Statements (442)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
gptkb:court_cases |
| gptkbp:advocacy |
gptkb:American_Civil_Liberties_Union
gptkb:Lambda_Legal gptkb:Human_Rights_Campaign |
| gptkbp:aftermath |
Influence on public policy
Increased visibility for LGBTQ+ issues Increased visibility of LGBTQ+ issues State laws challenged Federal recognition of same-sex marriages Increased advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights Changes in public opinion on same-sex marriage Impact on adoption rights for same-sex couples Legislative responses in various states Impact on religious freedom debates Impact on family law Influence on future Supreme Court cases Impact on future Supreme Court cases Impact on mental health resources for LGBTQ+ individuals Increased support from corporations for LGBTQ+ rights Increased dialogue about gender identity and expression Changes in community support for LGBTQ+ families Changes in family law practices Changes in public policy regarding LGBTQ+ rights Changes in tax benefits for same-sex couples Cultural shifts in acceptance of same-sex marriage Impact on healthcare rights for same-sex couples Impact on international LGBTQ+ advocacy efforts Impact on workplace discrimination laws Increased representation in media Influence on international LGBTQ+ rights Influence on political campaigns and platforms Influence on state-level marriage laws Influence on youth advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights Legal challenges to religious exemptions Ongoing debates about marriage equality Legal recognition of same-sex marriages in all states Influence on educational policies regarding LGBTQ+ issues Impact on religious institutions and marriage ceremonies Impact on social security benefits for same-sex couples Legal implications for immigration rights for same-sex couples Impact on employment discrimination laws Impact on future Supreme Court nominations Changes in state laws regarding marriage Continued legal battles over LGBTQ+ rights Cultural shifts in attitudes towards same-sex marriage Impact on corporate policies regarding LGBTQ+ rights Impact on historical narratives regarding LGBTQ+ rights. Impact on healthcare policies regarding LGBTQ+ issues Impact on estate planning for same-sex couples Impact on housing policies regarding LGBTQ+ issues Impact on immigration rights for same-sex couples Impact on international LGBTQ+ rights advocacy Impact on media representation of LGBTQ+ issues Impact on military benefits for same-sex couples Impact on public policy regarding marriage Impact on tax benefits for same-sex couples Impact on youth programs for LGBTQ+ individuals State laws changed to recognize same-sex marriage Impact on cultural attitudes towards LGBTQ+ individuals Impact on judicial nominations regarding LGBTQ+ rights Impact on education policies regarding LGBTQ+ issues Impact on legislative agendas regarding LGBTQ+ rights Impact on anti-discrimination laws regarding LGBTQ+ issues Impact on political campaigns regarding LGBTQ+ rights Impact on faith-based organizations regarding LGBTQ+ issues Impact on entertainment industry representation of LGBTQ+ issues Impact on sports policies regarding LGBTQ+ athletes Impact on public accommodations laws regarding LGBTQ+ issues Impact on community organizing regarding LGBTQ+ rights Increased visibility of LGBTQ+ families Changes in family law regarding same-sex couples Changes in federal benefits for same-sex couples Changes in social attitudes towards same-sex marriage Impact on LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations Impact on LGBTQ+ community centers Impact on LGBTQ+ representation in politics Impact on LGBTQ+ rights in education Impact on LGBTQ+ rights in healthcare Impact on LGBTQ+ rights in the military Impact on LGBTQ+ youth support initiatives Impact on public policy regarding LGBTQ+ rights Impact on state-level LGBTQ+ legislation Increased legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals Increased political activism among LGBTQ+ groups Changes in state tax laws regarding same-sex couples State laws changed to allow same-sex marriage Increased support for LGBTQ+ rights in public opinion Increased representation of LGBTQ+ individuals in media Legal challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage |
| gptkbp:appellees |
gptkb:Richard_Hodges
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
gptkb:James_Obergefell
April 28, 2015 |
| gptkbp:associated_with |
LGBTQ+ activism
Equality under the law |
| gptkbp:benefits |
Same-sex couples entitled to federal benefits
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
14-556
14-556. |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
5-4 ruling
Affirmed lower court ruling Impact on future Supreme Court rulings Legal challenges to discriminatory laws Inspiration for activists worldwide Cultural shift towards acceptance of same-sex marriage Changes in public policy regarding marriage End of state-level bans on same-sex marriage Increased support for LGBTQ rights in polls Increased visibility of LGBTQ issues Legal recognition of same-sex couples' rights Marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples Recognition of same-sex marriages nationwide Strengthening of LGBT rights |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Major victory for LGBTQ+ rights
|
| gptkbp:civic_engagement |
Called for civic engagement on marriage issues.
