The 10-Year Anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges: Reflecting on the Case, Its Ramifications, and the Case for Reversal

The 10-Year Anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges: Reflecting on the Case, Its Ramifications, and the Case for Reversal

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide by ruling that state bans on such unions violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. As we mark the 10-year anniversary of this decision in 2025, it’s an opportune moment to revisit the case, analyze its societal and legal impacts, and argue why it should be reconsidered, both from a legal perspective and through the lens of Catholic Church teachings, which hold that marriage is an immutable institution between one man and one woman.

The Case: Obergefell v. Hodges

Obergefell v. Hodges consolidated lawsuits from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee, where same-sex couples challenged state bans on marriage or the recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. The lead plaintiff, Jim Obergefell, sought to have his Maryland marriage to John Arthur recognized on Arthur’s Ohio death certificate after Arthur’s death from ALS. Ohio’s ban on same-sex marriage, enacted by voters in 2004, prevented this recognition. Similar issues arose in other states, where couples argued that denying marriage licenses or recognition violated their constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that the right to marry is a fundamental right “inherent in the liberty of the person” and protected by the Due Process Clause. Additionally, the Equal Protection Clause was interpreted to prohibit states from denying same-sex couples the same marital rights as opposite-sex couples. The decision overturned state laws and constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, mandating that all states license and recognize same-sex marriages. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined the majority, while Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented.

Ramifications of the Decision

The Obergefell decision had sweeping legal, social, and cultural effects:

1. Legal Impact: The ruling nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriage, ensuring that same-sex couples could marry in all 50 states and access the same legal benefits—such as inheritance, tax advantages, and parental rights—as opposite-sex couples. It also required states to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. By 2025, an estimated 823,000 same-sex couples have married, generating significant economic activity, including $1.58 billion in wedding-related revenue.
2. Social Acceptance: The decision reflected and accelerated growing public support for same-sex marriage. By 2025, 68% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, up from 60% in 2015, though support among Republicans has declined from 55% in 2021 to 41% in 2025. The ruling normalized same-sex unions in media, culture, and daily life, with same-sex couples appearing routinely in television, movies, and suburban communities.
3. Religious Liberty Concerns: Critics, including the National Catholic Register and Christianity Today, warned that Obergefell could conflict with religious liberty. Dissenting justices, such as Chief Justice Roberts, argued that the decision could marginalize those with traditional views on marriage, potentially forcing religious institutions or individuals to act against their beliefs. For example, some counties in Alabama and Texas still resist issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing religious objections.
4. Political Backlash: The decision sparked ongoing resistance. In 2025, eight states introduced resolutions urging the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell, and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly to call for its overturn, inspired by the successful reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022.

The Argument That Obergefell Made No Difference and Destroyed Social Norms

While Obergefell expanded legal access to marriage, critics argue it has not fundamentally improved societal outcomes for same-sex couples in ways that justify its disruption of traditional norms. Marriage rates among same-sex couples have grown, but the broader social fabric has been strained by redefining an institution historically understood as a sacred union between a man and a woman. Critics contend that the decision undermined the intrinsic meaning of marriage, reducing it to a contract devoid of its complementary, procreative, and spiritual dimensions. Austin R. Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom argued that the ruling silenced millions of Americans by removing the debate from democratic processes, effectively imposing a new definition of marriage by judicial fiat.

The traditional view holds that marriage is a stabilizing force rooted in the biological and social complementarity of men and women, fostering family structures oriented toward child-rearing. By extending marriage to same-sex couples, Obergefell is seen by some as eroding this foundation, leading to a broader cultural shift where marriage is increasingly viewed as a personal arrangement rather than a societal institution with objective norms. This shift, critics argue, devalues marriage’s unique role, potentially weakening family structures without providing measurable societal benefits, such as improved health or economic outcomes, that outweigh the cultural cost.

The Legal Case for Reversal

From a legal perspective, reversing Obergefell hinges on challenging its constitutional reasoning and leveraging shifts in judicial philosophy:

1. Substantive Due Process Critique: The majority’s reliance on substantive due process to establish a fundamental right to same-sex marriage is contentious. Dissenting justices, including Scalia and Thomas, argued that the right to marry, while fundamental, does not extend to redefining marriage’s historical meaning. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that the Constitution does not mandate a singular definition of marriage, and states should retain the authority to define it through democratic processes. The 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, signaled a judicial skepticism toward expansive substantive due process claims, with Justice Thomas explicitly suggesting reconsideration of cases like * Howard University School of Law Library - A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States: Obergefell v. Hodges · Justia U.S. Supreme Court - Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) The Brookings Institution - Obergefell v. Hodges: Same sex marriage and cultural jousting at the Supreme Court · Business LibreTexts - Obergefell v. Hodges 576 US ___(2015) Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute - Obergefell v. Hodges · DigitalCommons at ONU - Obergefell v.

Federation of American Scientists - Obergefell v. Hodges: Same-Sex Marriage Legalized ... Encyclopaedia Britannica's editors oversee subject areas in which they have extensive knowledge, whether from years of experience gained by working on that content or via study for an advanced degree. They write new content and verify and edit content received from contributors. ... John G. Roberts, Jr. (Show more) ... What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US • June 22, 2025, 8:19 AM ET (AP) ...(Show more) Southern Baptist delegates at national meeting overwhelmingly call for banning same-sex marriage • June 10, 2025, 9:57 PM ET (AP) Show less · Obergefell v. Hodges, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) on June 26, 2015, that state bans on same-sex marriage and on recognizing same-sex marriages duly performed in other jurisdictions are unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.

The two questions presented by the case—the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans (the “marriage question”) and the constitutionality of bans on recognizing same-sex marriages (the “recognition” question)—were among various issues jointly presented in several related cases heard by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in August 2014. In a single opinion issued in November, the panel held (2–1), among other things, that the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Supreme Court’s own precedents were not inconsistent with state laws and constitutional amendments that defined marriage as a legal relation between one man and one woman only or that denied legal effect to same-sex marriages performed out-of-state. The plaintiffs in the cases immediately filed for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was granted in a consolidated case, Obergefell v. Hodges, in January 2015, limited to the marriage and recognition questions.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy asserted that the right to marry is a fundamental right “inherent in the liberty of the person” and is therefore protected by the due process clause, which prohibits the states from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” By virtue of the close connection between liberty and equality, the marriage right is also guaranteed by the equal protection clause, which forbids the states from “deny[ing] to any person…the equal protection of the laws.” Kennedy then argued at length that “the reasons marriage is fundamental,” including its connection with individual liberty, “apply with equal force to same-sex couples.” Such considerations, he concluded, compel the court to hold that “same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.” His opinion was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor.

