The Supreme Court limited the arguments to the following questions:

 Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two
people of the same sex?
 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?

The 5-4 opinion was authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Justices Ruth Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined.

1. Personal choice in marriage "is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy."

2. Marriage is "fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its
importance to the committed individuals."
3. Marriage "safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights
of childrearing, procreation, and education."
4. Marriage "is a keystone of [the country]'s social order" and there "is no difference
between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle."

Kennedy also noted marriage equality can be "derived" from the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Pointing to the interracial marriage case, Loving v. Virginia, Kennedy
wrote, "Indeed, in interpreting the Equal Protection Clause, the Court has recognized that new
insights and societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequality within our most
fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged."

Kennedy concluded, "It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the
idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find
its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded
from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The
Constitution grants them that right."
Dissent

In a dissent joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts focused
his argument on whether the legality of same-sex marriage "should rest with the people acting through
their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to
resolve legal disputes according to law."

"why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-
woman element may not."

Roberts concluded, "If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor
expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a
desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the
availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."
Statement of the Facts:

Four states, Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, have laws that define marriage as a union of one
man and one woman. Fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners were
deceased (collectively, “petitioners”) filed lawsuits against those state laws, claiming that the denial of
petitioners’ ability to marry, or have their marriage in other states recognized, violates the Fourteenth
Amendment.

Procedural History:

Petitioners filed their lawsuits in the federal district courts in their home states. Each district court ruled
in favor of the petitioners. The four states appealed.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated all of the cases. It reversed the judgments of the district
courts, holding that a state has no obligation to license same-sex marriages, or to recognize a same-sex
marriage performed in another state.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. (review of the decision of the Court of Appeals)

Issues and Holdings:

Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of
the same sex? Yes.
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a same-sex marriage licensed and
performed in another state that allows same-sex marriage? Yes.

Judgment:
The judgment of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed.

Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied:

The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license same-sex marriages, and to recognize same-sex
marriages licensed and performed in other states.

Reasoning:
History Shows that Same-Sex Marriage Must Be Permitted
The fact that same-sex couples desire to participate in the institution of marriage shows their deep
respect for the institution. Thus, opponents of same-sex marriage are wrong to claim that allowing
same-sex couples to marry demeans the institution.

Also, though the institution of marriage has been around for centuries, its history has been
characterized by change. Arranged marriages, the law of coverture, and other antiquated notions of
marriage have given way to more modern conceptions of the institution. Such evolution has not
weakened, but rather strengthened, the institution. In fact, the acceptance of same-sex couples over
the last several decades shows that public attitudes shift over time.
Same-Sex Marriage is a Right Under the Due Process Clause

Requiring states to license same-sex marriage is grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process
clause. The right to marry, including for same-sex couples, is fundamental under the Constitution for
four reasons: (i) individual autonomy dictates our personal choice on who to marry; (ii) we have a right
to enjoy intimate association; (iii) it protects children and families, because children suffer if they are
raised by unmarried parents; (iv) marriage is a keystone to our nation’s social order.

Same-Sex Marriage is a Right Under Equal Protection

The Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection also requires that all states license same-
sex marriage. Burdening the liberty of same-sex couples, but not that of opposite-sex couples, shows
that current laws are inherently unequal.

Waiting for Further Legislative Action is Untenable

The desire to wait for political/legislative action would be unwise in this case because it would amount
to allowing further discrimination against same-sex couples. The Court sees immediate harm being
inflicted upon the petitioners due to the laws at issue in the case. Therefore, it would be improper to
wait any longer to remedy that harm, particularly when the laws at issue infringe upon the petitioners’
fundamental right to marry.

Finally, because all states must license same-sex marriage as a fundamental right, it naturally follows
that states must also recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.

Kennedy Closing statement:

“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. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for
themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's
oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that
right.”

Dissenting Opinions:
Dissenting Opinion (Roberts):
Even if allowing same-sex marriage is rooted in fairness, it is not addressed by the Constitution.
Accordingly, the decision on whether to allow same-sex marriage should be left up to the states. Other
Court expansions of marriage laws are not applicable here because they did not change the very
definition of marriage. Further, the majority opinion relies on an overly expansive view of the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The Court should not go too far
into judicial policymaking.

Dissenting Opinion (Scalia):

The majority opinion overstepped the Court’s authority by making a legislative determination. Rather, it
is for the states to make a legislative determination about how marriage is defined, and the Constitution
leaves that determination to the states.

Dissenting Opinion (Thomas):

The legislative history of the due process clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments was rooted in
retraining government power, not granting entitlements. The majority decision also infringes on
religious rights. The states, through the legislative process, should be allowed to make that judgment
between competing interests of same-sex couples and religious communities.

Dissenting Opinion (Alito):

Because the Constitution does not address the right to marry, it left that determination to the states.
The majority creates a new right here, which is a dangerous departure from proper judicial authority
under the Constitution.

