Lin !

1
Avery Lin
Political Behavior
Dr. Gen
23 August 2015
The Long Court Battle
Freedom is life. Without freedom to make decisions the American citizen feels caged and
unable to evolve spiritually. The American government, justice system, and legislature gives the
American people the ability to make their own decisions, shape the life they lead, and the world
in which they live. However, sometimes those freedoms are challenged. This is when the
government and courts step in to help insure that all Americans are protected equally under the
law. Over the course of the last decade, the fight for same-sex marriage legalization and equality
under the law has captured the interests of the government and court and became a defining
moment in the interpretation of a persons constitutional rights. After years of court and
legislative battles, the Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage legal under federal law,
however many challenges still remain for same-sex couples as they try to exercise their new
rights which suggests that equality under the law is hard to obtain.
Same-sex marriage supporters fought for their constitutional rights when they took the battle
for equality to the courts and continued to defend their position until they reached the Supreme
Court. The same-sex marriage equality movement and general movement for rights in the
lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual community started about a decade ago in San Francisco
when, in February of 2004, it became the first municipality in the nation to issue marriage
licenses to same-sex couples. [Which] was a rebellious gesture: Same-sex marriage was illegal

Lin !2
almost everywhere, including in the state of California" (Decker B6). This was risky as the
couples and the municipality, which is the governing body for a city, town, or suburb, and not the
state, could be taken to court for breaking federal and state law. Many same-sex couples felt that
they were being violated of a constitutional right and were overjoyed when Phyllis Lyon and Del
Martin were among the first couples to be married by San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom in
2004, when he defied the California law limiting marriages to persons of opposite
sexes (Hirshman 346). However, under the United States legal system, "an elected official could
not unilaterally decide that a law violated the Constitution" (Dolan and Romney A10). As part of
the checks and balances system that is utilized under the American government system only the
courts could decide whether a law that has been passed is unconstitutional or not. Same-sex
couples would have to go to the courts to voice their concerns that a ban on same-sex marriage
was illegal. This sparked debates over whether same-sex marriage should be legal and an
overwhelming support for voting yes to Proposition 8 in 2008 which banned same-sex
marriage in California. Same-sex citizens saw this as a violation of their constitutional rights and
appealed to the courts where a justice decided that the law was unconstitutional and overturned
it. However, people felt as though they received an unfair trial and again appealed to the court of
appeals which were established to give individuals who have received an unfavorable decision
another chance to be heard. The appeals courts appellate jurisdiction means they have the power
to review cases previously decided by a lower court (Kelman 252-253). This gives everyone an
equal footing under the due process of the law in which refers to [the] governments duty to
follow fair procedures set by law (Kelman 319). Eventually the case reached the Supreme Court
in 2013 where the Court decided that the opponents had lacked standing to appeal Walker's

Lin !3
ruling, leaving it in place" (Dolan and Romney A10). Meaning that the defendants of Proposition
8 could not provide adequate evidence that same-sex marriage was a freedom that could be
prohibited by law. Over the years, these ruling lead thirty-seven states to legalize same-sex
marriage and other same-sex couples to win more court battles. Finally, after years of court
battles, same-sex marriage is legal under federal law.
However, though same-sex marriage has been legalized in the courts, many states do not want
to start issuing licenses for same-sex couples and may try to find ways in which they can hinder
the implementation of the ruling. Though many states acknowledge that the United States
Supreme Court is that law of the land, "even when rights are confirmed by the Constitution,
states don't necessarily have to provide avenues to exercise those rights. Actively denying those
rights or outlawing their exercise is unconstitutional, but states may be able to circumvent samesex marriages by avoiding marriage altogether" (Shepherd A2). States may not prevent same-sex
couples from obtaining marriage licenses, but they can implement other measures in the
requirements to apply for a marriage license-such as additional fees, blood test, and signatureswhich could prevent both same-sex and opposite-sex couples from marrying. A similar
comparison could be drawn from when African Americans were given the right to vote. Though
they were technically free to vote, they faced strong opposition and obstacles such as literacy
tests and other requirements set by the states that prevented them from voting. Similar instances
could happen to same-sex couples since the states still maintain leeway under the law to decide
the requirements for marriage licenses. These requirements can be imposed because each state
has its own constitution [though] the state constitutions, however, cannot conflict with the U.S.
Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land (Kelman 461). The law gives states the

