Obergefell v. Hodges

Obergefell v. Hodges
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 28, 2015 Decided June 26, 2015
Full case name	James Obergefell, et al., Petitioners v. Richard Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al.
Docket no.	14-556
Citations	576 U.S. ___ (more) 135 S. Ct. 2584; 192 L. Ed. 2d 609; 83 U.S.L.W. 4592; 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 472; 2015 WL 2473451; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4250; 2015 BL 204553
Related cases	Bourke v. Beshear, DeBoer v. Snyder, Tanco v. Haslam, Love v. Beshear.
Argument	Oral argument
Opinion announcement	Opinion announcement
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. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority	Kennedy, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
Dissent	Roberts, joined by Scalia, Thomas
Dissent	Scalia, joined by Thomas
Dissent	Thomas, joined by Scalia
Dissent	Alito, joined by Scalia, Thomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Baker v. Nelson (1972)

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In November 2014, following a lengthy series of appeals court rulings from the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits that state-level bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, the Sixth Circuit ruled that it was bound by Baker v. Nelson and found them constitutional, creating a split between circuits and leading to an almost inevitable Supreme Court review.

Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker and requires all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions. This legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States, and its possessions and territories. The Court examined the nature of fundamental rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution, the harm done to individuals by delaying the implementation of such rights while the democratic process plays out, and the evolving understanding of discrimination and inequality that has developed greatly since Baker.

Prior to Obergefell, thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam already issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The governor of Puerto Rico announced on June 26 that same-sex marriage would begin in that territory within 15 days, and on June 29 and June 30, the governors of the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands (respectively) made similar announcements. The status of same-sex marriage in American Samoa remains uncertain.

Background

Lawsuit

Outside the Supreme Court on the morning of June 26, 2015, James Obergefell (foreground, center) reacts to its historic decision.

In June 2013, following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, James Obergefell ( /ˈoʊbərɡəfɛl/ OH-bər-gə-fel) and John Arthur, a same-sex couple, decided to get married to obtain legal recognition of their relationship. They married in Maryland on July 11, 2013. After learning that their state of residence, Ohio, would not recognize their marriage, they filed a lawsuit, Obergefell v. Kasich (the named defendant was John Kasich, the 69th governor of Ohio), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Western Division, Cincinnati) on July 19, 2013, alleging that the state discriminates against same-sex couples who have married lawfully out-of-state. Because one partner, John Arthur, was terminally ill and suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), they wanted the Ohio Registrar to identify the other partner, James Obergefell, as his surviving spouse on his death certificate, based on their marriage in Maryland. The local Ohio Registrar agreed that discriminating against the same-sex married couple was unconstitutional, but the state attorney general's office announced plans to defend Ohio's same-sex marriage ban.

District Court decisions

On July 22, 2013, District Judge Timothy S. Black granted the couple's motion, temporarily restraining the Ohio Registrar from accepting any death certificate unless it recorded the deceased's status at death as "married" and his partner as "surviving spouse." Black wrote that "[t]hroughout Ohio's history, Ohio law has been clear: a marriage solemnized outside of Ohio is valid in Ohio if it is valid where solemnized," and noted that certain marriages between cousins or minors, while unlawful if performed in Ohio, are recognized by the state if lawful when solemnized in other jurisdictions. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine indicated he would not appeal the preliminary order.

On August 13, 2013, Black extended the temporary restraining order until the end of December and scheduled oral arguments on injunctive relief, which is permanent, for December 18. On September 25, Black granted a motion by the plaintiffs to dismiss the governor and the state attorney general as defendants. Ohio Health Department Director Theodore Wymyslo was substituted as the lead defendant, and the case changed to Obergefell v. Wymyslo. On October 22, plaintiff John Arthur died. The state defendants moved to dismiss the case as moot. Judge Black, in an order dated November 1, denied the motion to dismiss. On December 23, 2013, Judge Black ruled that Ohio's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions was discriminatory and ordered Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions on death certificates. He wrote, "When a state effectively terminates the marriage of a same-sex couple married in another jurisdiction, it intrudes into the realm of private marital, family, and intimate relations specifically protected by the Supreme Court."

