Reference no: EM133684786

Gender equity has been a huge legal issue recently. In 2015, the United States Supreme Court held in Obergefell v. Hodges that the fundamental right to marriage applies to same-sex couples. This was a very controversial split decision, and the most compelling argument against it was set forth in Chief Justice Roberts' dissenting opinion:

"Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a state change its definition of marriage. And a state's decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a state are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition."

Then in 2016, the North Carolina legislature passed a bill that prohibited expansion of existing LGBTQ protections in the state. This bill specifically targeted local ordinances requiring businesses to allow transgender people to use the public restroom of the gender they identify with rather than the gender listed on their birth certificates.

Discuss whether the natural and expected extension of Obergefell v. Hodges would bind the United States Supreme Court to also find in favor of transgender people using public restrooms of the gender with which they identify. Are the issues in both situations analogous? Compare and contrast these two situations. Did Obergefell v. Hodges set a standard for the Court to decide social issues, or is the transgender restroom issue a state concern that should be decided in each individual state? Research a case that has been decided after Obergefell v. Hodges that is relevant to this issue. Be sure to support your points with authoritative sources.