Due Process: Oklahoma

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 6

DUE PROCESS

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

Violates substantive due process as it limits the State may intrude and impose controls over the
choice on marriage partners - “against liberty” institution of marriage and who may avail because
it has a specific interest in the family and who
may contract marriage.
Use the consti provisions on family, how the state
has an interest in marriage as it is a social
institution and that families are instrumental in the
country’s policy framework

By legally excluding male-male and female-


female relationships, it violates the liberty of a
person to choose who to love or get married to.
● The freedom to marry has long been
recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of
happiness by free men. Loving v Virginia
(https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/
us/388/1/case.html)
● Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights
of man," fundamental to our very
existence and survival. Skinner v.
Oklahoma,
(https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/
us/316/535/case.html)

Government’s basis for limiting this choice is


invalid. Procreation is an invalid justification.
Obergefell v Hodges
(https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14
-556_3204.pdf)

EQUAL PROTECTION

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT
Equal protection clause according to Ichong v As the state has a substantial interest and can
Hernandez: “The equal protection of the law impose regulations and control over the institution
clause is against undue favor and individual or of marriage, it can classify who may or may not
class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or contract marriage.
the oppression of inequality. It is not intended to ● The classification made is justified
prohibit legislation, which is limited either in the because of the intent of legislature to
object to which it is directed or by territory within follow natural law, procreation and
which is to operate. It does not demand absolute stability of the family
equality among residents; it merely requires that
all persons shall be treated alike, under like
circumstances and conditions both as to privileges
conferred and liabilities enforced. The equal
protection clause is not infringed by legislation
which applies only to those persons falling within
a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons
within such class, and reasonable grounds exists
for making a distinction between those who fall
within such class and those who do not.”
(http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1957/may195
7/gr_l-7995_1957.html)

Quinto v Comelec: “[T]he equal protection clause


does not require the universal application of the
laws to all persons or things without distinction.
What it simply requires is equality among equals
as determined according to a valid classification.
The test developed by jurisprudence here and
yonder is that of reasonableness, which has four
requisites:

(1) The classification rests on substantial


distinctions;

(2) It is germane to the purposes of the law;

(3) It is not limited to existing conditions only;


and

(4) It applies equally to all members of the same


class.”

(http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/febr
uary2010/189698.htm)

In the constitution, the family clauses do not The fundamental right to marry does not include a
distinguish between traditional and non-traditional right to make a State change its definition of
families. marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the
meaning of marriage that has persisted in every
culture throughout human history can hardly be
called irrational. In short, our Constitution does
not enact any one theory of marriage. The people
of a State are free to expand marriage to include
same-sex couples, or to retain the historic
definition.

When the law does not distinguish, neither should


we

Fundamentally unfair to other kinds of families as


they are excluded from the protections, rights and
duties that are attributed to families.

Without the recognition, stability, and


predictability marriage offers, their 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 through no fault of their own to a more
difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage
laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the
children of same-sex couples.

Fundamental rights found in the Fourteenth


Amendment's Due Process Clause "extend to
certain personal choices central to individual
dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices
that define personal identity and beliefs", but the
"identification and protection" of these
fundamental rights "has not been reduced to any
formula." As the Supreme Court has found in
cases such as Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v.
Redhail, and Turner v. Safley, this extension
includes a fundamental right to marry. Obergefell
v Hodges

Fundamental right to marry applies to same-sex


couples, citing United States v. Windsor
(https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12
-307_6j37.pdf) in support throughout its
discussion.
● First, "the right to personal choice
regarding marriage is inherent in the
concept of individual autonomy."
● Second, "the right to marry is fundamental
because it supports a two-person union
unlike any other in its importance to the
committed individuals", a principle
applying equally to same-sex couples.
● Third, the fundamental right to marry
"safeguards children and families and thus
draws meaning from related rights of
childrearing, procreation, and education";
as same-sex couples have children and
families, they are deserving of this
safeguard—though the right to marry in
the United States has never been
conditioned on procreation.
● Fourth, and lastly, "marriage is a keystone
of our social order", and "[t]here is no
difference between same- and opposite-
sex couples with respect to this principle";
consequently, preventing same-sex
couples from marrying puts them at odds
with society, denies them countless
benefits of marriage, and introduces
instability into their relationships for no
justifiable reason.

The democratic process may be an appropriate “It is demeaning to the democratic process to
means for deciding issues such as same-sex presume that voters are not capable of deciding an
marriage, but no individual has to rely solely on issue of this sensitivity on decent and rational
the democratic process to exercise a fundamental grounds” Obergefell v Hodges
right
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-
sex marriage is a good idea should be of no
concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have
power to say what the law is, not what it should
be. The people who ratified the Constitution
authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor
will but merely judgment.”
● This was from one of the dissents of
Justice Scalia (RIP).

"An individual can invoke a right to constitutional


protection when he or she is harmed, even if the
broader public disagrees and even if the legislature
refuses to act", for "fundamental rights may not be
submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome
of no elections." Furthermore, to rule against
same-sex couples in this case, letting the
democratic process play out as "a cautious
approach to recognizing and protecting
fundamental rights" would harm same-sex couples
in the interim

PRIVACY

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

stems from the substantive due process

liberty of an individual or his family to keep intra-


marital affairs private. The State only has an
interest on the external aspect of the family, not in
its internal workings. - something something in
Ma’am Beth’s discussion

Eisenstadt v Baird: “If the right of privacy means


anything, it is the right of the individual, married
or single, to be free from unwarranted
governmental intrusion into matters so
fundamentally affecting a person…”
(https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/4
38/case.html)

Stanley v Georgia: “For also fundamental is the


right to be free, except in very limited
circumstances, from unwanted governmental
intrusions into one's privacy. The makers of our
Constitution undertook to secure conditions
favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They
recognized the significance of man's spiritual
nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They
knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and
satisfactions of life are to be found in material
things. They sought to protect Americans in their
beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their
sensations. They conferred, as against the
Government, the right to be let alone -- the most
comprehensive of rights and the right most valued
by civilized man."
(https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/5
57/case.html#564)

Griswold v Connecticut: privacy is under the


penumbra of rights in the Bill of Rights

[I think ito dapat yung sagutin natin haha]

(1) Does Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code violate the due process clause of the constitution?
- Yes, accdg to US jurisprudence
(2) Does Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code violate the equal protection clause of the constitution?
- Yes, accdg to US jurisprudence
(3) Do same sex couples have a constitutional right to marriage based on the right to privacy or other
constitutional right?
- Yes, accdg to US jurisprudence (Griswold v Conneticut)

You might also like