Does the Constitution mandate that states permit and recognize same-sex marriages?

James Obergefell and John Arthur, a same-sex couple from Ohio, married in Maryland. When Arthur died, Ohio law prevented Obergefell from being listed as the surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate. In Michigan, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, a same-sex couple, sought to adopt children together but were barred by state law. Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and his husband Thomas Kostura found their marriage unrecognized when they moved to Tennessee. These individuals, along with other petitioners from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, challenged their respective state laws defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

The petitioners argued that these state laws violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or have their out-of-state same-sex marriages recognized. They sought legal recognition of their relationships and the associated rights and benefits afforded to opposite-sex married couples. The case consolidated multiple lawsuits from these four states, all of which had laws prohibiting same-sex marriage or refusing to recognize such marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

The petitioners initiated lawsuits in Federal District Courts within their respective home states. The District Courts ruled in favor of the petitioners in each case. Subsequently, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated these cases and overturned the District Court decisions. Following this reversal, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the consolidated case.

(Kennedy, J.)

Yes. The Constitution mandates that states permit and recognize same-sex marriages. 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. This right stems from four essential principles. First, the right to personal choice in marriage is inherent in individual autonomy, a central tenet of liberty protected by the Constitution. Second, the unique importance of marriage as a two-person union transcends any particular sexual orientation. Third, marriage safeguards children and families, providing stability and recognition to the family unit regardless of the parents' genders. Fourth, marriage is a keystone of social order, occupying a central place in the history and tradition of civilization. Denying same-sex couples this fundamental right imposes a state-sanctioned stigma and injury prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment. The right to marry is a fundamental liberty that cannot be denied to same-sex couples without violating their constitutional rights. This decision is grounded in the evolving understanding of liberty and equality under the Constitution, recognizing that fundamental rights must be protected even as society's awareness of certain groups' humanity and dignity grows. The Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process extends to all persons, regardless of sexual orientation, in matters as intimate and personal as the choice of whom to marry.

Dissent (Roberts, C.J.) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage. The Court is overstepping its role by redefining marriage, which should be left to the democratic process. This decision usurps the power of the people to govern themselves on this fundamental issue.

Dissent (Scalia, J.) This decision poses a threat to American democracy. It robs the people of the freedom to govern themselves on the issue of same-sex marriage. The majority's ruling is a judicial usurpation of the democratic process, undermining the very foundations of our system of government.

Dissent (Thomas, J.) The majority's decision misinterprets the concept of liberty in the Due Process Clause. It ignores the government's inability to bestow dignity. This ruling distorts the constitutional understanding of individual rights and the proper role of government in defining social institutions.

Dissent (Alito, J.) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage. The Court is imposing its own vision of marriage on the American people, potentially marginalizing those with traditional views. This decision oversteps judicial bounds and risks suppressing democratic debate on a contentious social issue.