(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 

Syllabus 

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. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

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* 

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. Pp. 3–28.

(a) Before turning to the governing principles and precedents, it is

appropriate to note the history of the subject now before the Court. 

Pp. 3–10.

(1) The history of marriage as a union between two persons of

the opposite sex marks the beginning of these cases. To the respondents, it would demean a timeless institution if marriage were extended to same-sex couples. But the petitioners, far from seeking to devalue marriage, seek it for themselves because of their respect—and

need—for its privileges and responsibilities, as illustrated by the pe-

—————— 

*Together with No. 14–562, Tanco et al. v. Haslam, Governor of Tennessee, et al., No. 14–571, DeBoer et al. v. Snyder, Governor of Michigan, 

et al., and No. 14–574, Bourke et al. v. Beshear, Governor of Kentucky, 

also on certiorari to the same court. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Syllabus 

titioners’ own experiences. Pp. 3–6.

(2) The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. 

Changes, such as the decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of the law of coverture, have worked deep transformations 

in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once 

viewed as essential. These new insights have strengthened, not 

weakened, the institution. Changed understandings of marriage are 

characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become 

apparent to new generations.

This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experience with gay and 

lesbian rights. Well into the 20th century, many States condemned 

same-sex intimacy as immoral, and homosexuality was treated as an

illness. Later in the century, cultural and political developments allowed same-sex couples to lead more open and public lives. Extensive 

public and private dialogue followed, along with shifts in public attitudes. Questions about the legal treatment of gays and lesbians soon

reached the courts, where they could be discussed in the formal discourse of the law. In 2003, this Court overruled its 1986 decision in 

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186, which upheld a Georgia law that

criminalized certain homosexual acts, concluding laws making samesex intimacy a crime “demea[n] the lives of homosexual persons.” 

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 575. In 2012, the federal Defense 

of Marriage Act was also struck down. United States v. Windsor, 570 

U. S. ___. Numerous same-sex marriage cases reaching the federal

courts and state supreme courts have added to the dialogue. Pp. 6– 

10. 

(b) The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. Pp. 10–27. 

(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth 

Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices 

central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. 

Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 

484–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them

its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry

but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is 

protected by the Constitution. For example, Loving v. Virginia, 388 

U. S. 1, 12, invalidated bans on interracial unions, and Turner v. 

Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95, held that prisoners could not be denied the

right to marry. To be sure, these cases presumed a relationship in-
 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 3 

Syllabus 

volving opposite-sex partners, as did Baker v. Nelson, 409 U. S. 810, a 

one-line summary decision issued in 1972, holding that the exclusion 

of same-sex couples from marriage did not present a substantial federal question. But other, more instructive precedents have expressed 

broader principles. See, e.g., Lawrence, supra, at 574. In assessing

whether the force and rationale of its cases apply to same-sex couples, the Court must respect the basic reasons why the right to marry 

has been long protected. See, e.g., Eisenstadt, supra, at 453–454. 

This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. Pp. 10–12.

(2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with

equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding 

connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated 

interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 

U. S., at 12. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate

that an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. This is 

true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation. 

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. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. 

Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right

as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a

criminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567. 

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards

children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of 

childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of 

Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing 

their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant

material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a 

more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue

thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See 

Windsor, supra, at ___. This does not mean that the right to marry is

less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the 

right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment 

to procreate. 
 

 

 

 

4 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Syllabus 

Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear 

that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See 

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the 

fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of 

many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle,

yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the

States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability

many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. It is demeaning to 

lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage. 

The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have 

seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest. Pp. 12–18. 

(3) The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from

the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due 

Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a 

profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal 

protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of 

the other. This dynamic is reflected in Loving, where the Court invoked both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause;

and in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, where the Court invalidated a law barring fathers delinquent on child-support payments from

marrying. Indeed, recognizing that new insights and societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequality within fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged, this Court has

invoked equal protection principles to invalidate laws imposing sexbased inequality on marriage, see, e.g., Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 

U. S. 455, 460–461, and confirmed the relation between liberty and 

equality, see, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102, 120–121. 

The Court has acknowledged the interlocking nature of these constitutional safeguards in the context of the legal treatment of gays

and lesbians. See Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 575. This dynamic also 

applies to same-sex marriage. The challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and they abridge central precepts of equality.