The Potter Stewart United States Courthouse in Cincinnati, Ohio housing the federal district and circuit courts that presided in Obergefell, as seen in 1938.

A second case, Henry v. Wymyslo, was progressing before Judge Black at the same time as Obergefell. On February 10, 2014, in Henry v. Wymyslo, four same-sex couples legally married in other states sued to force the state to list both parents on their children's birth certificates. Three of the couples were women living in Ohio, each anticipating the birth of a child later in 2014. The fourth was a male couple living in New York with their adopted son, born in Ohio in 2013. While this lawsuit was pending, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to ask the court to declare Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Judge Black gave the state time to prepare its appeal of his decision by announcing on April 4 that he would issue an order on April 14 requiring Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Following the resignation of the lead defendant, Ohio's director of health, Ted Wymyslo, for reasons unrelated to the case, Lance Himes became interim director, and the case was restyled Henry v. Himes. On April 14, Black ruled that Ohio must recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, and, on April 16, stayed enforcement of his ruling, except for the birth certificates sought by the plaintiffs.

Reversal by the Sixth Circuit

DeWine appealed Obergefell to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on January 16, 2014. On February 14, the plaintiffs asked the Sixth Circuit to set an expedited schedule for briefing and argument, as the Ninth and Tenth Circuits had done in similar cases, and the Sixth Circuit did so. After the governor appointed Lance Himes interim health director on February 21, the case was restyled Obergefell v. Himes on April 15. On May 20, the Sixth Circuit consolidated this case with Henry v. Himes for the purposes of briefing and oral argument. The Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments on August 6. Oral arguments were heard the same day as in the cases Bourke v. Beshear and Tanco v. Haslam, also suing for state recognition of same-sex marriage licenses validly granted in other states, and DeBoer v. Snyder, which challenged a state's ban on granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples. On August 11, Richard Hodges succeeded Himes as health director, and Obergefell was again retitled, this time as its final iteration of Obergefell v. Hodges.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote the Sixth Circuit's majority opinion upholding same-sex marriage bans, causing the circuit split that helped trigger Supreme Court review.

On November 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit ruled 2–1 that Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage did not violate the U.S. Constitution. It 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 Jeffrey 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."

Dissenting, Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey wrote:

Because the correct result is so obvious, one is tempted to speculate that the majority has purposefully taken the contrary position to create the circuit split regarding the legality of same-sex marriage that could prompt a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court and an end to the uncertainty of status and the interstate chaos that the current discrepancy in state laws threatens.

U.S. Supreme Court

Petition for writ of certiorari

On November 14, 2014, the same-sex couples filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. They asked the Court to consider whether Ohio's refusal to recognize marriage from other jurisdictions violated the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of due process and equal protection, and whether the state's refusal to recognize the adoption judgment of another state violated the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Merits briefs

On January 16, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court consolidated this case with three other same-sex marriage cases challenging state laws that prohibited same-sex marriage – Tanco v. Haslam (Tennessee), DeBoer v. Snyder (Michigan), and Bourke v. Beshear (Kentucky) – and agreed to review the case. It set a briefing schedule to be completed April 17. The Court ordered briefing and oral argument on the following questions:

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

The Court also told the parties to each of the four cases to address only the questions raised in their particular case. Thus, Obergefell raises only the second question, the recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.

The case gained much national attention and had 148 amici curiae briefs submitted, more than any other U.S. Supreme Court case.

