Obergefell V Hodges

Constitutional rights and Human Rights are inherent rights which are birthright claims
and benefits of a person because of his humanity. These rights protect an individual to abuses
and essential for the enjoyment of the same of this everyday existence. Rights are also universal
for it is applicable to every person without any distinction such as age, sex, race, color, and even
sex orientation or gender identity. Equal protection clause may be invoked if certain entities
make distinctions or classifications which infringe the right of an individual without any
sufficient justification.

Hence, in the case of Obergefell V Hodges, fourteen same-sex couples and two men
whose same-sex partners were deceased filed lawsuits against the Government, claiming that the
denial of petitioners’ ability to marry, or have their marriage in other states recognized, violates
their right to due process and equal protection of laws. The issue in the case is whether or not
equal protection clause extends to same-sex marriages despite the fact that the law defines
marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners
stating that the fact that same-sex couples desire to participate in the institution of marriage
shows their deep respect for the institution. Thus, opponents of same-sex marriage are wrong to
claim that allowing same-sex couples to marry demeans the institution. The Courts further stated
that an individual has autonomy dictates our personal choice on who to marry.

In the same case involving the rights of the LGBT community, the Court upheld the
equal protection clause and did not support or abet proposition of having distinctions on applying
the rule of law. Thus, in LADLAD LGBT PARTY VS COMELEC the case rooted in the
COMELEC’s refusal to accredit Ang Ladlad as a party-list organization. The COMELEC
asserted that definition of the LGBT sector manifests the tolerance of immorality which offends
religious beliefs. The COMELEC further asserted that ANG LADLAD acts is considered as
nuisance which is defined in the Civil code as any act, omission, establishment, business,
condition of property, or anything else which shocks, defies; or disregards decency or morality.
The Court held that, Rather than relying on religious belief, the legitimacy of the Assailed
Resolutions should depend, instead, on whether the COMELEC is able to advance some
justification for its rulings beyond mere conformity to religious doctrine. Furthermore, it upheld
the equal protection clause of the Constitution and protected the rights of the members of the
sector.

In the deprivation of the equal protection clause, one must prove substantial
differentiation in order to sufficient. Even if the acceptance of the society and tolerance of LGBT
community is not yet fully acknowledged, we cannot deny the fact that they are still male and
female biologically hence they must be protected by the provisions of the Constitution
specifically the equal protection clause which does not make any unwarranted distinctions in
order to preserve the rights of every individual.