ASIGNMENT 1

In the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the United States Supreme Court held that the
Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. The decision, which was
handed down in June 2015, effectively made same-sex marriage legal in all 50
states.

Those who defend the decision argue that it is consistent with the Constitution's
guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law. They point out that
the Court has long recognized that marriage is a fundamental right, and that
denying same-sex couples the ability to marry denies them the same rights and
benefits that opposite-sex couples enjoy. Furthermore, they argue that the Court's
decision was consistent with the principle of equality and the idea that same-sex
couples should be treated the same as opposite-sex couples in the eyes of the law.

Another argument for the decision is that it recognizes the changing societal
attitudes and cultural norms towards same-sex marriage. The Court recognizes that
the society has evolved in their understanding of the rights of gay people and the
view of same-sex marriage as a fundamental right. This decision also reflects the
growing number of states that have legalized same-sex marriage through their own
democratic processes, which shows public support for the issue.

On the other hand, those who oppose the decision argue that it represents a
departure from the traditional understanding of marriage as being between one man
and one woman. They argue that the Court has overstepped its bounds by
redefining an institution that has been understood in a particular way for thousands
of years. Furthermore, they argue that the decision undermines the democratic
process, as states should be able to make their own laws regarding marriage rather
than having the Court impose a national standard.

Another argument against the decision is that it threatens religious freedom and
may force religious institutions and individuals to violate their beliefs by
recognizing same-sex marriages. This can be seen as a violation of the First
Amendment rights of religious groups to freely exercise their religion without
interference from the government.
In conclusion, the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges is defensible from different
perspectives. On one hand, it is consistent with the Constitution's guarantees of due
process and equal protection under the law, and recognizes the changing societal
attitudes and cultural norms towards same-sex marriage. On the other hand, it
represents a departure from the traditional understanding of marriage, threatens
religious freedom and undermines the democratic process. It is a complex issue
that requires balancing of various constitutional principles, and the ultimate
decision has to be seen in the context of the society's evolution on the issue of
same-sex marriage.

ASSIGNMENT 2

The case of Loving v. Virginia was a landmark Supreme Court case in 1967 that
struck down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage. The main argument made
by the defendants in this case was that the law was necessary to maintain racial
purity and preserve the traditional institution of marriage.

One of the main fallacies in this argument is the idea of racial purity. The concept
of a pure race is scientifically unfounded, as all human beings belong to the same
species and there is significant genetic variation within so-called "races."
Additionally, the idea that interracial marriage would lead to the dilution of racial
purity implies that races are inherently superior or inferior to one another, which is
racist and discriminatory.

Another fallacy in the defendants' argument is the idea that the law was necessary
to preserve the traditional institution of marriage. The traditional institution of
marriage has evolved over time and varies across cultures, and the idea that a
particular racial makeup of couples is necessary to preserve it is arbitrary and
discriminatory.

Instead of making arguments based on racist and discriminatory ideas, the lawyers
in the case of Loving v. Virginia could have argued that the law violated the 14th
Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees equal protection
under the law to all citizens. They could have also argued that the law violated the
fundamental right to marry, which is protected by the Constitution.

Additionally, the lawyers could have highlighted how the law affected the lives of
the plaintiffs, the Lovings, and how it caused them harm by preventing them from
legally marrying and living together in the state of Virginia. They could have also
pointed out the psychological and emotional distress caused by the constant fear of
prosecution and harassment.

In conclusion, the arguments made in the case of Loving v. Virginia were based on
fallacious ideas of racial purity and preserving traditional institution of marriage.
Instead, the lawyers could have focused on the constitutional rights and the harms
caused to the plaintiffs. This would have been more aligned with critical thinking
and the application of legal principles.