Obergefell v. Hodges

Summary

Obergefell v. Hodges, decided on 26 June 2015, asked whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex, and to recognize such a marriage lawfully performed in another state. Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Fourteen same-sex couples and two widowers sued state officials; James Obergefell asked Ohio to list him as the surviving spouse on the death certificate of John Arthur, whom he had married in Maryland in 2013. The district courts ruled for the couples, but in 2014 the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the question belonged to the voters and legislatures of each state. The couples argued that marriage is a fundamental liberty under the Due Process Clause, that the reasons the Court had long given for protecting it apply to them, and that denying them its legal status and benefits violates the Equal Protection Clause. The states argued that the Constitution does not define marriage, that the understanding of marriage as a union of man and woman is ancient and connected to the begetting and rearing of children, and that a question so basic should be settled by democratic deliberation, then under way in many states. Justice Kennedy, writing for five Justices, reversed. He traced the long history of marriage and its changes, and identified four principles in the Court's precedents: the right to marry rests on individual autonomy, supports a two-person union of unique importance, safeguards children and families, and is a keystone of the social order. He held that these apply equally to same-sex couples, that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses reinforce each other, that individuals need not await legislative action to assert a fundamental right, and that states must recognize such marriages performed elsewhere. He added that religious organizations and persons remain protected by the First Amendment as they teach their beliefs about marriage. Four Justices dissented in separate opinions. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the Court is not a legislature, that the definition of marriage found in every culture is not irrational, and that the majority's method resembled discredited substantive due process decisions such as Lochner. Justice Scalia wrote that the decision took a question from the people and placed it with a majority of nine lawyers. Justice Thomas argued that liberty in the American tradition means freedom from government action, and that human dignity is innate rather than conferred by the state. Justice Alito wrote that the right lacks roots in history and tradition, warned of consequences for Americans holding traditional beliefs, and defended federalism as a way for people who disagree to live together. The library text gives the majority opinion and excerpts of the four dissents, without notes. Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act, signed on 13 December 2022. The decision remains debated, and later cases such as Masterpiece Cakeshop (2018) and 303 Creative (2023) addressed claims of religious liberty and free speech.

Top Lessons

• Two readings of liberty

  Justice Kennedy reads the liberty of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting certain personal choices central to identity, identified through reasoned judgment guided by precedent. Justice Thomas reads liberty as freedom from government action, and Justice Alito as limited to rights deeply rooted in history and tradition. Each view has a long lineage in American law.

• Courts, legislatures and timing

  The majority held that individuals need not wait for legislatures to vindicate a fundamental right. The Chief Justice and Justice Scalia answered that the Court had ended a democratic debate in which both sides were persuading fellow citizens. The disagreement concerns the proper role of judges as much as marriage itself.

• Defining an institution

  The majority described the purposes of marriage in terms of commitment, companionship and the protection of children and families; the dissenters stressed its historic connection to the union of man and woman and the rearing of children. Each side drew on the same long history of marriage to support its conclusion.

• Conscience in a divided nation

  Kennedy wrote that religious persons may continue to advocate their convictions under the First Amendment. Alito and Roberts doubted that assurance would prove sufficient, and Alito argued that federalism would have allowed communities to differ. The question of how people with deep disagreements live together runs through all five opinions.

Verified Quotes

Medical Lens

The opinions concern the constitutional status of marriage, democratic process and religious liberty and contain no medical discussion.