A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. . . . Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and childrearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. Indeed, the Court has noted it would be contradictory “to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.” . . . A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. . . . Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there.

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening.

Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept. The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.

======

Obergefell v. Hodges | 576 U.S. 644 (2015) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center - supreme.justia.com Content: Obergefell v. Hodges: Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, all states must license a marriage between two people of the same sex and recognize such a marriage if it was lawfully licensed and performed in another state.

OBERGEFELL et al. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit · No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015[1] Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The petitioners, 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased, filed suits in Federal District Courts in their home States, claiming that respondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another State given full recognition. Each District Court ruled in petitioners’ favor, but the Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed. Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.

In Obergefell, District Judge Black issued a temporary restraining order, which the state did not appeal, and planned oral arguments on whether a permanent injunction should be granted. Unfortunately, Arthur died before arguments were held, and the state moved within a week to dismiss the case as moot. Black denied the motion and ruled two months later that Ohio must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states on death certificates. He also issued an order in Henry v. Wymyslo that required states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, although he stayed the enforcement of his ruling with respect to matters other than the birth certificates sought in this specific case. All four of these cases were appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which reversed the trial court decisions in each of them and reinstated the state bans on same-sex marriage.

Dow, 216 N. J. 314, 79 A. 3d 1036 (2013) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ Nos. 14–556, 14-562, 14-571 and 14–574 _________________ JAMES OBERGEFELL, et al., PETITIONERS 14–556v. RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al.; VALERIA TANCO, et al., PETITIONERS 14–562v. BILL HASLAM, GOVERNOR OF TENNESSEE, et al.; APRIL DeBOER, et al., PETITIONERS 14–571v. RICK SNYDER, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, et al.; AND GREGORY BOURKE, et al., PETITIONERS 14–574v. STEVE BESHEAR, GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY on writs of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit [June 26, 2015] Chief Justice Roberts, with whom Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas join, dissenting. Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, all states must license a marriage between two people of the same sex and recognize such a marriage if it was lawfully licensed and performed in another state. ... In Ohio, John Arthur was suffering from the latter stages of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a terminal illness. Recognizing the need to make critical end-of-life decisions, Arthur sought to have the Ohio Registrar identify his partner, James Obergefell, as his surviving spouse on his death certificate so that Obergefell could receive the benefits due to a spouse. Arthur and Obergefell had married in Maryland two years earlier. The Registrar planned to certify Obergefell as Arthur's spouse on the death certificate, believing that discrimination against same-sex couples was unconstitutional. The state of Ohio prohibited same-sex marriage, however, and its Attorney General's Office mobilized to defend that ban.

======

Obergefell v. Hodges - A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States - HUSL Library at Howard University School of Law - library.law.howard.edu Published: 2023-05-31 20:00 EDT Content: This guide focuses on the civil rights that various groups have fought for within the United States.

Obergefell v. Hodges coverage on SCOTUSBlog: Post includes links to opinion, docket, and blog coverage. ... This interactive map of the United States from the Washington Post provides links to relevant stories and outlines the changing landscape of same-sex marriage. 1970 - A same-sex couple in Minnesota applies for a marriage license. They are denied and their case goes to the state Supreme Court. 1973 - Maryland becomes the first state to ban same-sex marriage · 1976 - a non-church sanctioned gay wedding makes news · 1983 - 'spousal' rights of same-sex couples become an issue - a lesbian couple is confronted with the spousal rights issue when one of them is in a car accident and the other is denied the right to care for her. 1984 - Berkeley, CA passes the nation's first domestic partnership law · 1987 - first mass same-sex wedding ceremony - occurs on the National Mall - nearly 2000 same-sex marriages take place ·

2014 - Oregon, Pennsylvania, Kansas, and South Carolina legalize same-sex marriage. The Presbyterian church votes to allow same-sex ceremonies. The U.S. Supreme Court decides a case that allows for same-sex marriage in 5 states (VA, OK, UT, WI, and IN) but declines to make a blanket statement for all states. 2015 - The U.S. Supreme Court makes same-sex marriages legal in all 50 states in Obergefell v. Hodges. It is only fitting to end this timeline with the following quote from that decision: “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 once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage.

Same-sex marriage has been controversial for decades, but tremendous progress was made across the United States as states individually began to lift bans to same-sex marriage. Before the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) was decided, over 70% of states and the District of Columbia already recognized same-sex marriage, and only 13 states had bans. Fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners had since passed away, claimed Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or have their legal marriages performed in another state recognized. · All district courts found in favor of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the cases were consolidated, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and held that the states' bans on same-sex marriage and refusal to acknowledge legal same-sex marriages in other jurisdictions were not unconstitutional.

Efforts to quantify the impact of Obergefell include a June 2016 report drafted by the Williams Institute: UCLA School of Law. According to the report, "weddings by same-sex couples have generated an estimated $1.58 billion boost to the national economy, and $102 million in state and local sales tax revenue since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision extending marriage equality nationwide in June 2015." Over 130,000 same-sex couples married, bringing the total of same-sex couples in the U.S. to nearly 500,000. ... No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideal of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage.

======

Obergefell v. Hodges | Summary, History, Ruling, & Facts | Britannica - www.britannica.com[](https://www.britannica.com/event/Obergefell-v-Hodges) (http://www.britannica.com[](https://www.britannica.com/event/Obergefell-v-Hodges)) Published: 2025-06-10 20:00 EDT Content: Obergefell v. Hodges, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) on June 26, 2015, that state bans on same-sex marriage and on recognizing same-sex marriages duly performed in other jurisdictions are unconstitutional under due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - Health Implications of the Supreme Court's Obergefell vs. Hodges Marriage Equality Decision · Constitution Center - Obergefell v. Hodges · IdeaExchange at UAkron - Obergefell v. Hodges: How the Supreme Court Should have Decided the Case (PDF) American Historical Association - Perspectives on History - Which History in Obergefell v. Hodges? Howard University School of Law Library - A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States: Obergefell v. Hodges · Justia U.S. Supreme Court - Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) The Brookings Institution - Obergefell v. Hodges: Same sex marriage and cultural jousting at the Supreme Court · Business LibreTexts - Obergefell v. Hodges 576 US ___(2015) Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute - Obergefell v. Hodges · DigitalCommons at ONU - Obergefell v.

