This case is between Katherine Powell and Sarah Samuels v. Gotham. The parties wish to engage in a voluntary marriage union (lesbian). The state feels that in the protection of the traditional marriage, the definition of marriage should be between a man and a woman. Using the standard rational scrutiny, the court is expected to move that the definition remain within the powers and providence of the state. The due process clause says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ” (14th Amendment, s.1). Thus the state must follow due process before taking the right to liberty of a person. It is clear that the Gotham’s amendment violates the due process clause. By putting a definition that…show more content… Windsor 2708). This is because they are expected issues moderated on grounds of rationality. The state must have a legitimate reason to withdraw a right to one group (Hollingsworth v. Perry 2661-2). In delivering the ruling of the case, the justices moved to make the statement that, the state had no business to interfere and lacked legitimate interest in the private affairs of the issue at hand (2662). Similarly, an application of the law only confers one party a benefit, and categorically places a penalty on another group’s enjoyment of the same, in the only way they know how. This is a violation of equal protection provided for by the 14th…show more content… Robson projects that same-sex marriages and other LGBT groups have made concerted efforts into taking any legal ruling as a possible consequence of their acceptance in the mainstream societal norms and traditions (58-59). For example, a possible positive ruling, in this case, will directly imply that making same-sex unions and marriages illegal is unconstitutional (Hunter 1528). As discussed above, everyone should have rights and freedoms to love and marry. LGBT people also should enjoy the same treatments with other people. If the Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, it will be a significant milestone to LGBT people. However, such a ruling would render the traditional marriage at war with conflicting LGBT expectations as provided by the DOMA. The strength of DOMA relies on the provided definition of marriage of what is normal and traditionally acceptable. Proof of gender, as envisaged in the MT v. JT case, may again end up in disregard of the biological gender definitions in light of such a ruling. If the Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, it will challenge some people’s traditional view about marriage, and it may cause some argues by anti-homosexual people. In addition, possible ambivalences may exist in the legal application of such a ruling as states can keep the definitions and laws that borrow their authority in inherent traditions and norms