Encouraged public discourse on marriage. |
| gptkbp:community_impact |
Increased visibility for LGBTQ+ rights
Influence on global LGBTQ+ rights |
| gptkbp:consequences |
Marriage Equality
Set a precedent for future cases Influenced state legislation States required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states States required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples |
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
gptkb:Richard_Hodges gptkb:James_Obergefell Supreme Court of the United States. |
| gptkbp:cultural_impact |
Increased visibility of LGBTQ+ issues
Increased representation of LGBTQ+ individuals in politics Increased funding for LGBTQ+ organizations Influence on political campaigns Impact on adoption rights for same-sex couples Shift in public opinion on same-sex marriage Impact on mental health resources for LGBTQ+ individuals Changes in public policy regarding LGBTQ+ rights Influence on youth advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights Impact on education policies regarding LGBTQ+ issues Influence on international LGBTQ+ rights movements Changes in legal terminology regarding marriage Changes in public discourse about marriage Changes in societal norms regarding marriage Debate over religious freedom vs. LGBTQ+ rights Impact on family law regarding same-sex couples Impact on religious institutions' policies Impact on social services for LGBTQ+ families Increased support for LGBTQ+ candidates Increased visibility of LGBTQ+ families Influence on future LGBTQ+ rights cases Inspiration for LGBTQ+ advocacy groups Legal challenges in conservative states Recognition of same-sex couples in media Influence on healthcare policies for LGBTQ+ individuals Changes in corporate policies regarding LGBTQ+ employees Influence on future Supreme Court cases regarding civil rights. |
| gptkbp:date |
June 26, 2015
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:2015
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States gptkb:the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States June 26, 2015 a 5-4 vote |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Chief_Justice_John_Roberts
gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia gptkb:4 gptkb:Justice_John_Roberts gptkb:Justice_Anthony_Kennedy gptkb:Justice_Samuel_Alito gptkb:Justice_Clarence_Thomas State sovereignty. Judicial restraint. Cited cases that upheld state definitions of marriage. Argued from a moral standpoint against same-sex marriage. Accused the majority of overstepping judicial authority. Argued for a more originalist approach. Cited previous legal precedents. Concerned and cautionary. Criticized for judicial activism. Critique of the majority's legal reasoning. Critiqued the majority's legal framework. Emphasized the role of the states. Encouraged legislative action on marriage. Importance of tradition in marriage. Outlined potential legal consequences. Potential for future legal challenges. Potential for legal confusion. Potential implications for future cases. Presented alternative legal arguments. Previous cases on marriage. Referenced historical documents. Reflected ongoing social debates. Reflected ongoing societal debates about marriage. Reflected public debate on marriage. Risks to social stability. Rooted in natural law. Rooted in philosophical arguments. States should have the right to define marriage. Stressed the importance of legal tradition. The ruling undermines the democratic process. Promoted a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Marriage has been traditionally defined as between a man and a woman. Concerned about the implications for public policy. Reflected concerns of a significant portion of the population. Challenged the majority's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The majority opinion disregards historical definitions of marriage. The decision could lead to challenges against religious liberties. Dissenters argued for a narrow interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution does not guarantee a right to same-sex marriage. States should decide marriage laws Marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion_civic_responsibility |
Emphasized civic responsibility in lawmaking.
Emphasized the role of citizens in shaping laws. |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion_cultural_arguments |
Highlighted cultural implications of the ruling.
|
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion_cultural_impact |
Discussed the cultural impact of the ruling.
|
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion_cultural_tradition |
Stressed the importance of cultural traditions.
|
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion_judicial_activism |
Criticized for perceived judicial activism.
|
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion_judicial_limits |
Argued for limits on judicial interpretation.
Argued for limits on judicial power. |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion_judicial_role |
Defined the role of judges in society.
Judges should not create rights. |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion_legal_history |
Referenced historical legal cases.
|
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion_legislative_role |
Legislatures should decide on marriage laws.
|
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion_moral_philosophy |
Rooted in moral philosophy.
|
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion_social_impact |
Concerned about the impact on children.
|
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion_social_values |
Reflected traditional social values.