======

Obergefell v. Hodges | Constitution Center - constitutioncenter.org Content: National Constitution Center Supreme Court Case Library: Obergefell v. Hodges

Jim Obergefell and others sued for recognition of their same-sex marriages, which were legal in the states where they were married but illegal in other states. The denial of marriage impedes many legal rights and privileges, such as adoptions, parental rights, and property transfer. The Court has long held that marriage is a fundamental right. Here, the Court held that states must allow and recognize same-sex marriages under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy concluded that the fundamental right to marry cannot be limited to heterosexual couples. ... The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution. That responsibility, however, “has not been reduced to any formula.” Rather, it requires courts to exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect.

A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. . . . Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and childrearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. Indeed, the Court has noted it would be contradictory “to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.” . . . A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. . . . Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there.

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening.

Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept. The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.

======

OBERGEFELL v. HODGES | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute - www.law.cornell.edu[](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556) (http://www.law.cornell.edu[](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556)) Published: 2015-06-25 20:00 EDT Content: OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 772 F. 3d 388, reversed. ... NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. ... OBERGEFELL et al. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al. No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 20151 · Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The petitioners, 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased, filed suits in Federal District Courts in their home States, claiming that respondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them ...

OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 772 F. 3d 388, reversed. ... NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. ... OBERGEFELL et al. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al. No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 20151 · Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The petitioners, 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased, filed suits in Federal District Courts in their home States, claiming that respondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another State given full recognition.

See, e.g., Mich. Const., Art. I, §25; Ky. Const. §233A; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3101.01 (Lexis 2008); Tenn. Const., Art. XI, §18. The petitioners are 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased. The respondents are state officials responsible for enforcing the laws in question. The petitioners claim the respondents violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have their marriages, lawfully performed in another State, given full recognition. Petitioners filed these suits in United States District Courts in their home States. Each District Court ruled in their favor. Citations to those cases are in Appendix A, infra. The respondents appealed the decisions against them to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. It consolidated the cases and reversed the judgments of the District Courts.

In 2012, voters in Maine did the same, reversing the result of a referendum just three years earlier in which they had upheld the traditional definition of marriage. In all, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have changed their definitions of marriage to include same-sex couples. The highest courts of five States have decreed that same result under their own Constitutions. The remainder of the States retain the traditional definition of marriage. Petitioners brought lawsuits contending that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment compel their States to license and recognize marriages between same-sex couples. In a carefully reasoned decision, the Court of Appeals acknowledged the democratic “momentum” in favor of “expand[ing] the definition of marriage to include gay couples,” but concluded that petitioners had not made “the case for constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from the place it has been since the founding: in the hands of state voters.” 772 F.

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 the enduring importance of marriage that underlies the petitioners’ contentions. This, they say, is their whole point. Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—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. Recounting the circumstances of three of these cases illustrates the urgency of the petitioners’ cause from their perspective. Petitioner James Obergefell, a plaintiff in the Ohio case, met John Arthur over two decades ago.

======

Obergefell v. Hodges - SCOTUSblog - www.scotusblog.com[](https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/obergefell-v-hodges/) (http://www.scotusblog.com[](https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/obergefell-v-hodges/)) Published: 2014-11-18 17:18 EST Content: A view from the Courtroom, Same-Sex Marriage Edition (Mark Walsh, April 28, 2015) No clear answers on same-sex marriage: In Plain English (Amy Howe, April 28, 2015) Live blog: Obergefell v. Hodges oral argument updates (Kali Borkoski, April 28, 2015) Same-sex marriage, in Plain English -- Part I (Amy Howe, April 27, 2015) Same-sex marriage: The decisive questions (Lyle Denniston, April 26, 2015) A reporter's guide to covering the same-sex marriage cases at the Supreme Court (Amy Howe, April 20, 2015) Preview on same-sex marriage -- Part IV, Supporting the state bans (Lyle Denniston, April 18, 2015) Commentary: The Supreme Court and marriage for same-sex couples — Part II (Michael Klarman, April 16, 2015) Commentary: The Supreme Court and marriage for same-sex couples -- Part I (Michael Klarman, April 15, 2015) Preview on same-sex marriage -- Part III, Supporting the couples (Lyle ...

A view from the Courtroom, Same-Sex Marriage Edition (Mark Walsh, April 28, 2015) No clear answers on same-sex marriage: In Plain English (Amy Howe, April 28, 2015) Live blog: Obergefell v. Hodges oral argument updates (Kali Borkoski, April 28, 2015) Same-sex marriage, in Plain English -- Part I (Amy Howe, April 27, 2015) Same-sex marriage: The decisive questions (Lyle Denniston, April 26, 2015) A reporter's guide to covering the same-sex marriage cases at the Supreme Court (Amy Howe, April 20, 2015) Preview on same-sex marriage -- Part IV, Supporting the state bans (Lyle Denniston, April 18, 2015) Commentary: The Supreme Court and marriage for same-sex couples — Part II (Michael Klarman, April 16, 2015) Commentary: The Supreme Court and marriage for same-sex couples -- Part I (Michael Klarman, April 15, 2015) Preview on same-sex marriage -- Part III, Supporting the couples (Lyle Denniston, April 15, 2015) Preview on same-sex marriage -- Part II, The states' views (Lyle Denniston, April 14, 2015) Preview on same-sex marriage -- Part I, The couples' views (Lyle Denniston, April 13, 2015) Lawyers for same-sex marriage plea named (Lyle Denniston, March 31, 2015) U.S.

Holding: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state. Judgment: Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on June 26, 2015. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Scalia and Thomas joined. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Scalia joined. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Scalia and Thomas joined. Academic highlight: Yoshino on Obergefell v. Hodges (Amanda Frost, November 18, 2015) Symposium: In defense of Justice Kennedy's soaring language (Michael Dorf, June 27, 2015) Symposium: A landmark victory for civil rights (Erwin Chemerinsky, June 27, 2015) Symposium: A fair and proper application of the Fourteenth Amendment (Paul Smith, June 27, 2015) Symposium: Sometimes it takes unelected Justices, not the political process, to give Americans the law they really want (Steve Sanders, June 27, 2015) Symposium: Overruling Windsor (Kyle Duncan, June 27, 2015) Symposium: "Oh, well, we know better."

