Intro to Liberty and Equality Essays
     Be careful what you argue about the SCOTUS opinions the week ending June 26!! The media never explains Court opinions as they are written, only as that particular media group wants them to be interpreted. It’s half-assed reporting of extremely crucial and personal issues to all of us no matter what personal opinion you hold. BE CAREFUL!! These opinions lay the basis for similar arguments regarding other social issues and possible resolution of them! I will post 4 explanations, from MY interpretation as a lawyer and personally interested in issues waiting to be decided in the future. Read them and please leave me a comment, I love this stuff!

Part One, Liberty and Equality Essays, June 26, 2015

Marriage Equality                              

     The Supreme Court’s ruling this week regarding marriage equality was based on 4 precedential principles of 2 US Constitutional rights—LIBERTY, the right to make personal choice; EQUALITY, the right to not be treated differently when you do make that personal choice. No matter which side of this argument you hold, be sure you explain the Court’s opinion under those distinctions. The 4 precedential principles (abbreviated from the syllabus of the opinion of OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL., Syllabus, No. 14–556, argued 4/28/2015, decided 6/26/2015), and without further legal citations are:
     “First, the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and LIBERTY is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make.” 

     “Second, ‘the right is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, and was acknowledged in Turner. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association’ (meaning the LIBERTY to decide), ‘a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense.’”

“A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning (EQUALITY) from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. 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. This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.” 
     “Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle, yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage”(EQUALITY) “and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage.”