A decisão da Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos sobre o casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo: Obergefell v. Hodges
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18316/redes.v10i3.9303Keywords:
Casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo, Direito de Família, Direito Constitucional, Direito Comparado.Abstract
Neste artigo, estudou-se o caso Obergefell v. Hodges, no qual a Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos (SCOTUS) discutiu a proteção constitucional ao casamento entre duas pessoas do mesmo sexo. Usou-se em primeiro lugar o método historiográfico, com consulta a fontes primárias, quais sejam, os repositórios de decisões da SCOTUS; e em segundo lugar a consulta à literatura especializada, em especial artigos científicos em periódicos jurídicos estadunidenses. Observou-se que a SCOTUS, por uma maioria de 05 a 04, em opinião redigida pelo Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, compreendeu que a Constituição estadunidense obriga que os estados tanto celebrem casamentos entre pessoas do mesmo sexo quanto que reconheçam casamentos homossexuais celebrados em outra jurisdição. Verificou-se que, embora celebrada de modo geral pelo seu resultado, a decisão é bastante criticada até mesmo pela doutrina progressista, em especial por seu foco excessivo no casamento, em prejuízo de outras modalidades de família, e por não construir suficientemente a base para a devida proteção da população LGBT contra discriminação em outras matérias. Observou-se ainda que, após o julgamento de Obergefell, tem havido aumento na aprovação popular ao casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo, bem como melhora no bem estar da população LGBT adulta.
References
ABRAMS, Kerry. The rights of marriage: Obergefell, Din, and the future of constitutional family law. Cornell Law Review, vol. 103, 2018.
Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972).
BEYE, Amberly N. The more, the marry-er? The future of polygamous marriage in the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges. Seton Hall Law Review, vol. 47, 2016.
BIRD, Thomas A. Challenging the levels of generality problem: how Obergefell v. Hodges created a new methodology for defining rights. Legislation and Public Policy, vol. 19, 2016.
BOUTELL, Kristiana P. Redefining infertility after Obergefell v. Hodges: why the Fourteenth Amendment warrants infertility insurance coverage for same-sex couples to achieve biological parenthood. Michigan State Law Review, 2017.
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
FELDMAN, Stephen Matthew. (Same) Sex, Lies, and Democracy: Tradition, Religion, and Substantive Due Process (with an emphasis on Obergefell v. Hodges). William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, vol. 24, 2015.
FLORES, Andrew R.; MALLORY, Christy; CONRON, Kerith J. The impact of Obergefell v. Hodges on the well-being of LGBT adults. UCLA School of Law, 2020.
HAULE, Kristin. It’s complicated: the unusual way Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same sex marriage. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, vol. 49, 2016.
HAZELDAN, Susan. Anchoring more than babies: children’s rights after Obergefell v. Hodges. Cardozo Law Review, vol. 38, 2017.
HERMANN, Donald H. J. Extending the fundamental right of marriage to same-sex couples: the United States Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Indiana Law Review, vol. 49, 2016.
HO, Jeremiah A. Once we’re done honeymooning: Obergefell v. Hodges, incrementalism, and advances for sexual orientation anti-discrimination. Kentucky Law Journal, vol. 104, 2016.
JOSHI, Yuvraj. The respectable dignity of Obergefell v. Hodges. California Law Review, vol. 06, 2015.
KAZYAK, Emily; STANGE, Mathew. Backlash or a positive response? Public opinion on LGB issues after Obergefell v. Hodges. Sociology Department, Faculty Pubications, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2018.
KREICZER-LEVY, Shelly. Succession Law in Israel: Individualism and the Family. Israel Studies Review, vol.28, n.2, 2013.
KHUU, Neo. Obergefell v. Hodges: kinship formation, interest convergence, and the future of LGBTQ rights. UCLA Law Review, vol. 64, 2017.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).
MURRAY, Melissa. Obergefell v. Hodges and nonmarriage inequality. California Law Review, vol. 104, 2016.
MURRAY, Melissa. One is the loneliest number: the complicated legacy of Obergefell v. Hodges. Hastings Law Journal, vol. 70, 2019.
NEJAIME, Douglas. The nature of parenthood. Yale Law Journal, vol. 126, 2017.
Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, 576 US 644 (2015).
RAMOS, David Delgado. Obergefell contra Hodges: la sentencia de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos sobre el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo. Revista de Derecho Politico, n. 99, 2017.
ROBSON, Ruthann. Justice Ginsburg’s Obergefell v. Hodges. UMKC Law Review, vol. 84, 2016.
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
SAMAR, Vincent J. Toward a new separation of church and state: implications for analogies to the Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby by the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice, vol. 36, 2016.
SPINDELMAN, Marc. A reader’s guide to the Obergefell v. Hodges Colloquium. Ohio State Law Journal, vol. 77, 2016.
STEVENS, John Paul. Two thoughts about Obergefell v. Hodges. Ohio State Law Journal, vol. 77, 2016.
SUNSTEIN, Cass R. On the expressive function of law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.144, 1996.
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013).
WALLS, Megan M. Obergefell v. Hodges: right idea, wrong analysis. Gonzaga Law Review, vol. 52, 2016.
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc., 348 U.S. 483 (1955).
YOSHINO, Kenji. A new birth of freedom? Obergefell v. Hodges. Harvard Law Review, vol. 129, 2015.
Zabockli v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978).
ZIMMERMANN, Augusto. Judicial activism and arbitrary control: a critical analysis of Obergefell v. Hodges. The University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review, vol. 17, 2015.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who submit their manuscripts for publication in the “REDES” Magazine agree to the following terms:
The authors claim to be aware that they retain copyright by giving “REDES” the right to publish.
The authors declare to be aware that the work submitted will be licensed under the Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution License which allows article sharing with acknowledgment of authorship and publication in this journal.
The authors declare to be aware that by virtue of the articles published in this journal have free public access.
The authors declare, under the penalty of the law, that the text is unpublished and original and that they are aware that plagiarism has been identified, plagiarized authors will be informed - willingly, to take legal action in the civil and criminal sphere - and, plagiarists will have their access to the magazine blocked.
The authors state that - in case of co-authoring - all contributed significantly to the research.
Authors are obliged to provide retractions and (or) corrections of errors in case of detection.
The authors are obliged not to publish the text submitted to “REDES” in another electronic journal (or not).
The Electronic Journal Law and Society - REDES - is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International.Based on work available at "http://revistas.unilasalle.edu.br/index.php/redes/about/submissions#copyrightNotice".
Permissions in addition to those granted under this license may be available at http://creativecommons.org/.