Symposium: Supreme Court should address the domestic-relations exception to federal jurisdiction in its marriage-case decision (Lawrence Joseph, January 17, 2015) Symposium: Original meaning, public deliberation, and marriage equality (William Eskridge, January 17, 2015) Symposium: Good faith and caution, not irrationality or malice (Andrew Brasher, January 16, 2015) Symposium: Let's be clear – the marriage bans are about animus (Steve Sanders, January 16, 2015) Symposium: Cert.

======

Obergefell v. Hodges | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute - www.law.cornell.edu[](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obergefell_v._hodges) (http://www.law.cornell.edu[](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obergefell_v._hodges)) Content: National Catholic Register and Christianity Today, argued that there may be conflict between the ruling and religious liberty, mirroring the arguments of the dissent. To this day not all states, and definitely not all courts, view same-sex marriage as a settled issue. While the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States, as of June 21, 2017, nine counties in Alabama and Texas still do not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Those within these counties who wish to marry within the state must travel to another part of the state in order to obtain a license. Additionally, some counties may require at least one person to be a resident of the county in order to receive a marriage license. In fact, some argue that it’s increasingly apparent that marriage equality opponents have a long-term plan to roll back, and eventually reverse, the effect of the Obergefell ...

National Catholic Register and Christianity Today, argued that there may be conflict between the ruling and religious liberty, mirroring the arguments of the dissent. To this day not all states, and definitely not all courts, view same-sex marriage as a settled issue. While the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States, as of June 21, 2017, nine counties in Alabama and Texas still do not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Those within these counties who wish to marry within the state must travel to another part of the state in order to obtain a license. Additionally, some counties may require at least one person to be a resident of the county in order to receive a marriage license. In fact, some argue that it’s increasingly apparent that marriage equality opponents have a long-term plan to roll back, and eventually reverse, the effect of the Obergefell decision.

In early 2016, Arkansas asserted that the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision did not require the state to list married same-sex parents on their children’s birth certificate. This argument is flawed: Obergefell compels states to extend “the constellation of [marital] benefits” to same-sex couples, and mandates equal treatment for “birth and death certificates.” And yet, Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the state’s refusal to extend these privileges to same-sex couples. On June 26, 2017 in Pavan v. Smith the Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed Obergefell’ s core holding that states must extend all benefits and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples and reversed the decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court.

On November 6, 2014, in a decision styled DeBoer v. Snyder , the Sixth Circuit ruled 2–1 that Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage did not violate the U.S. Constitution. The court said it was bound by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1972 action in a similar case, Baker v. Nelson, which dismissed a same-sex couple's marriage claim "for want of a substantial federal question". Writing for the majority, Judge Sutton also dismissed the arguments made on behalf of same-sex couples in this case: "Not one of the plaintiffs' theories, however, makes the case for constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from the place it has been since the founding: in the hands of state voters." Claimants from each of the six district court cases appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. On November 14, 2014, plaintiffs in DeBoer v. Snyder , Obergefell v. Hodges , and Tanco v.

Obergefell v. Hodges is a landmark case in which on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held, in 5-4 decision, that state bans on same-sex marriage and on recognizing same sex marriages duly performed in other jurisdictions are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

======

Supremecourt - www.supremecourt.gov[](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-476/227884/20220614132338901_42501%2520pdf%2520Goldstein.pdf) (http://www.supremecourt.gov[](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-476/227884/20220614132338901_42501%2520pdf%2520Goldstein.pdf))

======

Justice - www.justice.gov[](https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2015/06/26/obergefellhodgesopinion.pdf) (http://www.justice.gov[](https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2015/06/26/obergefellhodgesopinion.pdf)) Published: 2015-06-25 20:00 EDT

======

How America Changed After the Supreme Court Legalized Same-Sex Marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges - The New York Times - www.nytimes.com[](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/us/politics/gay-marriage-obergefell-hodges-anniversary.html) (http://www.nytimes.com[](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/us/politics/gay-marriage-obergefell-hodges-anniversary.html)) Published: 2025-06-26 05:04 EDT Content: On the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationally, supporters say they are secure but also wary and watchful.

On the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationally, supporters say they are secure but also wary and watchful. ... Supporters of same-sex marriage celebrated the Obergefell v. Hodges decision 10 years ago.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times · By Adam Nagourney and Jeremy W. Peters · June 26, 2025Updated 12:42 p.m. ET ... Gay Americans and their allies have much to celebrate on Thursday, the 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Same-sex marriage has, by almost every indication, become ingrained in everyday American life. Since the decision, there have been 591,000 same-sex marriages, and today, nearly two-thirds of Americans approve of the policy. Same-sex couples are staples in contemporary movies and television shows, and reside, often with their children, in small towns, cities and suburbs all across America.

“If you ask me, ‘Could this happen?’ — of course it could happen,” said Mr. Wolfson, who called from an airport on his way to Alabama for an event celebrating the anniversary of the marriage ruling. “Are there two votes on the Supreme Court to do this damage? Yes,” he said, mentioning Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. ... The difference between Obergefell and Roe, he said, was that public support for gay marriage had been building long before the court acted. “The court did not jump out ahead of public opinion,” he said. “We had won the freedom to marry in 37 states by the time of the ruling.” · Indeed, the contrast between what happened 10 years after Roe and 10 years after Obergefell is striking. “Constitutional amendments to effectively overturn Roe were regularly being introduced in Congress, and in 1983, a bipartisan amendment got 49 votes in the Senate,” Mr.

The pressure campaign to reconsider Obergefell is no surprise to gay rights advocates, who have spent decades in trench warfare on these issues. Still, the very nature of trying to reverse Supreme Court precedent is a long and grueling game. “There are some people who are trying to stir the pot,” Ms. Bonauto said. “And I don’t want to exaggerate their influence. Far from it. But we have to be watchful and wary.” · Adam Nagourney is a Times reporter covering government, political and cultural stories in California, focusing on the effort to rebuild Los Angeles after the fires. He also writes about national politics. Jeremy W. Peters is a Times reporter who covers debates over free expression and how they impact higher education and other vital American institutions. See more on: U.S. Politics, U.S.