Lin !4
power to decide how many and what requirements are needed for marriage licenses as the states
have some legislative power so that they can more actively express the views and more easily
protect the needs of the people in that region. Ever since the beginning of the country, states have
had the ability to retain and create some of their own laws and rights as long as they did not
conflict with the Constitution and the basic human rights laid out by the Bill of Rights.
These differences between state constitutions are also reflected in the political parties
viewpoints as many states that continue to oppose same-sex marriage, and are reluctant to lift the
bans on same-sex marriage, have more conservative, traditional political and social views. These
states announced that they would delay marriage licenses for same-sex unions until the
Supreme Court issues an official mandate announcing that the ruling has taken effect (Shepherd
A2). Many states wait for the lower and higher courts to issue official orders stating that the bans
on same-sex marriage must be lifted and that it is now legal under federal law for same-sex
couples to marry before beginning to issue marriage licenses. Additionally, states are recognized
as groups that are greatly affected by a case but are not one of the parties involved may be
granted the Courts permission to file amicus curiae briefs. These briefs state the groups
concerns and arguments regarding the case (Kelman 260). This allows states to voice their
concerns that they have regarding how the ruling may affect them and influence the Supreme
Courts final decision on the dispute. Concerns about the effects of the rulings, previous cases,
and interpretations of the Constitution all contribute to a courts final decision on a case and can
have significant impacts on Americans freedoms. Same-sex marriage may not be seen as equal
under the law in some states though it has been legalized by the federal courts.

Lin !5
In addition to a states power over marriage requirements, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender community could still face challenges within businesses refusing to service same-sex
couples since the 1st Amendment allows people the freedom of free expression which could
include protests against same-sex marriage. Though same-sex marriage has been legalized by the
Supreme Court, many people oppose the Courts decision for religious and other personal
reasons. This could give them an excuse to not provide same-sex couples with their services
since the 1st Amendment in the Constitution guarantees people the right to free expression,
which could include objections to same-sex marriage by not providing marriage services. But the
extent to which services can be denied and by whom will probably depend on future challenges
to the law and more court rulings" (Shepherd A2). Legally, the 1st Amendment gives the people
the right to refuse service to someone if it goes against their personal beliefs and allows them to
express their ideas. This also raises the question of how far they are able to deny services to
same-sex couples as denying same-sex couples services could be considered as discrimination
based on sexual orientation. In many court cases across the nation, "most states faced with this
question have affirmed in court that it is illegal to deny services to someone based on sexual
orientation" (Shepherd A2). Only in a persons personal life will they be able to deny services to
a same-sex couple, but when part of a business they must treat every couple equally. Denying
services based on race, sexual orientation, gender, and more is considered a violation of the civil
liberties that are guaranteed by the Constitution. In the Constitution, the Equal Protection
Clause keeps state governments from classifying people unfairly and from making unreasonable
distinctions between groups of people (Kelman 346). This prevents states from singling out a
group of people based on sexual orientation, gender, race, or disabilities and denying them

Lin !6
services or treating them any differently than they would other people. Both the freedom of
expression and the right to marry are civil liberties that are basic individual rights and freedoms
that are protected from government violation (Kelman 297). This can put judges and the court
system in a difficult position while trying to come up with a compromise and a way in which
both parties will be able to retain these rights and be protected under the due process of the law.
The court system does its best to ensure equality under the law, however it is a complicated
affairEquality under the law is one of the American ideals of freedom, but its worth depends
on the fairness of the law and its intended effects (Bronski 242). Several court cases could have
lasting effects and determine how same-sex marriage is received and dealt with in issues of
freedom of expression. Many court cases involving similar issues usually look to past cases that
provide the legal ground, or reasoning for these decisions. These grounds serve as precedents,
or guiding principles, for determining what is legal in situations that involve similar
issues (Kelman 249). Previous court rulings can help the courts realize the effects of a ruling
and the best way to handle cases with issues that they are unfamiliar with. Cases debating
constitutional rights are especially tricky as the Constitution can be interpreted in many ways,
some of which are more flexible than others. Equality under the law, it seems, is determined by
the way a person interprets the Constitution.
Although same-sex marriage has been legalized, same-sex couples had to fight a long, uphill
battle and still face many more legal challenges from their newfound equality under the law.
They have fought against votes that banned same-sex marriages and sometimes went completely
against the federal law to help end discrimination towards them and grant them equality. They
will have to continue to fight against state legislation as states try to introduce new marriage

Lin !7
requirements for marriage licenses. Furthermore, they will battle the freedom of expression for
both themselves and the people that will want to refuse services to them based upon their sexual
orientation. Same-sex couples have new freedoms, but equality under the law depends on how
the law is interpreted. If freedom is determined by equality under the law, then same-sex couples
have gained the freedom that they craved.

Lin !8

Works Cited
Bronski, Michael. A Queer History of the United States. Boston: Beacon Press, 2011. Print.
Decker, Cathleen. Newsom Calls Ruling Remarkable. Los Angeles Times. 27 June 2015: B6.
Print.
Dolan, Maura and Lee Romney. Law in California is Now a Right for All. Los Angeles Times.
27 June 2015: A10. Print.
Hirshman, Linda. Victory: The Triumphant Gay Revolution. New York: HarperCollins, 2012.
Print.
Kelman, Steven. American Government. Eds. Sue Miller, et al. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1999. Print.
Shepherd, Katie. Supreme Court Has Spoken. Los Angeles Times. 29 June 2015: A2. Print.