Oral argument

Oral arguments in the case were heard on April 28, 2015. The plaintiffs were represented by civil rights lawyer Mary Bonauto and Washington, D.C. lawyer Douglas Hallward-Driemeier. U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., representing the United States, also argued for the same-sex couples. The states were represented by former Michigan Solicitor General John J. Bursch and Joseph R. Whalen, an associate solicitor general from Tennessee. Of the nine justices, all except Clarence Thomas made comments and asked questions, giving clues as to their positions on the Constitution and the future of same-sex marriage. While the questions and comments of the justices during oral arguments are an imperfect indicator of their final decisions, the justices appeared sharply divided in their approaches to this issue, splitting as they often do along ideological lines, with Justice Anthony Kennedy being pivotal. It was thought Chief Justice John Roberts could be pivotal as well. Despite his past views, and his dissent in Windsor, Roberts made comments during oral argument suggesting that the bans in question may constitute sex discrimination. In the end, however, he argued against the same-sex couples in his opinion.

Opinion of the Court

On the morning of June 26, 2015 outside the Supreme Court, the crowd reacts to the Court's decision.

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. The Court overturned its prior decision in Baker v. Nelson, which the Sixth Circuit had invoked as precedent.

The Obergefell v. Hodges decision came on the second anniversary of the United States v. Windsor ruling that struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition to same-sex marriages. It also came on the twelfth anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws in 13 states. The justices' opinions in Obergefell are consistent with their opinions in Windsor. In both cases, Justice Kennedy authored the majority opinions and was considered the "swing vote."

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito each wrote a separate dissenting opinion. The Chief Justice read part of his dissenting opinion from the bench, his first time doing so since joining the Court in 2005.

Majority opinion

Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. The majority held that state same-sex marriage bans are a violation of both the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause.

"The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach," the Court declared, "a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity." Citing Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court affirmed that the fundamental rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause "extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs," but the "identification and protection" of these fundamental rights "has not been reduced to any formula." As the Supreme Court has found in cases such as Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley, this extension includes a fundamental right to marry.

The Court rejected respondent states' framing of the issue as whether there were a "right to same-sex marriage," insisting its precedents "inquired about the right to marry in its comprehensive sense, asking if there was a sufficient justification for excluding the relevant class from the right." Indeed, the majority averred, "If rights were defined by who exercised them in the past, then received practices could serve as their own continued justification and new groups could not invoke rights once denied." Citing its prior decisions in Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas, the Court framed the issue accordingly in Obergefell.

Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the Court's opinion declaring same-sex couples have the right to marry.

The Court listed four distinct reasons why the fundamental right to marry applies to same-sex couples. First, "the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." Second, "the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals," a principle applying equally to same-sex couples. Third, the fundamental right to marry "safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education"; as same-sex couples have children and families, they are deserving of this safeguard—though the right to marry in the United States has never been conditioned on procreation. Fourth, and lastly, "marriage is a keystone of our social order," and "[t]here is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle"; consequently, preventing same-sex couples from marrying puts them at odds with society, denies them countless benefits of marriage, and introduces instability into their relationships for no justifiable reason.

The Court noted the relationship between the liberty of the Due Process Clause and the equality of the Equal Protection Clause and found that same-sex marriage bans violated the latter. Finding that the liberty and equality of same-sex couples was significantly burdened, the Court struck down same-sex marriage bans for violating both clauses, holding that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all fifty states.

Due to the "substantial and continuing harm" and the "instability and uncertainty" caused by state marriage laws differing with regard to same-sex couples, and because respondent states had conceded that a ruling requiring them to marry same-sex couples would undermine their refusal to hold valid same-sex marriages performed in other states, the Court also held that states must recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states.

Addressing respondent states' argument, the Court emphasized that, while the democratic process may be an appropriate means for deciding issues such as same-sex marriage, no individual has to rely solely on the democratic process to exercise a fundamental right. "An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act," for "fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." Furthermore, to rule against same-sex couples in this case, letting the democratic process play out as "a cautious approach to recognizing and protecting fundamental rights," would harm same-sex couples in the interim.

Additionally, the Court rejected the notion that allowing same-sex couples to marry harms the institution of marriage, leading to fewer opposite-sex marriages through a severing of the link between procreation and marriage, calling the notion "counterintuitive" and "unrealistic." Instead, the Court observed that married same-sex couples "would pose no risk of harm to themselves or third parties." The majority also stressed that the First Amendment protects those who disagree with same-sex marriage.