Significance:
The importance of Obergefell v. Hodges cannot be overstated. It is a landmark case for LGBTQ rights. It
is the Supreme Court opinion that made same-sex marriage legal throughout the entire United States.
This case settled, once and for all, the decades long debate about whether states could legalize same-
sex marriage, and whether other states needed to recognize same-sex marriages.

What did the dissenters say?

Chief Justice John Roberts

Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion (joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas), noting that the
majority ruling was a policy decision, not a legal decision. He observed that the changes in marriage laws
over time (while changing the regulation of marriage in some respects) did not, as the majority claims,
alter the "structure" of marriage as between a man and a woman:

"In short, the 'right to marry' cases stand for the important but limited proposition that
particular restrictions on access to marriage as traditionally defined violate due process. These
precedents say nothing at all about a right to make a State change its definition of marriage,
which is the right petitioners actually seek here."[41]
He also aptly pointed out that Dred Scott v. Sandford[42] -- a case in which the Court tried (and failed) to
"solve" a social issue -- was the Court's first foray into substantive due process.[43]

The Chief also recognized that the majority's claim that marriage is restricted to "two" people just can't
logically hold up under its own reasoning, and could easily be extended to plural marriage:

"Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective 'two' in various places, it offers no reason at all
why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman
element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex
marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions,
which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it
is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one."[44]

He continued:

"Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority's conception of the judicial role. They
after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. They would never
have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges.
And they certainly would not have been satisfied by a system empowering judges to override policy
judgments so long as they do so after "a quite extensive discussion."[45]

Chief Justice Roberts then quoted Schuette[46] and noted that although there is still a losing side in a
democratic debate, at least those people will know "that they have had their say,"[47] unlike here,
where the court disenfranchised over 50 million Americans.

He also recognized religious liberty issues which may arise:

"Today's decision . . . creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people
oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is -- unlike the right
imagined by the majority -- actually spelled out in the Constitution. Respect for sincere religious
conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage
democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority's decision imposing same-
sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that
religious believers may continue to 'advocate' and 'teach' their views of marriage. . . . The First
Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to 'exercise' religion. Ominously, that is not a word the
majority uses."[48]

He predicted more religious liberty issues:

"Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the
new right to same-sex marriage -- when, for example, a religious college provides married student
housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children
with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax
exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. . . .
There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people
of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today."[49]

The Chief lastly took issue with the majority's statement that laws supporting natural marriage are
demeaning; he did not like the majority's implication that those supporting such laws wish to demean
anyone, and observed that "while people around the world have viewed an institution in a particular
way for thousands of years, the present generation and the present Court are the ones chosen to burst
the bonds of that history and tradition."[50]

Justice Antonin Scalia

Justice Scalia also dissented (joined by Justice Thomas) and accused the majority of legislating, not
judging.

He aptly pointed out that the Windsor majority blatantly contradicted itself today:

"It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution since, as the
author of today's opinion reminded us only two years ago (in an opinion joined by the same Justices who
join him today): '[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually
exclusive province of the States'."[51]

Justice Scalia concluded with a warning:

"With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them -- with each
decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the "reasoned judgment" of a bare majority of this
Court -- we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence."[52]

Justice Clarence Thomas

Justice Thomas also dissented (joined by Justice Scalia), and noted the danger (as evidenced today) of
substantive due process doctrine -- by which rights "come into being" under the Fourteenth
Amendment. He argued the Framers recognized no "right" to have the state recognize same-sex
relationships; there is no liberty to government benefits, just liberty from adverse government action.

He continued by focusing on the threat to religious liberty this decision represents, and recognized that
while this ruling may change governmental recognition of marriage, it "cannot change" the religious
nature of marriage: "It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as
individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages
between same-sex couples."[53]
Justice Thomas also pointed out the problems with the majority's conception of religious liberty:

"Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for 'religious organizations and persons . . . as
they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.' . . . Religious
liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly
correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.

....

Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process -- as the
Constitution requires -- the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating
from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority's decision short-
circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty."[54]

Justice Samuel Alito

Justice Alito also dissented (joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas), arguing that the Court's decision is
based on a flawed understanding of what marriage is, and that it takes the decision out of the hands of
the people who have the authority to decide it.

He also believes this decision threatens religious liberty:

"It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its
opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for
African-Americans and women. . . . The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are
determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.

Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its
opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be
protected. . . . We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old
beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views
in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and
schools."[55]

Justice Alito recognized that the Court has made it impossible for states to consider how to legislatively
protect conscience rights should they want to do that while at the same time legislatively authorizing
same-sex marriage.[56]

His conclusion is an appropriate "take-away" from this decision, and carries in it a warning for all
(whether or not they support same-sex marriage) to heed:
"Most Americans -- understandably -- will cheer or lament today's decision because of their views on the
issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about
what the majority's claim of power portends."[57]