|
| gptkbp:economic_policy |
Marriage equality policies
|
| gptkbp:educational_value |
Same-sex couples entitled to educational benefits
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_activism |
Increased activism for LGBTQ rights
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_adoption |
Same-sex couples allowed to adopt children
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_divorce |
Same-sex couples entitled to divorce rights
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_employment |
Same-sex couples entitled to employment benefits
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_healthcare |
Same-sex couples entitled to spousal healthcare benefits
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_housing |
Same-sex couples entitled to housing benefits
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_immigration |
Same-sex couples entitled to spousal immigration benefits
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_insurance |
Same-sex couples entitled to insurance benefits
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_international_law |
Influenced international LGBTQ rights movements
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_military |
Same-sex couples entitled to military benefits
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_pensions |
Same-sex couples entitled to pension benefits
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_political_debate |
Shifted political debate on marriage equality
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_public_policy |
Influenced public policy on LGBTQ rights
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_religious_institutions |
Religious institutions may refuse to perform same-sex marriages
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_retirement |
Same-sex couples entitled to retirement benefits
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_social_security |
Same-sex couples entitled to social security benefits
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_state_laws |
State laws must comply with federal ruling
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_tax_credits |
Same-sex couples entitled to tax credits
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_taxation |
Same-sex couples entitled to joint tax filing
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_wills |
Same-sex couples entitled to inheritance rights
|
| gptkbp:effective_date |
June 26, 2015
|
| gptkbp:established |
precedent for future cases
right to marry for same-sex couples |
| gptkbp:has_culture |
Marriage as a social institution
|
| gptkbp:has_led_to |
increased activism for LGBTQ+ rights
|
| gptkbp:historical_context |
gptkb:LGBTQ+_rights_movement
gptkb:LGBT_rights_movement gptkb:Civil_Rights_Movement gptkb:LGBTQ_rights_movement Civil rights era Post-DOMA era |
| gptkbp:historical_significance |
Pivotal moment in U. S. history
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Obergefell v. Hodges
|
| gptkbp:impact |
gptkb:Same-sex_marriage_rights_in_the_United_States
gptkb:Civil_Rights_Movement Civil rights advancement Civil rights for LGBTQ+ individuals Legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States. |
| gptkbp:impact_on_federal_law |
Federal recognition of same-sex marriages
|
| gptkbp:influenced |
subsequent legal cases regarding marriage rights
state legislation on marriage |
| gptkbp:influenced_by |
gptkb:LGBT_rights_movement
gptkb:Civil_Rights_Movement gptkb:United_States_v._Windsor LGBT rights advocacy Public opinion on same-sex marriage Advocacy from LGBTQ+ organizations Legal arguments for marriage equality |
| gptkbp:involved |
multiple plaintiffs
|
| gptkbp:involved_countries |
States required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples
|
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:State_of_Ohio
gptkb:Richard_Hodges gptkb:John_Arthur gptkb:James_Obergefell Other same-sex couples |
| gptkbp:is_a |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
landmark Supreme Court decision |
| gptkbp:is_a_basis_for |
gptkb:Fourteenth_Amendment
gptkb:14th_Amendment Due Process Clause Equal Protection Clause |
| gptkbp:is_affected_by |
LGBT rights
LGBT rights in the United States |
| gptkbp:is_analyzed_in |
legal journals
|
| gptkbp:is_celebrated_for |
gptkb:LGBTQ+_communities
|
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
gptkb:Bostock_v._Clayton_County
subsequent legal cases Numerous subsequent cases Numerous subsequent court cases discussions about marriage equality Numerous subsequent cases on marriage equality 576 U. S. 644 (2015) Subsequent marriage equality cases advocates for traditional marriage Legal discussions on LGBTQ+ rights |
| gptkbp:is_considered |
gptkb:cultural_landmark
|
| gptkbp:is_considered_as |
controversial
a victory for civil rights advocates |
| gptkbp:is_countered_by |
state bans on same-sex marriage
State bans on same-sex marriage |
| gptkbp:is_discussed_in |
gptkb:political_debates
|
| gptkbp:is_often_discussed_in |
law schools
|
| gptkbp:is_part_of |
U. S. Supreme Court history
the ongoing discussion about marriage laws in the U. S. the broader debate on marriage equality the legal history of the United States |
| gptkbp:is_referenced_in |
legal analyses of marriage laws