James Obergefell, the plaintiff in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, spoke outside the Supreme Court in 2015.Credit...Olivier Douliery/Getty Images · Among Republicans, support for same-sex marriage has dropped significantly — to 41 percent last month, from 55 percent in 2021, according to a Gallup poll. The finding reflects the Republican move to the right, as well as what analysts said is a spillover from rising backlash to other L.G.B.T.Q. issues — in particular, the push for transgender rights. The Southern Baptist Convention, which is often seen as a strong indicator of conservative evangelical opinion, voted overwhelmingly earlier this month to call on the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell, citing inspiration from the successful effort to overturn Roe. That echoed a similar call from conservative activists in states like Michigan and Tennessee.

======

United in Love: Understanding Obergefell v. Hodges and Marriage Equality in 2025 - Equality Ohio - equalityohio.org Published: 2025-03-11 05:58 EDT Content: Original Post: March 11, 2025, Last Updated: 03/11/2025 The start of 2025 has created a lot of uncertainty for LGBTQ+ Ohioans. The unprecedented number of executive orders directed at our […]

Original Post: March 11, 2025, Last Updated: 03/11/2025 The start of 2025 has created a lot of uncertainty for LGBTQ+ Ohioans. The unprecedented number of executive orders directed at our community and the implementation of SB 104 have significantly impacted trans youth healthcare and other essential rights. Many in our community have also shared their

A conversation with Al Gerhardstein, Lead Counsel for Jim Obergefell, Obergefell v Hodges ... The short answer is, “pretty secure” but not absolutely secure. · The longer answer is the power of precedent. · The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is not supposed to flip flop. The Court occasionally reverses prior decisions, but that is supposed to be a rare event, pursued slowly, with deliberation. For SCOTUS to overturn Obergefell, there would need to be a case in litigation that makes it all the way up to the Supreme Court, and is then granted—we have no indications that is occurring at this time. · For example, the courts issued many court decisions on limitations of reproductive rights, slowly building the case to reverse Roe v. Wade. After standing for 50 years, the SCOTUS decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health was decided.

They met in the early 1990s at a bar near the University of Cincinnati, quickly falling in love. Together, they built a life, working in IT consulting and sharing a deep bond. When Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, they made the decision to marry, traveling to Maryland—where same-sex marriage was legal—exchanging vows aboard a private plane on the tarmac. But Ohio refused to recognize their marriage. Before Arthur’s passing, the couple knew that the state would not list Jim as his surviving spouse. Determined to honor their love and demand justice, they took legal action—a fight that would ultimately transform the lives of millions of LGBTQ+ people across the United States. On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Obergefell v. Hodges in a landmark decision. The court’s decision affirmed the right of same-sex couples to marry and required states to license and recognize these marriages.

We are now 10 years into life after Obergefell. No serious momentum in the case law is currently building to reverse this decision. · We’d also like to note that, for parents, this is a good time to review Equality Ohio Legal Clinic’s Family Law Guide, and ensure that you have taken the preventative steps needed to ensure legal parentage of your children. You can also reach out to our legal clinic, or follow our Linktree and social media for legal event updates. · What about the wording of Justice Thomas in the Dobbs decision? In his concurring decision in Dobbs, Justice Clarence Thomas said that prior decisions based on the theory of substantive due process, including decisions overruling bans on contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), oral and anal sex (Lawrence v. Texas), and gay marriage (Obgerfell v. Hodges), should be reconsidered. No other justice directly joined in his decision, and his words have no binding precedent.

======

{{meta.pageTitle}} - www.oyez.org[](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556) (http://www.oyez.org[](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556)) Published: 2017-06-25 20:00 EDT

======

Southern Baptists to Vote on Effort to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage - The New York Times - www.nytimes.com[](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/08/us/same-sex-marriage-baptists-obergefell.html) (http://www.nytimes.com[](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/08/us/same-sex-marriage-baptists-obergefell.html)) Published: 2025-06-08 05:01 EDT Content: Motivated by their success in reversing Roe v. Wade, conservative Christian activists have a new target in Obergefell v. Hodges. They see early signs of promise.

Southern Baptists plan to vote this week on acting to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage 10 years ago this month. The step is part of a growing effort by evangelicals nationwide to reverse Obergefell, and coincides with a renewed campaign in state legislatures to challenge the widely accepted view that same-sex marriage has become an established civil right. While the Southern Baptist Convention has long opposed gay marriage, the vote at its annual meeting in Dallas will be the first time that the largest Protestant denomination in America will ask representatives of its tens of thousands of member churches to work to end it. Conservative Christian activists hope to build on their movement’s success in overturning Roe v. Wade, the now-defunct Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, in 2022, and to apply the legal and political strategies that proved effective for that victory.

Earlier this year his group worked with legislators in Idaho on the language of a resolution that passed the Idaho House of Representatives calling on the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell. Republican lawmakers, at times drawing on certain Christian principles, introduced similar measures calling for Obergefell’s reversal in states like Michigan, Montana and South Dakota, and partially passed them in North Dakota and Idaho. “That begins to show a sentiment from legislative officials, and it just begins to build a momentum,” Mr. Staver said. And while efforts like the S.B.C. measure and the resolutions in the states have been largely independent of each other, he said, “that momentum results in more coordination” between ideologically aligned groups, which was effective in overturning Roe. The Southern Baptist Convention, a largely conservative network of churches, has taken a rightward turn in recent years, particularly on issues of marriage, family and sex.

Of the nine Supreme Court justices, only Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have suggested that the court should reconsider Obergefell, which was decided by a 5-4 majority. Chief Justice John Roberts, now a swing vote, issued a strong dissent in the Obergefell ruling. In his concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, the case that overturned Roe, Justice Thomas directly argued that the rationale the court used to negate a right to abortion should be used to overturn cases that established rights to same-sex marriage, consensual same-sex relations and contraception. ... Mathew Staver, a Southern Baptist and the chairman of the Liberty Counsel, has been trying for two decades to use the courts to stop gay marriage, ever since states began to legalize it in 2004.Credit...Brendan Farrington/Associated Press · Next month Mathew Staver, a Southern Baptist and the chairman of the Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal group, plans to ask the Supreme Court to hear a case about Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2015.

