For Educational Use Only

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)

135 S.Ct. 2584, 99 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,341, 192 L.Ed.2d 609...

and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same

terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the
KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment opposite sex.
  Not Followed on State Law Grounds Tyler F. v. Sara P., Neb., July 10,  
2020
135 S.Ct. 2584
Supreme Court of the United States

James OBERGEFELL, et al., Petitioners

v. *653 I
Richard HODGES, Director, Ohio Department of
Health, et al.; These cases come from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and
Valeria Tanco, et al., Petitioners Tennessee, States that define marriage as a union between
v. one *654 man and one woman. See, e.g., Mich. Const.,
Bill Haslam, Governor of Tennessee, et al.;
April DeBoer, et al., Petitioners Art. I, § 25; Ky. Const. § 233A; Ohio Rev.Code
v. Ann. § 3101.01 (Lexis 2008); Tenn. Const., Art. XI, §
Rick Snyder, Governor of Michigan, et al.; and 18. The petitioners are 14 same-sex couples and two men
Gregory Bourke, et al., Petitioners whose same-sex partners are *655 deceased. The
v. respondents are state officials responsible for enforcing
Steve Beshear, Governor of Kentucky. the laws in question. The petitioners claim the
respondents violate the Fourteenth Amendment by
Nos. 14–556, 14–562, 14–571, 14–574. denying them the right to marry or to have their
| marriages, lawfully performed in another State, given full
Argued April 28, 2015. recognition.
|  
Decided June 26, 2015. *656 Petitioners filed these suits in United States District
Courts in their home States. Each District Court ruled in
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in
their favor. Citations to those cases are in Appendix A,
which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and
infra. The respondents appealed the decisions against
KAGAN, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C.J., filed a dissenting
them to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined.
Circuit. It consolidated the cases and reversed the
SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which
THOMAS, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting judgments of the District Courts. DeBoer v. Snyder,
opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed a 772 F.3d 388 (2014). The Court of Appeals held that a
dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., State has no constitutional obligation to license same-sex
joined. marriages or to recognize same-sex marriages performed
  out of State.
 