In closing, Justice Kennedy wrote for the Court:

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

Chief Justice Roberts

In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts argued same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Roberts accepted substantive due process, by which fundamental rights are protected through the Due Process Clause, but warned it has been misused over time to expand perceived fundamental rights. Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause. Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment. Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest, preserving the traditional definition of marriage.

More generally, Roberts analyzed the history of marriage, which he claimed had always consisted of a "universal definition," "the union of a man and a woman" with the intended purpose of successful childrearing. Roberts criticized the majority opinion for relying on moral convictions rather than a constitutional basis, and for expanding fundamental rights without caution or regard for history. He also suggested the majority opinion could be used to expand marriage to include legalized polygamy. Roberts chided the majority for overriding the democratic process and for using the judiciary in a way that was not originally intended. According to Roberts, supporters of same-sex marriage cannot win "true acceptance" for their side because the debate has now been closed. Roberts also suggested the majority's opinion will ultimately lead to consequences for religious liberty, and he found the Court's language unfairly attacks opponents of same-sex marriage.

Justice Scalia

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Thomas. Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of the liberty to govern themselves, noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted. Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today. He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law." Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for "diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis" and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Justice Thomas

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent rejecting substantive due process.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Scalia. Thomas rejected the principle of substantive due process, which he claimed "invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—roa[m] at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by that document"; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority." Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint." Furthermore, Thomas insisted that "liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement," such as a marriage license. According to Thomas, the majority's holding also subverts the political process and threatens religious liberty. Lastly, Thomas took issue with the majority's view that marriage advances the dignity of same-sex couples. In his view, government is not capable of bestowing dignity; rather, dignity is a natural right that is innate within every person, a right that cannot be taken away even through slavery.

Justice Alito

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition. Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment. Alito expressed concern that the majority's opinion would be used to attack the beliefs of those who disagree with same-sex marriage, who "will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools," leading to "bitter and lasting wounds." Expressing concern for judicial abuse, Alito concluded, "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."

Subsequent developments

Reactions

Support

The White House was illuminated in rainbow colors on the evening of the ruling.

James Obergefell, the named plaintiff in Obergefell who sought to put his name on his husband’s Ohio death certificate as surviving spouse, said, "Today’s ruling from the Supreme Court affirms what millions across the country already know to be true in our hearts: that our love is equal." He expressed his hope that the term gay marriage soon will be a thing of the past and henceforth only be known as marriage. President Barack Obama praised the decision and called it a "victory for America."

Plaintiffs Jimmy Meade (L) and Luke Barlowe (R) celebrate at Lexington Pride Festival, Lexington, Kentucky, on the day after the Obergefell ruling.

Hundreds of companies reacted positively to the Supreme Court decision by temporarily modifying their company logos on social media to include rainbows or other messages of support for the legalization of same-sex marriage. Jubilant supporters went to social media, public rallies, and Pride parades to celebrate the ruling. Media commentators highlighted the above-quoted passage from Kennedy's decision as a key statement countering many of the arguments put forth by same-sex marriage opponents and mirroring similar language in the 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia, which abolished bans on inter-racial marriages, and the 1965 decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which affirmed married couples have a right of privacy. The paragraph was frequently repeated on social media after the ruling was reported.

Opposition

Conversely, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the Court's decision a "lawless ruling" and pledged free legal defense of state workers who refuse to marry couples on religious grounds. In a tweet, former Governor of Arkansas and current Republican candidate for the 2016 presidential election Mike Huckabee wrote, "This flawed, failed decision is an out-of-control act of unconstitutional judicial tyranny." Austin R. Nimocks, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a group that opposes same-sex marriage, accused the Court's majority of undermining freedom of speech, saying that "five lawyers took away the voices of more than 300 million Americans to continue to debate the most important social institution in the history of the world. . . . Nobody has the right to say that a mom or a woman or a dad or a man is irrelevant." Some, such as the National Catholic Register and Christianity Today, raised concerns that there may be conflict between the ruling and religious liberty, echoing the arguments made by the dissenting justices.