The marriage laws at issue are in essence unequal: Same-sex couples

are denied benefits afforded opposite-sex couples and are barred from 

exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of 

disapproval of their relationships, this denial works a grave and continuing harm, serving to disrespect and subordinate gays and lesbians. Pp. 18–22. 

(4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the

liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protec-
 

 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 5 

Syllabus 

tion Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex 

may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples 

may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is 

overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from 

civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23. 

(5) There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and

grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are 

harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. Bowers, in effect, upheld state action that denied gays 

and lesbians a fundamental right. Though it was eventually repudiated, men and women suffered pain and humiliation in the interim, 

and the effects of these injuries no doubt lingered long after Bowers 

was overruled. A ruling against same-sex couples would have the 

same effect and would be unjustified under the Fourteenth Amendment. The petitioners’ stories show the urgency of the issue they 

present to the Court, which has a duty to address these claims and

answer these questions. Respondents’ argument that allowing samesex couples to wed will harm marriage as an institution rests on a

counterintuitive view of opposite-sex couples’ decisions about marriage and parenthood. Finally, the First Amendment ensures that

religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have 

protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling

and so central to their lives and faiths. Pp. 23–27.

(c) The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize samesex marriages validly performed out of State. Since same-sex couples

may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, there 

is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex

marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex

character. Pp. 27–28. 

772 F. 3d 388, reversed. 

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, 

BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a 

dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. SCALIA, 

J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. THOMAS, J., 

filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed a 

dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. 
 

 

_________________ 

_________________ 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Nos. 14–556, 14-562, 14-571 and 14–574 

JAMES OBERGEFELL, ET AL., PETITIONERS 

14–556 v. 

RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.; 

VALERIA TANCO, ET AL., PETITIONERS 

14–562 v. 

BILL HASLAM, GOVERNOR OF 

TENNESSEE, ET AL.; 

APRIL DEBOER, ET AL., PETITIONERS 

14–571 v. 

RICK SNYDER, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, 

ET AL.; AND 

GREGORY BOURKE, ET AL., PETITIONERS 

14–574 v. 

STEVE BESHEAR, GOVERNOR OF 

KENTUCKY 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

[June 26, 2015]

 JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. 

The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach,

a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow 
 

2 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Opinion of the Court 

persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their 

identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that

liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having 

their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and

conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite 

sex. 

I 

These cases come from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and 

Tennessee, States that define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. 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. DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F. 3d 

388 (2014). The Court of Appeals held that a State has no 

constitutional obligation to license same-sex marriages or 

to recognize same-sex marriages performed out of State. 

The petitioners sought certiorari. This Court granted 

review, limited to two questions. 574 U. S. ___ (2015). 

The first, presented by the cases from Michigan and Kentucky, is whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a

State to license a marriage between two people of the 

same sex. The second, presented by the cases from Ohio, 
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 3 

Opinion of the Court 

Tennessee, and, again, Kentucky, is whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to recognize a samesex marriage licensed and performed in a State which does

grant that right. 

II 

Before addressing the principles and precedents that

govern these cases, it is appropriate to note the history of 

the subject now before the Court. 

A 

From their beginning to their most recent page, the 

annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a 

woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all

persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage

is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers

unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that 

could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater

than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic 

human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound

hopes and aspirations. 

The centrality of marriage to the human condition

makes it unsurprising that the institution has existed for 

millennia and across civilizations. Since the dawn of 

history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together. Confucius 

taught that marriage lies at the foundation of government. 

2 Li Chi: Book of Rites 266 (C. Chai & W. Chai eds., J. 

Legge transl. 1967). This wisdom was echoed centuries 

later and half a world away by Cicero, who wrote, “The

first bond of society is marriage; next, children; and then

the family.” See De Officiis 57 (W. Miller transl. 1913).

There are untold references to the beauty of marriage in

religious and philosophical texts spanning time, cultures, 
 

 

 

4 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Opinion of the Court 

and faiths, as well as in art and literature in all their 

forms. It is fair and necessary to say these references 

were based on the understanding that marriage is a union

between two persons of the opposite sex. 

That history is the beginning of these cases. The respondents say it should be the end as well. To them, it 

would demean a timeless institution if the concept and 

lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of 

the same sex. Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a 

gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view 

long has been held—and continues to be held—in good 

faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world. 

