Obergefell v. Hodges: Marriage Equality in 2015

Obergefell v. Hodges was decided on June 26, 2015. The Supreme Court held 5–4 that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry and requires states to recognize those marriages when lawfully performed elsewhere. The ruling replaced a map of different state rules with one nationwide constitutional standard.

The case name came from Jim Obergefell, but the decision combined lawsuits involving fourteen couples and two widowers from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. Their circumstances involved death certificates, adoption, children and recognition of marriages performed in other states. Those practical problems showed that marriage law governs far more than a ceremony.

Jim Obergefell and John Arthur

Obergefell and John Arthur had been together for more than twenty years. Arthur had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and was seriously ill. Because Ohio did not allow them to marry, they flew to Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal, and married inside a medical aircraft at the Baltimore airport in July 2013.

Ohio planned to record Arthur as unmarried on his death certificate and would not list Obergefell as the surviving spouse. They sued. A federal judge ordered recognition for the death record. Arthur died in October 2013, and Obergefell continued the case.

Other plaintiffs sought recognition as parents, spouses and surviving partners. Michigan couples challenged a ban affecting joint adoption. Kentucky and Tennessee cases concerned recognition of marriages from other jurisdictions. The human details differed, but all asked whether state exclusions were consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment.

How the cases reached the Supreme Court

After the Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, many federal judges invalidated state marriage bans. Several federal appeals courts agreed. The Sixth Circuit broke that pattern in November 2014, upholding bans in the four states and saying change should come through voters and legislatures.

The conflict among appellate courts made Supreme Court review likely. The justices agreed to consider two questions: whether states must license marriages between two people of the same sex, and whether they must recognize such marriages lawfully performed elsewhere.

Arguments took place on April 28, 2015. The decision arrived on the final Friday in June, two years to the day after Windsor. That date also followed years of state legislation, ballot measures, litigation and changing public opinion.

The majority’s Fourteenth Amendment reasoning

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. The opinion drew on both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. It described marriage as a fundamental liberty connected to personal choice, intimate association, family protection and social order.

The majority identified four principles. Individual autonomy supports a person’s choice to marry. Marriage is a unique two-person union. It protects children and families by providing legal stability. It is also a foundation of many rights and responsibilities in society. Excluding same-sex couples from that institution imposed both practical harms and unequal status.

The opinion rejected the argument that the Court had to wait for continued political debate. Constitutional rights do not depend solely on elections, it said, even when democratic discussion is active. The majority answered both questions yes: states must license and recognize the marriages.

The 2015 calendar confirms June 26 was a Friday. Clerks in many states began issuing licenses that day, while some offices delayed during disputes over implementation.

Four dissents and concerns about judicial power

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito each wrote a dissent. They did not all make identical arguments, but each rejected the majority’s constitutional conclusion. The central criticism was that the Constitution did not remove the marriage question from democratic decision-making and that five justices had adopted a contested social policy.

Roberts distinguished the policy case for same-sex marriage from the judicial authority to require it. Scalia criticized the Court’s reasoning and institutional role. Thomas discussed liberty as protection from government action rather than entitlement to government recognition. Alito warned about treatment of people who continued to hold traditional religious beliefs.

The majority acknowledged that religious people and organizations could advocate their views and receive First Amendment protection. Later disputes have focused on how marriage equality interacts with speech, religious exercise, public accommodations and government services. Obergefell answered the licensing question, not every conflict involving marriage.

Immediate legal and family effects

Couples in all fifty states could marry without traveling to another jurisdiction. States had to recognize existing marriages for taxes, inheritance, parentage and other legal purposes. Agencies revised forms and benefits, and courts addressed questions arising from older state rules.

The ruling also affected death certificates. Ohio ultimately issued a record recognizing Obergefell as Arthur’s surviving spouse, the specific relief that had begun the lead case. That outcome makes the litigation unusually clear: a nationwide principle emerged from the wording on one man’s official record of his husband’s death.

Implementation was not uniform. Some county officials resisted or sought religious accommodations. The most prominent dispute involved Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who stopped issuing all marriage licenses for a period. Courts enforced existing orders while the state later changed its forms.

Statutory protection after Obergefell

In 2022, Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act after a separate Supreme Court opinion raised concern that Obergefell might someday be reconsidered. The law repealed DOMA’s remaining provisions and required federal recognition of a marriage valid where entered. It also required interstate recognition regardless of the spouses’ sex, race, ethnicity or national origin.

The statute does not itself require every state to issue same-sex marriage licenses if Obergefell were overturned, but its recognition provisions provide an additional layer of protection. It also includes protections for religious organizations regarding services and facilities in connection with wedding celebrations.

Readers can find the ruling within the full 2015 calendar or compare the exact two-year interval from Windsor with the days-between-dates calculator. Obergefell’s lasting importance is both constitutional and ordinary: it made one marriage status portable across state lines and brought same-sex couples within the same system of licenses, duties, benefits and family records used by other married couples.