Supreme Court Opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges

This is an audio recording of Justice Anthony Kennedy reading the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage across the United States.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty and is protected under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. The decision required states to both issue marriage licenses between same-sex couples and recognize marriages between same-sex couples performed in any state.

The decision came exactly two years after the decision in United States v. Windsor required the Federal Government to treat same-sex marriages equally under the law.

Obergefell v. Hodges originated as the lower court case case of Obergefell v. Kasich in 2013. James Obergefell and his husband, John Arthur, sued Ohio Governor John Kasich for discrimination against same-sex couples who married lawfully out of state and, later, to force the state of Ohio to recognize same-sex unions on death certificates.

Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case, is the amalgamation of four court cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee—Obergefell v. Hodges (2014), Tanco v. Haslam (2013), Bourke v. Beshear (2013), and DeBoer v. Snyder (2012)—all challenging the constitutionality of those states' bans on same-sex marriage.

In this opinion, the Supreme Court stated:

The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all states; no longer may this liberty be denied to them.

The challenged laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage cannot stand under the Constitution. 

These cases also present the question whether the Constitution requires states to recognize same-sex marriage that were licensed in other states?

In light of the Court’s holding that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry, it follows that the Court must hold and now does hold that the challenged bans on recognition are invalid.

In response to the Supreme Court's decision, Obergefell said, "No other person will learn at the most painful moment of married life, the death of a spouse, that their lawful marriage will be disregarded by the state. No married couple who moves will suddenly become two single persons because their new state ignores their lawful marriage."

Transcript

[Introduction]

[Chief Justice John Roberts speaking]

Justice Kennedy has our opinion this morning in Case 14-556, Obergefell v. Hodges, and the consolidated cases.

[Justice Anthony Kennedy speaking]

These cases come to us from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee; those states define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Petitioners are 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased.

Respondents are state officials.

Petitioners claim that in these states respondents violate the Fourteenth Amendment, in some cases by denying them the right to marriage, and in some cases by refusing to recognize their marriages which were licensed in other states.

Petitioners filed these suits in the United States District Courts in their home states.

Each District Court ruled in their favor.

Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

It consolidated the cases and reversed.

This Court granted review, limited to two questions.

First, whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license same-sex marriages; and second, whether that amendment requires states to recognize same-sex marriages that were licensed in states which do grant that right?

Since the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives; this binds families and societies together, and it must be acknowledged that the opposite sex character of marriage, one man, one woman has long been viewed as essential to its very nature and purpose.

And the Court’s analysis and the opinion today begins with these millennia of human experience, but it does not end there.

For the history of marriage is one of both continuity and change.

As new dimensions of freedom have become apparent to new generations, the institution of marriage has been strengthened by evolution over time.

Until recent decades few persons had even thought about or considered the concept of same-sex marriage.

In part, that is because homosexuality was condemned and criminalized by many states through the mid-20th Century.

It was deemed an illness by most experts.

Of necessity, truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken.

Over the past half-century however substantial cultural and political developments and following those same-sex couples began to lead more open lives and to establish families.

This led to an extensive societal discussion and a shift toward greater tolerance of same-sex relationships.

Against that background the legal question of same-sex marriage arose.

The Courts have written a body of law considering all sides of the issue and after years of litigation, legislation, referenda, and public debates, the states are now divided on the question of same-sex marriage.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment long has been interpreted to protect certain fundamental rights central to individual dignity and autonomy.

The identification of these rights is guided by history and tradition, but the past alone does not rule the present.

For the nature of injustices, we do not always see it in our own times.

This Court has held the right to marry as fundamental.

Of course in doing so it resumed an opposite sex union, one man, one woman.

But the Court has expressed constitutional principles of broader reach and in assessing whether the force and rationale of its cases apply to same-sex couples, the Court must respect the basic reasons why the right to marry has been protected.

The first premise of the Court’s cases is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.

Like other choices protected by the Due Process Clause, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make.

Indeed, as the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has explained the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition, and this is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.

The second relevant principle is that marriage supports a two-person union, unlike any other in its importance.

Marriage dignifies couples that wish to define themselves by their commitment to each other.

In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court held that private intimacy of same-sex couples cannot be declared a crime, yet it does not follow that freedom stops there.

Outlaw to outcast may be a step forward, but it does not achieve the full promise of liberty.

Third, the right to marry safeguards children.

Many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted.

Hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by same-sex couples.

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with the central premise of the right to marry, inflicting stigma, uncertainty, and humiliation on the children of same-sex couples through no fault of their own.

Finally, marriage is a keystone of our social order, thus just as a couple vows to support each other, so does society pledges to support the couple, offering symbolic recognition and material benefits, including tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, child custody and support rules and adoption rights.

There’s no difference between same and opposite sex couples with respect to this principle.

Yet, by virtue of the challenged law same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits states have linked to marriage.

Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong hold that view based on decent and honorable premises.

Neither they, nor their beliefs are disparaged here, but when sincere personal opposition becomes an acted law, the requirements of the Constitution must be respected.

Although the limitation of marriage to opposite sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, its inconsistency with the right to marry is now manifest, it would diminish the personhood of same-sex couples to deny them this liberty.

The right of same-sex couples to marry is derived too from the Equal Protection Clause.

The Court’s cases touching upon the right to marry, as well as its cases addressing the legal treatment of gays and lesbians, have long emphasized the relation between liberty and equality.

The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all states; no longer may this liberty be denied to them.

The challenged laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage cannot stand under the Constitution.

These cases also present the question whether the Constitution requires states to recognize same-sex marriage that were licensed in other states?

In light of the Court’s holding that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry, it follows that the Court must hold and now does hold that the challenged bans on recognition are invalid.

There may be an inclination — there is an inclination in these cases to proceed with caution.

It is most often through democracy that liberty is preserved and protected in our lives.

Yet, there has been substantial public deliberation over the past decades and it is a central premise of our Constitution that fundamental rights depend on the outcome of no elections.

The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right.

Of course, those who oppose same-sex marriage, whether on religious or secular grounds, they continue to advocate that belief with the utmost conviction.

In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate.

This case concerns only what states may do under the Constitution.

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.

In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were, and it would misunderstand petitioners to say that they disrespect or diminish the idea of marriage in these cases.

Their plea is that they do respect it. They respect it so deeply they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.

They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law and the Constitution grants them that right.

For these reasons and others set out in the opinion, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

The Chief Justice has filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Scalia and Thomas joins.

Justice Scalia has filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joins.

Justice Thomas has filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Scalia joins.

And Justice Alito has filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Scalia and Thomas join.