OBERGEFELL ET AL., v.

HODGES, DIECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH, ET AL

MAJOR PREMISE: Marriage is a union between two persons of

the opposite sex. (page 4)
MINOR PREMISE: James Obergefell marries John Arthur, who
is of the same sex.
CONCLUSION: James and Arthur are not legally married.

MAJOR PREMISE: Michigan, permits only opposite-sex married

couples or single individuals to
adopt. (page 5)
MINOR PREMISE: April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse adopted a baby
boy and a baby girl.
CONCLUSION: Each child can have only one woman as his or
her legal parent.

MAJOR PREMISE: Laws making same-sex intimacy a crime. (page

8)
MINOR PREMISE: The Court considered the status of
homosexuals.
CONCLUSION: The Court’s decision in unconstitutional.

MAJOR PREMISE: The Congress passed the Defense of Marriage

Act (DOMA), defining marriage as
“only a legal union between one man
 and one woman as husband and wife”.
(page 9)
MINOR PREMISE: James and John are married.

CONCLUSION: Their marriage is void ab initio.

MAJOR PREMISE: The Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that

the State’s Constitution guaranteed
same-sex couples the right to
marry.(page 9)
MINOR PREMISE: April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse are married to
each other
CONCLUSION: Their marriage is valid.

MAJOR PREMISE: States granted marriage rights to same-sex

couples. (page 9)
MINOR PREMISE: The Congress passed the Defense of Marriage
Act (DOMA), defining marriage as
“only a legal union between one man
and one woman as husband and wife”.
CONCLUSION: DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates
the marriage rights of same-sex
couples.

MAJOR PREMISE: Under the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall
“deprive any person of life, liberty
and property”. Liberties extend to
 certain personal choices central to
individual dignity and autonomy,
including intimate choices that
define personal identity and
beliefs. (page 10)
MINOR PREMISE: Marriage is one of the vital personal rights
essential to the orderly pursuit of
happiness by free men.
CONCLUSION: The right to marry is fundamental under the Due
Process Clause

MAJOR PREMISE: The right to personal choice regarding

marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.
(page 12)
MINOR PREMISE: Two men and two women seek to marry each
other.
CONCLUSION: Same-sex marriage is inherent in the concept of
individual autonomy.

MAJOR PREMISE: The right to marry is fundamental because it

supports a two-person union unlike
any other in its importance to the
committed individuals. (page 13)
MINOR PREMISE: Same-sex couples have the same right as
opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association.
CONCLUSION: The right to marry for same-sex couples and
opposite-sex couples.

MAJOR PREMISE: The right to ‘marry, establish a home and

bring up children’ is a central part
 of the liberty protected by the Due
Process Clause. (page 14)
MINOR PREMISE: Marriage is to safeguards children and
families and thus draws meaning from
related rights of childrearing,
procreation, and education.
CONCLUSION: marriage protects the home and the children.

MAJOR PREMISE: Marriage is a keystone of social order (page

16)
MINOR PREMISE: The foundation of the family and of society,
without which there would be neither
civilization nor progress.”
CONCLUSION: Marriage is keystone of civilization and
progress.

MAJOR PREMISE: The freedom secured by the Constitution

consists, in one of its essential
dimensions, of the right of the
individual not to be injured by the
unlawful exercise of governmental
power. (page 24)
MINOR PREMISE: Constitution protects the right of same-sex
couples to marry.
CONCLUSION: Same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

FALLACY COMMITTED BY THE COURT:

The Supreme Court of the United States of America committed
these following fallacies:

1. Argument Ad Populum (appeal to emotion):

-the decision of the Supreme Court defended with the
premise that are direted mainly at emotions.

“same sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex

couples to enjoy intimate association, a right
extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same sex
intimacy a criminal offense” (page 3)
“ Same-sex couples are denied benefits afforded opposite-
sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental
right” (page 4)
“By statute, they must remain strangers even death, a
state-imposed separation Obergefell deems “hurtful for the
rest of time”

2. Ad Misercordiam
-The court accept an argument based on pity. This does
not mean, however, that the court shall be unfeeling
and heartless.

“ The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate

the children of same-sex couples.” (page 3)

-Without the recognition, stability, and predictability

marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing
their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the
significant material costs of being raised by unmarried
parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain
 family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and
humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

3. Hasty Generalization:
-the Supreme Court in arriving the said decision
construct the said decision from an inadequate number
of incidents.

4. Argumentutm Ad Terrorem

-The respondents also argue allowing same-sex couples to wed

will harm marriage as an institution by leading to fewer
opposite-sex marriages.

5. Dicto Simpliciter
-Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate
that an individual can make. This is true for all
persons, whatever their sexual orientation.