An attempt to further expand restrictions on women in church leadership gained traction in 2023, but did not pass a second required vote in 2024. That effort is expected to be revived this week. Elizabeth Dias is The Times’s national religion correspondent, covering faith, politics and values. A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 18 of the New York edition with the headline: Southern Baptists to Vote On Ending Gay Marriage. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe · See more on: Alliance Defending Freedom, Southern Baptist Convention, U.S. Supreme Court ... Sending Migrants to South Sudan: The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to allow speedy deportations of migrants to countries other than their own, despite a federal judge’s ruling that they must be first allowed a “meaningful opportunity” to object.

======

Obergefell v. Hodges / Henry v. Hodges - Lambda Legal - lambdalegal.org Published: 2014-04-14 11:57 EDT Content: The landmark case that helped bring equal marriage nationwide. Henry v. Hodges sought recognition of out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples and their rights as parents to their children. Ohio refuses to even grant accurate birth certificates listing both parents for children born in Ohio to legally married same-sex couples. Ohio’s refusal to recognize legal marriages...

The landmark case that helped bring equal marriage nationwide. Henry v. Hodges sought recognition of out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples and their rights as parents to their children. Ohio refuses to even grant accurate birth certificates listing both parents for children born in Ohio to legally married same-sex couples. Ohio’s refusal to recognize legal marriages of same-sex couples from out of state forces the loving, committed couples to name only one parent on a child’s birth certificate. Plaintiffs include four married couples seeking both recognition of their marriages in Ohio as well as, most urgently, an order requiring the State to place the names of both parents on the birth certificates of their babies. Three of the couples conceived using donors and gave birth in Ohio hospitals. The fourth couple are married men living in New York City whose adopted son was born in Ohio.

November 6, 2014 The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld as constitutional bans on marriage rights for same-sex couples in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee, becoming the first federal circuit court after the Supreme Court’s watershed 2013 Windsor ruling to uphold such bans and departing from recent decisions from the 4th, 7th, 9th and 10th Circuits. November 14, 2014 Lambda Legal, the ACLU and private firm Gerhardstein & Branch filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ aberrant ruling upholding discriminatory bans on marriage rights for same-sex couples in Ohio and three other states. January 16, 2015 The U. S. Supreme Court grants review of this case, alongside other marriage equality and recognition cases from the 6th Circuit. The high court has set the stage for final resolution of the debate about marriage equality for same-sex couples across the country. April 28, 2015 Oral arguments held before the Supreme Court in the combined cases now known as Obergefell v. Hodges.

Brief Amici Curiae of 92 Plaintiffs in Marriage Cases (03/10/2015) Brief of Amicus Curiae Freedom to Marry (03/10/2015) ... Brief of Amicus Curiae President of the House of Deputies of the Episcopal Church, et al (03/10/2015) Brief of Employers as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners (03/9/2015) Brief of Members of Congress as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners (03/9/2015) Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners (03/9/2015) Brief of Amici Curiae Kenneth B. Mehlman et al. Supporting Petitioners (03/6/2015) ... Your gift today keeps Lambda Legal's lawyers in courtrooms across the country fighting to strike down these morally wrong and legally unconstitutional laws, and we need your support now more than ever. ... Thank you for playing a leading role in an organization whose unstoppable future is inseparable from the movement for LGBTQ+ rights and everyone living with HIV!

Brief Amici Curiae of Historians of Marriage, et al (03/11/2015) Brief of Amicus Curiae The Organization of American Historians (03/11/2015) Brief of Amici Curiae NAACP in Support of Petitioners (03/11/2015) Brief Amicus Curiae of NFCRC in Support of Petitioners (03/11/2015) Brief of Prof.

======

Health Implications of the Supreme Court's Obergefell vs. Hodges Marriage Equality Decision - PMC - pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Content: The United States Supreme Court's Obergefell vs. Hodges groundbreaking marriage equality decision also created new terrain for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons regarding health, healthcare, and health benefits. This article ...

The United States Supreme Court's Obergefell vs. Hodges groundbreaking marriage equality decision also created new terrain for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons regarding health, healthcare, and health benefits. This article addresses the health implications of this decision by examining its impact on minority stress and stigmatization and health-related benefits. It also includes a discussion of several impending issues affecting LGBT health that remain after Obergefell. Key words: : benefits, health, LGBT, marriage, minority stress, Obergefell · On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court rendered its landmark Obergefell vs. Hodges decision, which recognized that all states (1) must recognize marriage between two same-sex individuals within their state; and (2) must recognize marriages of same-sex couples performed in other states.1 In addition to providing marriage equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons, the Obergefell decision also affected issues related to health, healthcare, and health benefits for LGBT persons.

While sometimes referred to as a “gay marriage” decision, Obergefell affects all same-sex couples that seek marriage, including some couples in which one or both members are transgender. This decision affects these couples, too, because most states have tied legal marriage to state identification documents (e.g., birth certificates, drivers' licenses), and many couples with a transgender partner whose state documents identified both partners as the same gender were also denied marriage benefits prior to Obergefell. Even transgender persons who identified themselves in opposite-sexed partnerships were denied marriage if they lived in states that prohibited them from amending their gender on state documents (e.g., Ohio) or lived in states that required onerous medical procedures to modify their gender on state documents. Research suggests that denying marriage to same-sex couples may have had negative health implications for LGBT persons.

Moreover, research regarding long-term stress exposure suggests that chronic stress caused by discrimination may continue to linger—and in some cases—result in negative health consequences that may be irreversible. Research has documented that chronic stress can produce long-lasting changes in the brain, including structural changes and loss of brain volume in some regions, that are linked with anxiety, depression, and substance abuse.16,17 Research is still emerging in this field but suggests the importance of eradicating all forms of discrimination against LGBT persons—and sooner rather than later. While discrimination against LGBT persons will continue to negatively affect LGBT health, the Obergefell decision, however, moves LGBT persons one step closer to better health by affirming marriage equality and thus the dignity of LGBT couples to have equal rights as their opposite-sexed peers in this legal arena.

