Obergefell v. Hodges

Obergefell v. Hodges Summary

The Constitution does not define marriage. For most of US history, the traditional understanding viewed it as a state-recognized, legal union between one man and one woman. Over time, activists have challenged this definition of marriage through lawsuits while traditionalists have sought to protect it through legislation.

LGBTQ Rights

The civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s led to greater awareness of LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer) issues, especially relating to marriage. Many gay activists argued that gay marriage should be legalized to prevent discrimination. In addition to the social value that comes from a legalized marriage, there are a lot of benefits that are available only to married couples.

Defense of Marriage Act (1996)

As LGTBQ activists saw some wins in the 1980s and 90s, socially conservative groups raised alarm bells about the future of marriage. They feared that the growing acceptance would eventually lead to the legalization of gay marriage, which they felt would threaten their traditional definition of marriage. Signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) set the nationwide definition for marriage as:

It also asserted that no state, territory, or tribe will be required to recognize same-sex marriage.

Fig. 2 - A sign at a rally outside the Supreme Court shows the fear that same-sex marriage threatens the traditional idea of family. Matt Popovich, CC-Zero. Source: Wikimedia Commons

United States v. Windsor (2013)

Lawsuits against DOMA rose up pretty quickly as people challenged the idea that the federal government could ban gay marriage. Some states legalized gay marriage despite the federal definition provided in DOMA. Some people looked to the case of Loving v. Virginia from 1967, in which the courts ruled that prohibiting interracial marriages violated the 14th Amendment.

Eventually, one lawsuit rose up to the level of the Supreme Court. Two women, Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer, were legally married under New York law. When Spyer passed away, Windsor inherited her estate. However, because the marriage wasn't federally recognized, Windsor wasn't eligible for the marital tax exemption and was subject to over $350,000 in taxes.

The Supreme Court ruled that DOMA violated the Fifth Amendment's "equal protection under the law" provision and that it imposed stigma and a disadvantaged status on same-sex couples. As a result, they struck the law down, opening up the door for LGBTQ advocates to push for more protections.

Leading up to Obergefell v. Hodges

James Obergefell and John Arthur James were in a long-term relationship when John was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (also known as ALS or Lou Gehrig's Disease), a terminal illness. They lived in Ohio, where same-sex marriage was not recognized, and flew to Maryland to get legally married shortly before John's death. They both wanted Obergefell to be listed on the death certificate as John's legal spouse, but Ohio refused to recognize the marriage on the death certificate. The first lawsuit, filed in 2013 against the state of Ohio, resulted in the judge requiring Ohio to recognize the marriage. Tragically, John passed away shortly after the decision.

Fig. 3 - James and John got married on the tarmac in the Baltimore airport after flying from Cincinnati in a medical jet. James Obergefell, Source: NY Daily News

Soon, two more plaintiffs were added: a recently widowed man whose same-sex partner had recently passed away, and a funeral director who sought clarification on whether he was permitted to list same-sex couples on death certificates. They wanted to take the lawsuit a step further by saying that not only Ohio should recognize Obergefell and James's marriage, but that Ohio's refusal to recognize lawful marriages performed in another state was unconstitutional.

Other similar cases were happening simultaneously in other states: two in Kentucky, one in Michigan, one in Tennessee, and another one in Ohio. Some judges ruled in favor of the couples while others upheld the current law. Several of the states appealed the decision, ultimately sending it to the Supreme Court. All of the cases were consolidated under Obergefell v. Hodges.

Obergefell v. Hodges Decision

When it came to same-sex marriage, the courts were all over the place. Some ruled in favor while others ruled against. Ultimately, the Supreme Court had to look to the Constitution for its decision on Obergefell – specifically the Fourteenth Amendment:

Central Questions

The key provision that the judges looked at was the phrase "equal protection of the laws."

The central questions that the Supreme Court considered for the Obergefell v. Hodges decision were 1) whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license marriages between same-sex couples, and 2) whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to recognize same-sex marriage when the marriage was performed and licensed out of state.

Obergefell v. Hodges Ruling

On June 26, 2015 (the second anniversary of United States v. Windsor), the Supreme Court answered "yes" to the above questions, setting the precedent for the country that gay marriage is protected by the Constitution.

Majority Opinion

In a close decision (5 in favor, 4 against), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Constitution protecting same-sex marriage rights.

14th Amendment

Using the precedent set by Loving v. Virginia, the majority opinion said that the Fourteenth Amendment can be used to expand marriage rights. Writing the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy said:

State's Rights

One of the main arguments against the majority ruling was the issue of the federal government overstepping its bounds. The judges argued that the Constitution doesn't define marriage rights as being within the federal government's power, which means that it would automatically be a power reserved for the states. They felt that it came too close to judicial policymaking, which would be an inappropriate use of judicial authority. Additionally, the ruling could violate religious rights by taking the decision out of the states' hands and giving it to the court.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Roberts said:

Obergefell v. Hodges Impact

The decision quickly elicited strong reactions from both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage.

President Barack Obama quickly issued a statement supporting the decision, saying it "reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to the equal protection of the law; that all people should be treated equally, regardless of who they are or who they love."

Fig. 4 - The White House lit up in gay pride colors following the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges decision. David Sunshine, CC-BY-2.0. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Republican leader of the House John Boener said that he was disappointed in the ruling because he felt the Supreme Court "disregarded the democratically-enacted will of millions of Americans by forcing states to redefine the institution of marriage," and that he believed marriage is a "sacred vow between one man and one woman."

Opponents of the decision expressed concern over the impact on religious rights. Some prominent politicians have called for the decision to be overturned or for a constitutional amendment that would re-define marriage.

In 2022, the overturning of Roe v. Wade turned the issue of abortion over to states. Since the original Roe decision was based on the 14th Amendment, it led to more calls for the overturning of Obergefell on the same grounds.

Impact on LGBTQ Couples

The Supreme Court's decision immediately gave same-sex couples the right to get married, no matter what state they lived in.

LGBTQ Rights activists hailed it as a major win for civil rights and equality. Same-sex couples reported improvements in many areas of their lives as a result, especially when it came to adoption, receiving benefits in areas like healthcare and taxes, and reducing the social stigma around gay marriage. It also led to administrative changes – government forms that said "husband" and "wife," or "mother" and "father" were updated with gender-neutral language.