Opinion The petitioners sought certiorari. This Court granted
review, limited to two questions. 574 U.S. ––––, ––– S.Ct.
––––, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2015)574 U.S. ––––, ––– S.Ct.
Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. ––––, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2015). The first, presented by
the cases from Michigan and Kentucky, is whether the
Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a
*651 The Constitution promises liberty to all within its marriage between two people of the same sex. The
reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that second, presented by the cases from Ohio, Tennessee,
allow *652 persons, within a lawful realm, to define and and, again, Kentucky, is whether the Fourteenth
express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek Amendment requires a State to recognize a same-sex
to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex marriage licensed and performed in a State which does
1
© 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
grant that right. The petitioners acknowledge this history but contend that
  these cases cannot end there. Were their intent to demean
the revered idea and reality of marriage, the petitioners’
claims would be of a different order. But that is neither
their purpose nor their submission. To the contrary, it is
II the enduring importance of marriage that underlies the
petitioners’ contentions. This, they say, is their whole
Before addressing the principles and precedents that
point. *658 Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the
govern these cases, it is appropriate to note the history of
petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect
the subject now before the Court.
—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And
their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is
their only real path to this profound commitment.
A  
Recounting the circumstances of three of these cases
From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals illustrates the urgency of the petitioners’ cause from their
of human history **2594 reveal the transcendent perspective. Petitioner James Obergefell, a plaintiff in the
importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and Ohio case, met John Arthur over two decades ago. They
a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all fell in love and started a life together, establishing a
persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is lasting, committed relation. In 2011, however, Arthur was
sacred to those who live by their religions and offers diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS.
unique fulfillment to those who *657 find meaning in the This debilitating disease is progressive, with no known
secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life cure. Two years ago, Obergefell and Arthur decided to
that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes commit to one another, resolving to marry before Arthur
greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most died. To fulfill their mutual promise, they traveled from
basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most Ohio to Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal. It
profound hopes and aspirations. was difficult for Arthur to move, and so the couple were
  wed inside a medical transport plane as it remained on the
The centrality of marriage to the human condition makes tarmac in Baltimore. Three months later, Arthur died.
it unsurprising that the institution has existed for Ohio law does not permit Obergefell to be listed as the
millennia and across civilizations. Since the dawn of surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate. By statute,
history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, they must remain strangers even in death, a state-imposed
binding families and societies together. Confucius taught separation Obergefell deems “hurtful for **2595 the rest
that marriage lies at the foundation of government. 2 Li of time.” App. in No. 14–556 etc., p. 38. He brought suit
Chi: Book of Rites 266 (C. Chai & W. Chai eds., J. Legge to be shown as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s death
transl. 1967). This wisdom was echoed centuries later and certificate.
half a world away by Cicero, who wrote, “The first bond  
of society is marriage; next, children; and then the April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse are co-plaintiffs in the
family.” See De Officiis 57 (W. Miller transl. 1913). case from Michigan. They celebrated a commitment
There are untold references to the beauty of marriage in ceremony to honor their permanent relation in 2007. They
religious and philosophical texts spanning time, cultures, both work as nurses, DeBoer in a neonatal unit and
and faiths, as well as in art and literature in all their forms. Rowse in an emergency unit. In 2009, DeBoer and Rowse
It is fair and necessary to say these references were based fostered and then adopted a baby boy. Later that same
on the understanding that marriage is a union between year, they welcomed another son into their family. The
two persons of the opposite sex. new baby, born prematurely and abandoned by his
  biological mother, required around-the-clock care. The
That history is the beginning of these cases. The next year, a baby girl with special needs joined their
respondents say it should be the end as well. To them, it family. Michigan, however, permits *659 only opposite-
would demean a timeless institution if the concept and sex married couples or single individuals to adopt, so each
lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of child can have only one woman as his or her legal parent.
the same sex. Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a If an emergency were to arise, schools and hospitals may
gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view treat the three children as if they had only one parent.
long has been held—and continues to be held—in good And, were tragedy to befall either DeBoer or Rowse, the
faith by reasonable and sincere people here and other would have no legal rights over the children she had
throughout the world. not been permitted to adopt. This couple seeks relief from
  the continuing uncertainty their unmarried status creates
2
 For Educational Use Only

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)

135 S.Ct. 2584, 99 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,341, 192 L.Ed.2d 609...

in their lives. mere superficial changes. Rather, they worked deep

  transformations in its structure, affecting aspects of
Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and his marriage long viewed by many as essential. See generally
partner Thomas Kostura, co-plaintiffs in the Tennessee N. Cott, Public Vows; S. Coontz, Marriage; H. **2596
case, fell in love. In 2011, DeKoe received orders to Hartog, Man & Wife in America: A History (2000).
deploy to Afghanistan. Before leaving, he and Kostura  
married in New York. A week later, DeKoe began his These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the
deployment, which lasted for almost a year. When he institution of marriage. Indeed, changed understandings of
returned, the two settled in Tennessee, where DeKoe marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new
works full-time for the Army Reserve. Their lawful dimensions of freedom become apparent to new
marriage is stripped from them whenever they reside in generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas
Tennessee, returning and disappearing as they travel or protests and then are considered in the political sphere
across state lines. DeKoe, who served this Nation to and the judicial process.
preserve the freedom the Constitution protects, must  
endure a substantial burden. This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences
  with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid–20th
The cases now before the Court involve other petitioners century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as
as well, each with their own experiences. Their stories immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a
reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason,
to live their lives, or honor their spouses’ memory, joined among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals
by its bond. to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful
declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their
hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater
awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual
B persons came in the period after World War II, the
argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to
The ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality, but
dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread
it has not stood in isolation from developments in law and
*661 social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a
society. The history of marriage is one of both continuity
crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited
and change. That institution—even as confined to
from most government employment, barred from military
opposite-sex relations—has evolved over time.
service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by
 
police, and burdened in their rights to associate. See Brief
For example, marriage was once viewed as an
for Organization of American Historians as Amicus
arrangement by the couple’s parents based on political,
Curiae 5–28.
religious, and financial concerns; but by the time of the
 