In addition to potentially improving mental and physical health by decreasing minority stress and stigmatization, the Obergefell decision indirectly affects the health of many LGBT persons by expanding federal and state health-related benefits. Obergefell followed an earlier Supreme Court decision—United States vs. Windsor18—that invalidated Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Section 3 defined marriage between a man and woman and thus precluded same-sex spouses from federal benefits. After Windsor, same-sex couples who lived in states with marriage bans but married elsewhere gained some federal benefits when they returned home. However, they were still denied all state benefits of marriage and some federal benefits that were tied to their residence, including spousal veterans' benefits and social security benefits. Only after Obergefell did all same-sex couples gain these rights if they chose to marry.

======

Obergefell v. Hodges: Marriage Equality at the Supreme Court - GLAD Law - www.gladlaw.org[](https://www.gladlaw.org/cases/obergefell-v-hodges/) (http://www.gladlaw.org[](https://www.gladlaw.org/cases/obergefell-v-hodges/)) Published: 2025-06-04 22:50 EDT Content: Home » Obergefell v. Hodges: Marriage Equality at the Supreme Court · June 26, 2015: Victory

Obergefell v. Hodges and Henry v. Hodges were brought by Lambda Legal and private counsel in Ohio; and Tanco v. Haslam, were brought by NCLR and private counsel in Tennessee. On November 14, attorneys for Michigan couple April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case, seeking to overturn the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision upholding bans on marriage for same-sex couples in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse are both nurses and are the mothers of four children they fostered and adopted and are fostering a fifth. They are devoted to each other, to their kids, and they should be able to marry. U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman ruled in March 2014 that Michigan’s laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying are unconstitutional, following a two-week trial in which expert testimony was heard from the nation’s leading psychologists, sociologists, child welfare professionals, and historians.

Home » Obergefell v. Hodges: Marriage Equality at the Supreme Court ... June 26, 2015: Victory! In a blockbuster legal and cultural moment for the country, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples in the United States, no matter where they live, have the same legal right to marry as different-sex couples. Learn more here. GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary L. Bonauto argued before the U.S. Supreme Court April 28, 2015 on behalf of same-sex couples who are challenged their states’ marriage bans. She stood on behalf of petitioners April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse in the Michigan case DeBoer v. Snyder and Timothy Love, Lawrence Ysunza, Maurice Blanchard and Dominique James in the Kentucky case Love v. Beshear (joined with Bourke v. Beshear) and same-sex couples across the country who were excluded from marriage. Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, partner at Ropes & Gray LLP, represented petitioners seeking recognition of their marriages.

In a departure from nearly 50 pro-marriage decisions across the U.S. since June 2013, a three-member panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ issued its opinion on November 6, 2014 reversing Judge Friedman’s ruling, along with similar rulings from Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. ... Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court · 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling, November 6, 2014 · Brief of Amici Curiae 92 Plaintiffs in Marriage Cases in Alabama et al. in Support of Petitioners · Brief of Amici Curiae 167 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives et al. in Support of Petitioners · Brief of Amici Curiae 226 U.S. Mayors et al. in Support of Petitioners · Brief of Amici Curiae 379 Employers and Organizations Representing Employers in Support of Petitioners · Brief of Amici Curiae Anti-Defamation League et al. in Support of Petitioners ·

Brief of Amicus Curiae Americans United for Separation of Church and State in Support of Petitioners · Brief of Amici Curiae Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, et al. in Support of Petitioners ... President Biden awards the medal to Americans whose dedication and sacrifice has made the country better. Read More · On issues impacting LGBTQ+ people, conversations with people with different viewpoints can have a powerful impact. Read More · 20 years ago, marriage equality seemed impossible. But we did it. And together, we will do the impossible again. Read More ... The Supreme Court’s ruling on health care for transgender youth is devastating. If you have questions about your rights, our legal infoline can help. Contact GLAD Law Answers today. X · We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website. You can find out more about which cookies we are using or switch them off in settings.

======

What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US - apnews.com Published: 2025-06-25 22:49 EDT Content: A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v.

As he reflects of the decision’s 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015.

The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell’s home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here’s what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling’s immediate and longer term effects: ... Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011.

The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it “inherent in the liberty of the person,” and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law.

Demonstrators hold a rainbow pride flag outside the Supreme Court as justices deliberate Obergefell vs. Hodges, the case that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, in Washington, April 28, 2015. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File) Read More ... Same sex couples from Madison and surrounding counties celebrate as they get their marriage licenses and get married in Huntsville, Ala., Feb. 9, 2015, during a Wedding Week Huntsville event honoring the legalization of same-sex marriage. (Sarah Cole/The Huntsville Times via AP, File) Read More ... James Obergefell of the Human Rights Campaign speaks to a journalist as the campaign delivers copies of the “People’s Brief,” calling for full nationwide marriage equality, in Washington, March 6, 2015. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File) Read More · What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US ...

======

Obergefell v. Hodges - ACLU of Ohio - www.acluohio.org[](https://www.acluohio.org/cases/obergefell-v-hodges/) (http://www.acluohio.org[](https://www.acluohio.org/cases/obergefell-v-hodges/)) Published: 2022-05-04 03:35 EDT Content: Two individuals, James Obergefell and John Arthur James filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriage on death certificates. The two were legally married in Maryland in 2013. Mr. Arthur, who suffered from a terminal illness, died several months after litigation began. Due to Ohio law, under both the Ohio Constitution and […]

Richard Hodges replaced Mr. Himes as Defendant after being appointed Director of the Ohio Department of Health in August 2014. On April 24, 2014 Appellee Obergefell filed the Appellee Brief. Appellant Himes filed a Reply Brief on May 12, 2014. During this period, numerous amicus briefs were filed to support each side. Oral arguments took place on August 6, 2014. On November 6, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision. Judge Sutton wrote the opinion of the court, in which Judge Cook joined. Judge Daughtrey dissented. On November 14, 2014, Obergefell filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 16, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order granting certiorari and agreeing to hear the case. In its order, the Supreme Court consolidated this case with other Sixth Circuit cases challenging same-sex marriage restrictions.

The Court ordered that each party brief one of two issues that pertain to its respective case: 1) Whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex; and 2) Whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state. This case addresses the second question, and we filed our merit brief on February 27, 2015. The respondents’ briefs were filed on March 27, 2015, and our Reply brief was filed on April 17, 2015. The case was heard on April 28, 2015. On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a landmark decision that the 14th Amendment requires all states to license marriages between same-sex couples and to recognize all marriages that were lawfully performed out of state.