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. They 

fell in love and started a life together, establishing a lasting, committed relation. In 2011, however, Arthur was 

diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS.

This debilitating disease is progressive, with no known 

cure. Two years ago, Obergefell and Arthur decided to

commit to one another, resolving to marry before Arthur

died. To fulfill their mutual promise, they traveled from 
 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 5 

Opinion of the Court 

Ohio to Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal. It 

was difficult for Arthur to move, and so the couple were 

wed inside a medical transport plane as it remained on the

tarmac in Baltimore. Three months later, Arthur died. 

Ohio law does not permit Obergefell to be listed as the

surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate. By statute, 

they must remain strangers even in death, a stateimposed separation Obergefell deems “hurtful for the rest

of time.” App. in No. 14–556 etc., p. 38. He brought suit 

to be shown as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s death 

certificate. 

April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse are co-plaintiffs in the

case from Michigan. They celebrated a commitment ceremony to honor their permanent relation in 2007. They

both work as nurses, DeBoer in a neonatal unit and Rowse 

in an emergency unit. In 2009, DeBoer and Rowse fostered and then adopted a baby boy. Later that same year,

they welcomed another son into their family. The new 

baby, born prematurely and abandoned by his biological

mother, required around-the-clock care. The next year, a 

baby girl with special needs joined their family. Michigan,

however, permits only opposite-sex married couples or 

single individuals to adopt, so each child can have only one

woman as his or her legal parent. If an emergency were to

arise, schools and hospitals may treat the three children 

as if they had only one parent. And, were tragedy to befall

either DeBoer or Rowse, the other would have no legal

rights over the children she had not been permitted to

adopt. This couple seeks relief from the continuing uncertainty their unmarried status creates in their lives. 

Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and his

partner Thomas Kostura, co-plaintiffs in the Tennessee 

case, fell in love. In 2011, DeKoe received orders to deploy

to Afghanistan. Before leaving, he and Kostura married 

in New York. A week later, DeKoe began his deployment,

which lasted for almost a year. When he returned, the two 
 

 

6 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Opinion of the Court 

settled in Tennessee, where DeKoe works full-time for the 

Army Reserve. Their lawful marriage is stripped from

them whenever they reside in Tennessee, returning and 

disappearing as they travel across state lines. DeKoe, who 

served this Nation to preserve the freedom the Constitution protects, must endure a substantial burden.

The cases now before the Court involve other petitioners 

as well, each with their own experiences. Their stories 

reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather

to live their lives, or honor their spouses’ memory, joined

by its bond. 

B 

The ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality, 

but it has not stood in isolation from developments in law 

and society. The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. That institution—even as confined to 

opposite-sex relations—has evolved over time. 

For example, marriage was once viewed as an arrangement by the couple’s parents based on political, religious, 

and financial concerns; but by the time of the Nation’s 

founding it was understood to be a voluntary contract 

between a man and a woman. See N. Cott, Public Vows: A 

History of Marriage and the Nation 9–17 (2000); S. 

Coontz, Marriage, A History 15–16 (2005). As the role and 

status of women changed, the institution further evolved. 

Under the centuries-old doctrine of coverture, a married 

man and woman were treated by the State as a single, 

male-dominated legal entity. See 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 430 (1765). As women 

gained legal, political, and property rights, and as society

began to understand that women have their own equal

dignity, the law of coverture was abandoned. See Brief for 

Historians of Marriage et al. as Amici Curiae 16–19. These 

and other developments in the institution of marriage over

the past centuries were not mere superficial changes. 
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 7 

Opinion of the Court 

Rather, they worked deep transformations in its structure, 

affecting aspects of marriage long viewed by many as essential. See generally N. Cott, Public Vows; S. Coontz, Marriage; H. Hartog, Man & Wife in America: A History (2000).

These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, 

the institution of marriage. Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new 

dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or

protests and then are considered in the political sphere 

and the judicial process.

This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences 

with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th 

century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as 

immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a

belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, 

among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to 

have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful 

declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their 

hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater 

awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual 

persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity 

was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many 

States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most

government employment, barred from military service, 

excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and 

burdened in their rights to associate. See Brief for Organization of American Historians as Amicus Curiae 5–28. 