Nation’s founding it was understood to be a voluntary
For much of the 20th century, moreover, homosexuality
contract between a man *660 and a woman. See N. Cott,
was treated as an illness. When the American Psychiatric
Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation 9–17
Association published the first Diagnostic and Statistical
(2000); S. Coontz, Marriage, A History 15–16 (2005). As
Manual of Mental Disorders in 1952, homosexuality was
the role and status of women changed, the institution
classified as a mental disorder, a position adhered to until
further evolved. Under the centuries-old doctrine of
1973. See Position Statement on Homosexuality and Civil
coverture, a married man and woman were treated by the
Rights, 1973, in 131 Am. J. Psychiatry 497 (1974). Only
State as a single, male-dominated legal entity. See 1 W.
in more recent years have psychiatrists and others
Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 430
recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal
(1765). As women gained legal, political, and property
expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief
rights, and as society began to understand that women
for American Psychological Association et al. as Amici
have their own equal dignity, the law of coverture was
Curiae 7–17.
abandoned. See Brief for Historians of Marriage et al. as
 
Amici Curiae 16–19. These and other developments in the
In the late 20th century, following substantial cultural and
institution of marriage over the past centuries were not
3
© 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
political developments, same-sex couples began to lead couples may exercise the right to marry. The four
more open and public lives and to establish families. This principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that
development was followed by a quite extensive the reasons marriage is fundamental under the
discussion of the issue in both governmental and private Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples.
sectors and by a shift in public attitudes toward greater  
tolerance. As a result, questions about the rights of gays [7]
A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that
and lesbians soon reached the courts, where the issue the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent
could be discussed in the formal discourse of the law. in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding
  connection between marriage and liberty is why
[…] Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the
Due Process Clause. See 388 U.S., at 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817;
Numerous cases about same-sex marriage have reached see also Zablocki, supra, at 384, 98 S.Ct. 673
the United States Courts of Appeals in recent years. […] (observing Loving held “the right to marry is of
With the exception of the opinion here under review and fundamental *666 importance for all individuals”). Like
one other, […] the Courts of Appeals have held that choices concerning contraception, family relationships,
excluding same-sex couples from marriage violates the procreation, and childrearing, all of which are protected
Constitution. There also have been many thoughtful by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are
District Court decisions addressing same-sex marriage— among the most intimate that an individual can make. See
and most of them, too, have concluded same-sex couples Lawrence, supra, at 574, 123 S.Ct. 2472. Indeed, the
must be allowed to marry. In addition the highest courts Court has noted it would be contradictory “to recognize a
of many States have contributed to this ongoing dialogue right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life
in decisions interpreting their own State Constitutions. and not with respect to the decision to enter the
[…] relationship that is the foundation of the family in our
  society.” Zablocki, supra, at 386, 98 S.Ct. 673.
After years of litigation, legislation, referenda, and the  
discussions that attended these public acts, the States are Choices about marriage shape an individual’s destiny. As
now divided on the issue of same-sex marriage. […] the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has
explained, because “it fulfils yearnings for security, safe
haven, and connection that express our common
humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and
the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s
III momentous acts of self-definition.” Goodridge, 440
Mass., at 322, 798 N.E.2d, at 955.
[1]
Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth  
Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, [8]
The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring
liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such
fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for
most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. […] all persons, whatever their sexual orientation. See
Windsor, 570 U.S., at ––––, 133 S.Ct., at 2693–2695.
[…] the Court has long held the right to marry is There is dignity in the bond between two men or two
protected by the Constitution. In Loving v. Virginia, women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make
388 U.S. 1, 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967), such profound choices. Cf. Loving, supra, at 12, 87
which invalidated bans on interracial unions, a unanimous S.Ct. 1817 (“[T]he freedom to marry, or not marry, a
Court held marriage is “one of the vital personal rights person of another race resides with the individual and
essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” cannot be infringed by the State”).
The Court reaffirmed that holding in Zablocki v.  
Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384, 98 S.Ct. 673, 54 L.Ed.2d 618 [9]
A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that
(1978), which held the right to marry was burdened by a the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a
law prohibiting fathers who were behind on child support two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the
from marrying. […] committed individuals. This point was central to
Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution
  protects the right of married couples to use contraception.
This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex
4
 For Educational Use Only