Compliance

Counties not issuing marriage licenses to any couples (grey) in Alabama, as of Sept. 4, 2015.

While marriage licenses are available to all couples who wish to marry within the United States (except in American Samoa), fourteen counties, all in Alabama, Kentucky, and Texas, still do not issue licenses to same-sex couples, and officials in another have yet to clarify their position.

Alabama: As of September 4, 2015, eleven counties issue no marriage licenses at all rather than supply them to same-sex couples. State law grants county clerks authority to issue marriage licenses but does not specifically require them to do so (the law states they "may" issue).

Kentucky: The clerk of Rowan County, Kim Davis, repeatedly refused to issue licenses despite being ordered to by the governor and multiple federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, which unanimously denied her request for a stay on August 31, 2015. The clerks of Casey and Whitley Counties also refused to comply with the orders. Davis was found in contempt of court and jailed on September 3, 2015. Other clerks from her office agreed to grant licenses starting the next day rather than be jailed themselves, but the legality of licenses not signed by the elected county clerk might be in question. Knott County officials never confirmed that they would issue licenses to same-sex couples.

Texas: Irion County flatly refuses to issue licenses to same-sex couples. No legal challenge has been made regarding this refusal.

Counties denying licenses to same-sex couples

Status	AL	KY	TX	Total
Will not issue any marriage licenses	11	1	0	12
Will issue licenses only to opposite-sex couples	0	1	1	2
Officials will not state whether they will issue licenses	0	1	0	1
Total	11	3	1	15

Public opinion

While Gallup found that support for same-sex marriage was "stable" at 58% after the Supreme Court's ruling, the Associated Press found that support dropped from 48% to 42%, and that a plurality of those polled (41%) said they disagreed with the outcome of the case.

See also

• Loving v. Virginia (1967), which held laws prohibiting interracial marriage unconstitutional, later cited as precedent in Obergefell
• Baker v. Nelson (1972), which held that a state law limiting marriage to persons of the opposite sex did not violate the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal of this case, thereby making its ruling precedent. Overruled by Obergefell.
• Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which upheld the constitutionality of state sodomy laws
• Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (1996), which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples for purposes of federal law
• Romer v. Evans (1996), which overturned state law aimed against homosexuals as failing rational basis review
• Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which overruled Bowers
• United States v. Windsor (2013), which held Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional
• Same-sex marriage in the United States
• Same-sex marriage, a global overview
• LGBT rights in the United States
• Timeline of same-sex marriage in the United States

External links

• U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges (June 26, 2015)
• U.S. Supreme Court official docket entry for Obergefell v. Hodges
• SCOTUSblog official docket entry for Obergefell v. Hodges
• U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges (April 28, 2015): Question 1 (audio and transcript)
• U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges (April 28, 2015): Question 2 (audio and transcript)
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, then known as DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-1341 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014)
• U.S. District Courts: Most relevant actions (dates refer to indicated actions)

• Final Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction in Obergefell v. Wymyslo, No. 1:13-cv-501 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2013)
• Memorandum Opinion in Bourke v. Beshear, No. 3:13-CV-750-H (W.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2014)
• Memorandum in Tanco v. Haslam, No. 3:13-cv-01159 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 14, 2014)
• Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 12-CV-10285 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2014)

• "Supreme Court Ruling Reaction". C-SPAN. June 26, 2015. Retrieved June 26, 2015. Reaction to the Supreme Court's ruling on several cases, including the Obergefell v. Hodges case on same-sex marriage.
• "President Obama on Same-Sex Marriage Ruling". C-SPAN. June 26, 2015. Retrieved June 26, 2015. President Obama spoke about the Supreme Court's decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case on same-sex marriage … President Obama praised the ruling, saying 'we've made our union a little more perfect' and calling the decision a 'victory for America.'