For much of the 20th century, moreover, homosexuality 

was treated as an illness. When the American Psychiatric

Association published the first Diagnostic and Statistical 

Manual of Mental Disorders in 1952, homosexuality was 

classified as a mental disorder, a position adhered to until

1973. See Position Statement on Homosexuality and Civil 
 

 

8 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Opinion of the Court 

Rights, 1973, in 131 Am. J. Psychiatry 497 (1974). Only in 

more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression 

of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as Amici Curiae 7–17. 

In the late 20th century, following substantial cultural

and political developments, same-sex couples began to

lead more open and public lives and to establish families. 

This development was followed by a quite extensive discussion of the issue in both governmental and private 

sectors and by a shift in public attitudes toward greater

tolerance. As a result, questions about the rights of gays

and lesbians soon reached the courts, where the issue 

could be discussed in the formal discourse of the law. 

This Court first gave detailed consideration to the legal 

status of homosexuals in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 

186 (1986). There it upheld the constitutionality of a

Georgia law deemed to criminalize certain homosexual 

acts. Ten years later, in Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620 

(1996), the Court invalidated an amendment to Colorado’s

Constitution that sought to foreclose any branch or political subdivision of the State from protecting persons 

against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Then, 

in 2003, the Court overruled Bowers, holding that laws

making same-sex intimacy a crime “demea[n] the lives of 

homosexual persons.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 

575. 

Against this background, the legal question of same-sex 

marriage arose. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court held 

Hawaii’s law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples 

constituted a classification on the basis of sex and was 

therefore subject to strict scrutiny under the Hawaii Constitution. Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 852 P. 2d 44. 

Although this decision did not mandate that same-sex 

marriage be allowed, some States were concerned by its

implications and reaffirmed in their laws that marriage is 
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 9 

Opinion of the Court 

defined as a union between opposite-sex partners. So too 

in 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act 

(DOMA), 110 Stat. 2419, defining marriage for all federallaw purposes as “only a legal union between one man and 

one woman as husband and wife.” 1 U. S. C. §7.

The new and widespread discussion of the subject led 

other States to a different conclusion. In 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held the State’s 

Constitution guaranteed same-sex couples the right to 

marry. See Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 

Mass. 309, 798 N. E. 2d 941 (2003). After that ruling,

some additional States granted marriage rights to samesex couples, either through judicial or legislative processes. These decisions and statutes are cited in Appendix B, 

infra. Two Terms ago, in United States v. Windsor, 570 

U. S. ___ (2013), this Court invalidated DOMA to the 

extent it barred the Federal Government from treating 

same-sex marriages as valid even when they were lawful 

in the State where they were licensed. DOMA, the Court 

held, impermissibly disparaged those same-sex couples

“who wanted to affirm their commitment to one another 

before their children, their family, their friends, and their

community.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 14).

Numerous cases about same-sex marriage have reached

the United States Courts of Appeals in recent years. In 

accordance with the judicial duty to base their decisions on

principled reasons and neutral discussions, without scornful or disparaging commentary, courts have written a 

substantial body of law considering all sides of these issues. That case law helps to explain and formulate the

underlying principles this Court now must consider. With 

the exception of the opinion here under review and one 

other, see Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 

F. 3d 859, 864–868 (CA8 2006), the Courts of Appeals

have held that excluding same-sex couples from marriage 

violates the Constitution. There also have been many 
 

10 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Opinion of the Court 

thoughtful District Court decisions addressing same-sex

marriage—and most of them, too, have concluded samesex couples must be allowed to marry. In addition the 

highest courts of many States have contributed to this

ongoing dialogue in decisions interpreting their own State

Constitutions. These state and federal judicial opinions 

are cited in Appendix A, infra. 

After years of litigation, legislation, referenda, and the

discussions that attended these public acts, the States are

now divided on the issue of same-sex marriage. See Office 

of the Atty. Gen. of Maryland, The State of Marriage

Equality in America, State-by-State Supp. (2015). 

III 

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, 

liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The 

fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include

most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See 

Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In 

addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices

central to individual dignity and autonomy, including 

intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs. 

See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453 (1972); 

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486 (1965). 

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.” Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 

542 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting). Rather, it requires

courts to exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must

accord them its respect. See ibid. That process is guided 

by many of the same considerations relevant to analysis of 

other constitutional provisions that set forth broad principles rather than specific requirements. History and tradi-
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 11 

Opinion of the Court 

tion guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its

outer boundaries. See Lawrence, supra, at 572. That 

method respects our history and learns from it without

allowing the past alone to rule the present. 