|
| gptkbp:is_related_to |
civil rights
|
| gptkbp:is_significant_for |
its implications on state laws
|
| gptkbp:issues |
gptkb:same-sex_marriage
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Constitutional interpretation
Constitutional scrutiny Fundamental rights analysis |
| gptkbp:led_to |
increased visibility for LGBTQ+ issues
|
| gptkbp:legal_challenge_origin |
Multiple states' bans on same-sex marriage
|
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
gptkb:Constitution
Living Constitution 5-4 decision Expanded civil rights Legal recognition of same-sex couples State marriage laws |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
gptkb:Equal_protection_clause
gptkb:same-sex_marriage Same-sex marriage Due process rights Equal protection under the law Constitutionality of state laws Due process clause Same-sex marriage rights Religious freedom vs. marriage equality State bans on same-sex marriage |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
gptkb:Legalization_of_same-sex_marriage
Struck down state bans on same-sex marriage Recognition of same-sex marriages |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
gptkb:American_Civil_Liberties_Union
gptkb:Lambda_Legal gptkb:Atty._Al_Gerhardstein Constitutional interpretation Private law firms |
| gptkbp:legislation |
gptkb:Respect_for_Marriage_Act
State marriage laws |
| gptkbp:majority_opinion_citations |
gptkb:Zablocki_v._Redhail
gptkb:Griswold_v._Connecticut gptkb:Turner_v._Safley gptkb:Loving_v._Virginia gptkb:Lawrence_v._Texas gptkb:Romer_v._Evans gptkb:United_States_v._Windsor gptkb:Bowers_v._Hardwick Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) |
| gptkbp:majority_opinion_influence |
gptkb:Civil_Rights_Movement
|
| gptkbp:media_coverage |
Extensive media attention
|
| gptkbp:number_of_justices_in_dissent |
gptkb:4
|
| gptkbp:number_of_justices_in_majority |
gptkb:5
|
| gptkbp:number_of_justices_involved |
gptkb:9
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
gptkb:Legalization_of_same-sex_marriage
Legalized same-sex marriage nationwide Legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide legalized same-sex marriage nationwide Same-sex marriage legalized nationwide |
| gptkbp:petitioners |
gptkb:James_Obergefell
|
| gptkbp:political_impact |
Shift in political party platforms
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
gptkb:Loving_v._Virginia
gptkb:Lawrence_v._Texas gptkb:Windsor_v._United_States gptkb:Baker_v._Nelson gptkb:United_States_v._Windsor Marriage equality Civil rights law Constitutional right to marry Same-sex marriage cases Same-sex marriage rights Fundamental right to marry Established same-sex marriage as a constitutional right. Same-sex marriage recognized nationwide State recognition of same-sex marriages Affirmation of LGBTQ rights Future LGBTQ rights cases Subsequent LGBTQ+ rights cases |
| gptkbp:propulsion |
gptkb:James_Obergefell
|
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Elena_Kagan
gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg gptkb:Justice_Anthony_Kennedy gptkb:Justice_Sonia_Sotomayor 5-4 Same-sex couples cannot be denied the right to marry Marriage is a fundamental right Legal recognition of same-sex marriages Same-sex couples have the right to marry. |
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Criticized by conservative groups
Protests from conservative groups Celebrated by LGBTQ+ advocates Celebrations across the U. S. Celebrations across the country |
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Bourke_v._Beshear
gptkb:Griswold_v._Connecticut gptkb:De_Boer_v._Snyder gptkb:Loving_v._Virginia gptkb:Tanco_v._Haslam gptkb:Lawrence_v._Texas gptkb:Baker_v._Nelson gptkb:United_States_v._Windsor gptkb:Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission |
| gptkbp:related_to |
gptkb:United_States_v._Windsor
LGBT rights Marriage equality |
| gptkbp:respondents |
gptkb:Richard_Hodges
|
| gptkbp:ruled |
same-sex marriage is a constitutional right
|
| gptkbp:scholarly_analysis |
Impact on family law
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Civil Rights
Landmark ruling Constitutional right to marry Affirmed marriage equality Landmark ruling for LGBTQ+ rights. |
| gptkbp:sparked |
national conversations on marriage rights
|
| gptkbp:state |
gptkb:Ohio
|
| gptkbp:updates |
the legal landscape for marriage
|
| gptkbp:was_a_case_about |
fundamental rights
|
| gptkbp:was_a_catalyst_for |
social change
|
| gptkbp:was_a_landmark_case |
in U. S. history
|
| gptkbp:was_a_landmark_decision |
for the Supreme Court
|
| gptkbp:was_a_response_to |
state-level discrimination
|
| gptkbp:was_a_result_of |
years of advocacy
|
| gptkbp:was_a_significant_ruling |
for civil rights
|
| gptkbp:was_a_turning_point_for |
marriage equality in the U. S.
|
| gptkbp:was_a_victory_for |
LGBTQ+ activists
|
| gptkbp:was_involved_in |
influenced public policy
challenged traditional views of marriage changed perceptions of marriage. highlighted the need for equality set a national standard for marriage rights unified many advocacy groups |
| gptkbp:was_supported_by |
various advocacy groups
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court gptkb:Marbury_v._Madison |
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
3
|