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)

135 S.Ct. 2584, 99 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,341, 192 L.Ed.2d 609...

381 U.S., at 485, 85 S.Ct. 1678. Suggesting that are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant
marriage is a right “older than the Bill of Rights,” material costs of being raised by unmarried parents,
Griswold described marriage this way: relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult
and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue
“ *667 Marriage is a coming together for better or for **2601 here thus harm and humiliate the children of
worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree same-sex couples. […]
of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way  
of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political Fourth and finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s
faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our
projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose social order. […]
 
**2600 as any involved in our prior decisions.” Id.,
For that reason, just as a couple vows to support each
at 486, 85 S.Ct. 1678.
other, so does society pledge to support the couple,
[…] The right to marry thus dignifies couples who “wish offering symbolic recognition and material benefits to
to define themselves by their commitment to each other.” protect and nourish the union. Indeed, while the States are
in general *670 free to vary the benefits they confer on all
Windsor, supra, at ––––, 133 S.Ct., at 2689. Marriage married couples, they have throughout our history made
responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental
call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of rights, benefits, and responsibilities. […]
companionship and understanding and assurance that  
while both still live there will be someone to care for the The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history
other. and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources
  alone. They rise, too, from a better informed
[10]
As this Court held in Lawrence, same-sex couples understanding of how *672 constitutional imperatives
have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era. Many
intimate association. […] who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that
  conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or
[11]
A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs
safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal
from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the
education. […] Under the laws of the several States, some necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the
of marriage’s protections for children and families are State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or
material. But marriage also confers more profound stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. Under
benefits. By giving recognition and legal structure to their the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the
parents’ relationship, marriage allows children “to same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it
understand the integrity and closeness of their own family would disparage their choices and diminish their
and its concord with other families in their community personhood to deny them this right.
and in their daily lives.” Windsor, supra, at ––––, 133  
S.Ct., at 2694–2695. Marriage also affords the [13]
The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of
permanency and stability important to children’s best the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is
interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the
Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27. equal protection of the laws. […]
   
[…] [14]
Indeed, in interpreting the Equal Protection Clause, the
  Court has recognized that new insights and societal
Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts understandings can reveal unjustified inequality within
with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the our most fundamental institutions that once passed
recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, unnoticed and unchallenged. […]
their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families

5
© 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right  
to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies
the person, and under the Due Process and Equal the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and
Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples family. In forming a marital union, two people become
of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that something greater than once they were. As some of the
liberty. The Court now holds that **2605 same-sex petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies
couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No a love that may endure even past death. It would
longer may this liberty be denied to them. […] misunderstand these men and women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do
respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its
fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be
condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of
civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal
IV dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants
them that right.
There may be an initial inclination in these cases to
 
proceed with caution—to await further legislation,
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
litigation, and debate.
Circuit is reversed.
[…]
 
It is so ordered.
The dynamic of our constitutional system is that
 
individuals need not await legislative action before
[…]
asserting a fundamental right. The Nation’s courts are
open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate
their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An
individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection
when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public
disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act. […]
 

These cases also present the question whether the

Constitution requires States to recognize same-sex
marriages validly performed out of State. As made clear
by the case of Obergefell and Arthur, and by that of
DeKoe and Kostura, the recognition bans inflict
substantial and continuing harm on same-sex couples.
 
Being married in one State but having that valid marriage
denied in another is one of “the most perplexing and
distressing complication[s]” in the law of domestic
relations.
[…]
The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may
exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It
**2608 follows that the Court also must hold—and it now
does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to
refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed
in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
 
***
6