The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it 

in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified 

the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not 

presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we

learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord 

between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed. 

Applying these established tenets, the Court has long

held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. 

In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967), which invalidated bans on interracial unions, a unanimous Court held 

marriage is “one of the vital personal rights essential to 

the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” The Court 

reaffirmed that holding in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 

374, 384 (1978), which held the right to marry was burdened by a law prohibiting fathers who were behind on

child support from marrying. The Court again applied 

this principle in Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95 (1987), 

which held the right to marry was abridged by regulations 

limiting the privilege of prison inmates to marry. Over 

time and in other contexts, the Court has reiterated that 

the right to marry is fundamental under the Due Process 

Clause. See, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102, 116 

(1996); Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632, 

639–640 (1974); Griswold, supra, at 486; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942); Meyer 

v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923).

It cannot be denied that this Court’s cases describing 

the right to marry presumed a relationship involving 

opposite-sex partners. The Court, like many institutions, 
 

 

12 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Opinion of the Court 

has made assumptions defined by the world and time of 

which it is a part. This was evident in Baker v. Nelson, 

409 U. S. 810, a one-line summary decision issued in 1972, 

holding the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage 

did not present a substantial federal question.

Still, there are other, more instructive precedents. This 

Court’s cases have expressed constitutional principles of 

broader reach. In defining the right to marry these cases 

have identified essential attributes of that right based in

history, tradition, and other constitutional liberties inherent in this intimate bond. See, e.g., Lawrence, 539 U. S., 

at 574; Turner, supra, at 95; Zablocki, supra, at 384; 

Loving, supra, at 12; Griswold, supra, at 486. And in 

assessing whether the force and rationale of its cases 

apply to same-sex couples, the Court must respect the 

basic reasons why the right to marry has been long protected. See, e.g., Eisenstadt, supra, at 453–454; Poe, supra, at 542–553 (Harlan, J., dissenting).

This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex

couples may exercise the right to marry. The four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the 

reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution

apply with equal force to same-sex couples.

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. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process

Clause. See 388 U. S., at 12; see also Zablocki, supra, at 

384 (observing Loving held “the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals”). 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. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. Indeed, the Court has noted it would 
 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 13 

Opinion of the Court 

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.” Zablocki, supra, at 386. 

Choices about marriage shape an individual’s destiny.

As the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has

explained, because “it fulfils yearnings for security, safe

haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the

decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.” Goodridge, 440 Mass., at 

322, 798 N. E. 2d, at 955. 

The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring

bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such

as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for 

all persons, whatever their sexual orientation. See Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___– ___ (slip op., at 22–23). There is 

dignity in the bond between two men or two women who 

seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices. Cf. Loving, supra, at 12 (“[T]he freedom to 

marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with 

the individual and cannot be infringed by the State”).

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. This point was central to Griswold 

v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the 

right of married couples to use contraception. 381 U. S., at 

485. Suggesting that marriage is a right “older than the 

Bill of Rights,” Griswold described marriage this way: 

“Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse,

hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of

life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political 

faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social 
 

 

 

14 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Opinion of the Court 

projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose

as any involved in our prior decisions. ” Id., at 486. 

And in Turner, the Court again acknowledged the intimate association protected by this right, holding prisoners

could not be denied the right to marry because their committed relationships satisfied the basic reasons why marriage is a fundamental right. See 482 U. S., at 95–96. The 

right to marry thus dignifies couples who “wish to define 

themselves by their commitment to each other.” Windsor, 

supra, at ___ (slip op., at 14). Marriage responds to the

universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to

find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and

understanding and assurance that while both still live 

there will be someone to care for the other. 

As this Court held in Lawrence, same-sex couples have

the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate 

association. Lawrence invalidated laws that made samesex intimacy a criminal act. And it acknowledged that

“[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one

element in a personal bond that is more enduring.” 539 

U. S., at 567. But while Lawrence confirmed a dimension 

of freedom that allows individuals to engage in intimate 

association without criminal liability, it does not follow 

that freedom stops there. Outlaw to outcast may be a step 

forward, but it does not achieve the full promise of liberty. 

