for his case, but rather, "It was all about
our dignity and the respect we expect from the state we call home."
The landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges was the culminations of decades of gay rights'
advocacy. As Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was the pivotal swing vote and delivered the
Supreme Court's majority opinion, wrote, "No union is more profound than marriage, for it
embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital

union, two people become something greater than they once were. Their hope is not to be
condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask
for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
Four conservative justices were against the ruling: Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices
Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. In his dissent, Justice Scalia wrote, "If you
are among the many Americans--of whatever sexual orientation--who favor expanding same-sex
marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal.
Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the
availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."
After the decision was announced, the plaintiff, Jim Obergefell, said that it "affirms what
millions across this country already know to be true in their hearts: our love is equal. The four
words etched onto the front of the Supreme Court--'equal justice under law'--apply to us, too."
President Obama reached out to Obergefell to congratulate him, saying, "Your leadership on this
has changed the country."
Prior to this ruling, same-sex marriage was already legal in 37 states and the District of
Columbia. The outcome of the landmark case is that gay marriage is a Constitutional right and
that all fifty states are now required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and must
recognize their marriages. Married same-sex couples have the same legal rights and benefits
under federal law as heterosexual couples do, and they will be recognized on official documents
as spouses.
A recent Gallup poll found that as many as 60 percent of Americans now believe that same-sex
couples should have the same rights and benefits as in traditional marriages. This shows a steady
rise from 2011, when the Gallup poll first recorded a majority in favor, and a complete about face
in public opinion from the first Gallup poll that related to whether people supported marriage for
homosexuals in 1996--only 27 percent. The Supreme Court also addressed these changes in
public opinion: "Well into the twentieth century, many States condemned same-sex intimacy as
immoral, and homosexuality was treated as an illness. Later in the century, cultural and political
developments allowed same-sex couples to lead more open and public lives. Extensive public
and private dialogue followed, along with shifts in public attitudes. Questions about the legal
treatment of gays and lesbians soon reached the courts, where they could be discussed in the
formal discourse of the law."
President Barack Obama has openly endorsed gay marriage since 2012 as well as the full repeal
of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted by Congress in 1996 and signed by then
President Bill Clinton, calling it "unconstitutional." DOMA allowed states to refuse to recognize
same-sex marriages performed in other states, effectively discriminating against them and
denying them the same rights as legally married couples. According to DOMA, marriage is
solely a heterosexual union. The Supreme Court struck down a central provision of that law,
Section 3, ruling that it was unconstitutional, in United States v. Windsor (2013). The Court ruled
5-4 that Section 3's restriction--that the federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" will
apply only to heterosexuals--violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice

Kennedy also wrote the majority opinion in that case, saying, "DOMA undermines both the
public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples,
and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition." In
another major Supreme Court decision in 2013, Proposition 8, a ban on same-sex
marriage approved in California in 2008, was invalidated.
The United States is the twenty-first country in the world to legalize same-sex
marriagenationwide. Following the decision, President Obama said, "Today, we can say, in no
uncertain terms, that we have made our union a little more perfect." He called it a "victory for
America."