Two individuals, James Obergefell and John Arthur James filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriage on death certificates. The two were legally married in Maryland in 2013. Mr. Arthur, who suffered from a terminal illness, died several months after litigation began. Due to Ohio law, under both the Ohio Constitution and the Ohio Revised Code, plaintiffs believed that state officials would refuse to indicate Mr. Arthur was married at the time of his death and that Mr. Obergefell was his spouse. The plaintiffs filed the case on July 19, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and the case was assigned to Judge Timothy S. Black. The original defendants were Governor John Kasich, Attorney General Mike DeWine and Registrar of the City of Cincinnati Health Department, Office of Vital Records, Dr.

In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs sought a declaration from the court that Ohio’s practice of denying recognition of marriages lawfully performed in other states on death certificates is unconstitutional and requested an injunction to stop this practice. On December 23, 2013, Judge Black held that Ohio’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states violates the substantive due process and equal protection rights of the parties to those marriages. Judge Black also declared the ban on recognizing same-sex marriages legally performed outside Ohio to be unconstitutional and prohibited the State from enforcing the ban on the plaintiffs. Wymyslo appealed the case to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The state’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed out of state on death certificates violates due process and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

======

Obergefell v. Hodges - Ballotpedia - ballotpedia.org Published: 2015-07-01 20:00 EDT Content: Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges on April 28, 2015. The court limited the argument to two questions: Question #1: Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? ... Question #2: Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?[2] ... Reversing the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Supreme Court held on June 26, 2015, that same-sex marriage is a protected right under the Constitution. State bans prohibiting same-sex marriages were struck down, and all states must recognize same-sex marriages performed out of state. The 5-4 opinion was authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined.

On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that same-sex marriage is protected under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, same-sex marriage bans have been struck down as unconstitutional and same-sex marriages performed out-of-state must be recognized in other states.[1] Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion and Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito each authored a dissent. This historic case, Obergefell v. Hodges, consolidated four same-sex marriage cases from Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky and picked up where the 2013 case United States v. Windsor left off. In Windsor, the court ruled that part of HR 3396 - Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional but did not address the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.

In so doing, the Court will have given – as it usually does – the majority of Americans the Constitution that they want. The ruling will be widely hailed as the Brown v. Board of Education of the gay rights movement. Yet, as with Brown, the Court will be reflecting public opinion more than it shaped it. Also as with Brown, the Court will be rendering a decision that would have been nearly inconceivable only a couple of decades before it happened."[4] Klarman's assertion that the Supreme Court would give "the majority of Americans the Constitution that they want" by ruling in favor of the couples reflects recent public opinion polls about same-sex marriage. Polls conducted by USA Today and The Washington Post with ABC News in April 2015 indicated that 6 in 10 Americans support same-sex marriage.[5][6] The Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor led, in part, to many states legalizing same-sex marriage and set the stage for Obergefell v. Hodges.

Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner was less supportive of the decision, saying, "All human beings are created equal by God and thus deserve to be treated with love, dignity and respect. I am, however, disappointed that the Supreme Court disregarded the democratically-enacted will of millions of Americans by forcing states to redefine the institution of marriage. My views are based on my upbringing and my faith. I believe that marriage is a sacred vow between one man and one woman, and I believe Americans should be able to live and work according to their beliefs."[16] June 26, 2015: In Obergefell v. Hodges, the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that same-sex marriage is protected under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, same-sex marriages bans were struck down as unconstitutional.[17] April 28, 2015: The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in four same-sex marriage cases from Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky under the consolidated title Obergefell v.

======

This map shows the impact of Obergefell v. Hodges on same-sex marriage : NPR - www.npr.org[](https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5445033/obergefell-legal-same-sex-marriage-us-map) (http://www.npr.org[](https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5445033/obergefell-legal-same-sex-marriage-us-map)) Published: 2025-06-26 05:01 EDT Content: "They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law," then-Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the June 26, 2015, ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. "The Constitution grants them that right."

"From 2014 to 2023, the percentage of cohabiting same-sex couples who were married grew by 21% in the South (38% to 59%)," the institute said in a report inspired by the Obergefell v. Hodges anniversary. As of this month, the U.S. had an estimated 823,000 married same-sex couples — more than twice as many as 10 years ago, the report states, citing data from the American Community Survey. Ten years after the ruling, legal standing for people who want to marry someone who isn't of the opposite sex still rests in the Supreme Court decision. In 2022, the Respect for Marriage Act became law, after gaining bipartisan support in Congress. The federal law redefines marriage as being "between two individuals," rather than a man and a woman. It also bars states from denying "any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin."

"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law," then-Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote 10 years ago, in the Obergefell v. Hodges majority opinion. "The Constitution grants them that right." With those words, on June 26, 2015, same-sex marriage became legal in all U.S. states. The landmark 5-4 decision superseded what had been a patchwork of laws and court orders in which some states allowed gay marriages or same-sex civil unions, while others banned them and refused to recognize unions performed outside their borders. "The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person," the Supreme Court ruled. The dramatic shift was captured in a map NPR published in 2015, as the Supreme Court ruled that equal protections under the 14th Amendment require states to license and recognize same-sex marriages. ... Before the ruling, gay marriage was legal in 37 states and the District of Columbia.

But only 16 of those states had affirmatively legalized same-sex marriage; the rest had bans on the books that federal courts had found unconstitutional. The Supreme Court took up the Obergefell case after the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals sustained bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee in November 2014. Same-sex marriage was debated for decades, but few states acted to codify such unions, such as Hawaii's move to offer reciprocal beneficiary relationships in 1997. Then Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2004. "We felt we were married already," Marcia Kadish later told NPR, recalling how she and Tanya McCloskey became the first same-sex couple to marry under the state's law. "This was just making it legal." And in 2015, Obergefell arrived as a watershed moment. Immediately after the ruling, same-sex couples began getting married around the country.

But as with the abortion battle over Roe v. Wade, opponents of same-sex marriage say they want the Supreme Court to reconsider its Obergefell ruling. This year, state lawmakers in Idaho, Montana, Michigan, Oklahoma and other states have taken up resolutions calling for a high court review. ... Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who dissented in the 2015 majority ruling, have suggested they're open to that idea. In 2020, as the court declined to hear a case brought by Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky, the pair show discontent over the decision. It waits to be seen if Obergefell vs Hodges is overturned.