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it

safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning 

from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 

(1925); Meyer, 262 U. S., at 399. The Court has recognized 

these connections by describing the varied rights as a 

unified whole: “[T]he right to ‘marry, establish a home and

bring up children’ is a central part of the liberty protected

by the Due Process Clause.” Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 384 
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 15 

Opinion of the Court 

(quoting Meyer, supra, at 399). Under the laws of the 

several States, some of marriage’s protections for children 

and families are material. But marriage also confers more 

profound benefits. By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows children “to understand the integrity and closeness of their

own family and its concord with other families in their 

community and in their daily lives.” Windsor, supra, at 

___ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency 

and stability important to children’s best interests. See 

Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children 

as Amici Curiae 22–27. 

As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide

loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether 

biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples. See Brief 

for Gary J. Gates as Amicus Curiae 4. Most States have 

allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, either as individuals 

or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have 

same-sex parents, see id., at 5. This provides powerful

confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can 

create loving, supportive families. 

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage 

offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their

families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents,

relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult 

and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here

thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. 

See Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23). 

That is not to say the right to marry is less meaningful 

for those who do not or cannot have children. An ability,

desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a 

prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State. In light of 
 

16 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Opinion of the Court 

precedent protecting the right of a married couple not to

procreate, it cannot be said the Court or the States have 

conditioned the right to marry on the capacity or commitment to procreate. The constitutional marriage right has 

many aspects, of which childbearing is only one. 

Fourth and finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s

traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our

social order. Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this truth

on his travels through the United States almost two centuries ago: 

“There is certainly no country in the world where the 

tie of marriage is so much respected as in America . . . 

[W]hen the American retires from the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace . . . . [H]e afterwards carries 

[that image] with him into public affairs.” 1 Democracy in America 309 (H. Reeve transl., rev. ed. 1990). 

In Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211 (1888), the Court 

echoed de Tocqueville, explaining that marriage is “the 

foundation of the family and of society, without which

there would be neither civilization nor progress.” Marriage, the Maynard Court said, has long been “‘a great

public institution, giving character to our whole civil 

polity.’” Id., at 213. This idea has been reiterated even as 

the institution has evolved in substantial ways over time, 

superseding rules related to parental consent, gender, and 

race once thought by many to be essential. See generally

N. Cott, Public Vows. Marriage remains a building block 

of our national community.

For that reason, just as a couple vows to support each

other, so does society pledge to support the couple, offering

symbolic recognition and material benefits to protect and 

nourish the union. Indeed, while the States are in general

free to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples, they have throughout our history made marriage the 
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 17 

Opinion of the Court 

basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status 

include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of 

intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decisionmaking authority;

adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth

and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign

finance restrictions; workers’ compensation benefits; 

health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 

6–9; Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae 

8–29. Valid marriage under state law is also a significant 

status for over a thousand provisions of federal law. See 

Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ – ___ (slip op., at 15–16). The 

States have contributed to the fundamental character of 

the marriage right by placing that institution at the center

of so many facets of the legal and social order.

There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex 

couples with respect to this principle. Yet by virtue of

their exclusion from that institution, same-sex couples are 

denied the constellation of benefits that the States have 

linked to marriage. This harm results in more than just 

material burdens. Same-sex couples are consigned to an

instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives. As the State itself makes marriage

all the more precious by the significance it attaches to it,

exclusion from that status has the effect of teaching that

gays and lesbians are unequal in important respects. It 

demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out

of a central institution of the Nation’s society. Same-sex 

couples, too, may aspire to the transcendent purposes of

marriage and seek fulfillment in its highest meaning. 

The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may 

long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency 

with the central meaning of the fundamental right to

marry is now manifest. With that knowledge must come 
 

 

18 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Opinion of the Court 

the recognition that laws excluding same-sex couples from

the marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kind

prohibited by our basic charter.

Objecting that this does not reflect an appropriate framing of the issue, the respondents refer to Washington v. 

Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997), which called for a 

“‘careful description’” of fundamental rights. They assert

the petitioners do not seek to exercise the right to marry

but rather a new and nonexistent “right to same-sex marriage.” Brief for Respondent in No. 14–556, p. 8. Glucksberg did insist that liberty under the Due Process Clause 

must be defined in a most circumscribed manner, with 

central reference to specific historical practices. Yet while 

that approach may have been appropriate for the asserted

right there involved (physician-assisted suicide), it is

inconsistent with the approach this Court has used in

discussing other fundamental rights, including marriage

and intimacy. Loving did not ask about a “right to interracial marriage”; Turner did not ask about a “right of

inmates to marry”; and Zablocki did not ask about a “right

of fathers with unpaid child support duties to marry.”

