the day after the United States Supreme
Court decided obergefell versus Hodges
same-sex couples all over the United
States celebrated the decision by
exercising their newfound constitutional
right to apply for a marriage license in
a bitterly divided ruling the court held
that the United States Constitution
prohibits States from denying same-sex
couples the right to marry James
obergefell and his partner John wanted
to get married after John became
terminally ill at the time they were
living in Ohio a state that bans
same-sex marriage so the couple Wed in
Maryland where same-sex marriage was
recognized when John passed away Ohio
upheld its same-sex marriage ban and
refused to list James as John's
surviving spouse on the death
certificate obergefell plus 13 others
affected by the same-sex marriage bans
sued the state officials responsible for
enforcing the ban the couples argued
that denying the marriage rights
violated the Fourteenth Amendment in
each of the separate suits the district
courts agreed with the couples and found
that the state's bans violated the
Fourteenth Amendment the Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
consolidated the 14 cases and reversed
holding that the Constitution doesn't
require a state to recognize same-sex
marriages from other states the Supreme
Court granted a consolidated petition
for cert there were two questions before
the court first our state's required
under the 14th amendment to issue
marriage licenses to same-sex couples
second our states also require to
recognize lawful out-of-state marriages
of same-sex couples the court answered
both questions in the affirmative and
held that same-sex couples have a
constitutional right to marry under the
14th amendment further the court held
that the marriage right must be
recognized across States
Justice Kennedy writing for the five
justice majority reason that the right
to marry is a fundamental right
protected by the Due Process Clause for
support kennedy cited precedent for
example in the 1967 decision of loving
versus Virginia the Court invalidated a
ban on interracial marriages eleven
years later the court in Zablocki versus
red Hale struck down a marriage ban for
fathers who were delinquent on child
support payments
additionally Kennedy noted that judicial
precedent had progressed toward greater
recognition of rights for same-sex
couples for example in the 2003 decision
of Lawrence vs Texas the Court
invalidated laws that criminalized
homosexual acts holding that same-sex
couples have an equal right to intimate
Association additionally Kennedy sided
four principles and traditions behind
the constitutional protection of the
right to marry each of these traditions
applies equally the same-sex and
opposite-sex couples first the right to
choose whether and whom to marry is
inherent in individual autonomy second
the right protects the intimate
relationship between two people
third the right protects children and
families by giving legal protection to
homebuilding and child rearing and
fourth marriage is the very keystone of
the social order and the foundation of
the family unit the deep social
importance of marriage is evidenced by
the government's provision of numerous
benefits to opposite sex couples
including tax benefits inheritance rules
evidentiary privileges and medical
decision making Authority in reaching
his conclusion Kennedy also relied on
the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
amendment for Kennedy due process and
equal protection were interrelated when
it came to the marriage right he
reasoned that the marriage bans denied
same-sex couples the same government
benefits that opposite-sex couples enjoy
this denial was particularly significant
from a constitutional perspective given
the long history of animus towards
same-sex relationships the court
reversed the court of appeals and held
that states must issue marriage licenses
to same-sex
and also must recognize lawful
out-of-state marriages between same-sex
couples four justices dissented Chief
Justice Roberts began by arguing that
the states should be free to say what
counts as marriage because the
Constitution doesn't define marriage
Roberts further noted that by
substituting its own judgment for state
legislators the majority usurped the
right of the people to redefine marriage
through the democratic process
additionally Roberts warned that if the
majority's reasoning is correct then
polygamous relationships should also be
entitled to constitutional protection
Justice Alito wrote a separate dissent
to argue that because the Constitution
is silent on same-sex marriage the issue
is reserved solely for the States
Justice Thomas in a separate dissent
noted that the majority opinion distorts
the doctrine of due process for Thomas
the Due Process Clause guarantees only
the process that is due before someone
is deprived of life liberty or property
thomas argued that the Due Process
Clause doesn't provide a basis for
creating new substantive rights and that
the majority's reading dangerously
stretches the constitutional text
Justice Scalia wrote a colorful bitter
dissent according to Scalia the majority
took on a judicial policymaking role by
resorting to pretentious content and
quote straining to be memorable passages
unquote for Scalia the majority opinion
was a quote threat to American democracy
unquote obergefell vs. Hodges is the
first Supreme Court case to conclude
that the constitutional right to marry
extends to same-sex couples the decision
was celebrated as a breakthrough ruling
that advances equality for same-sex
couples but also criticized as an
overstep of judicial authority