Rather, each case 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. See also Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 752–773 (Souter,

J., concurring in judgment); id., at 789–792 (BREYER, J., 

concurring in judgments). 

That principle applies here. 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. This Court 

has rejected that approach, both with respect to the right

to marry and the rights of gays and lesbians. See Loving

388 U. S., at 12; Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 566–567. 

The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history

and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources 
 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 19 

Opinion of the Court 

alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that

remains urgent in our own era. Many who deem same-sex 

marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on

decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises,

and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here.

But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to

put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that 

soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is 

then denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couples

seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex

couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish

their personhood to deny them this right.

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of 

the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is

derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the

equal protection of the laws. The Due Process Clause and 

the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound

way, though they set forth independent principles. Rights

implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection

may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet in some instances each may be instructive

as to the meaning and reach of the other. In any particular case one Clause may be thought to capture the essence 

of the right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,

even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification 

and definition of the right. See M. L. B., 519 U. S., at 120– 

121; id., at 128–129 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment); Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U. S. 660, 665 (1983). This 

interrelation of the two principles furthers our understanding of what freedom is and must become.

The Court’s cases touching upon the right to marry 

reflect this dynamic. In Loving the Court invalidated a 

prohibition on interracial marriage under both the Equal 

Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. The Court 
 

20 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Opinion of the Court 

first declared the prohibition invalid because of its unequal treatment of interracial couples. It stated: “There 

can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry

solely because of racial classifications violates the central

meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.” 388 U. S., at 12. 

With this link to equal protection the Court proceeded to 

hold the prohibition offended central precepts of liberty: 

“To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a

basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle

of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is

surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without

due process of law.” Ibid. The reasons why marriage is a

fundamental right became more clear and compelling from 

a full awareness and understanding of the hurt that resulted from laws barring interracial unions. 

The synergy between the two protections is illustrated

further in Zablocki. There the Court invoked the Equal

Protection Clause as its basis for invalidating the challenged law, which, as already noted, barred fathers who 

were behind on child-support payments from marrying

without judicial approval. The equal protection analysis

depended in central part on the Court’s holding that the 

law burdened a right “of fundamental importance.” 434 

U. S., at 383. It was the essential nature of the marriage

right, discussed at length in Zablocki, see id., at 383–387, 

that made apparent the law’s incompatibility with requirements of equality. Each concept—liberty and equal

protection—leads to a stronger understanding of the other.

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. To take but one period, this occurred

with respect to marriage in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Notwithstanding the gradual erosion of the doctrine of cover-
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 21 

Opinion of the Court 

ture, see supra, at 6, invidious sex-based classifications in 

marriage remained common through the mid-20th century. See App. to Brief for Appellant in Reed v. Reed, O. T. 

1971, No. 70–4, pp. 69–88 (an extensive reference to laws

extant as of 1971 treating women as unequal to men in

marriage). These classifications denied the equal dignity

of men and women. One State’s law, for example, provided in 1971 that “the husband is the head of the family 

and the wife is subject to him; her legal civil existence is

merged in the husband, except so far as the law recognizes

her separately, either for her own protection, or for her 

benefit.” Ga. Code Ann. §53–501 (1935). Responding to a 

new awareness, the Court invoked equal protection principles to invalidate laws imposing sex-based inequality on 

marriage. See, e.g., Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U. S. 455 

(1981); Wengler v. Druggists Mut. Ins. Co., 446 U. S. 142 

(1980); Califano v. Westcott, 443 U. S. 76 (1979); Orr v. 

Orr, 440 U. S. 268 (1979); Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U. S. 

199 (1977) (plurality opinion); Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 

420 U. S. 636 (1975); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 

677 (1973). Like Loving and Zablocki, these precedents

show the Equal Protection Clause can help to identify

and correct inequalities in the institution of marriage,

vindicating precepts of liberty and equality under the 

Constitution. 

Other cases confirm this relation between liberty and

equality. In M. L. B. v. S. L. J., the Court invalidated 

under due process and equal protection principles a statute requiring indigent mothers to pay a fee in order to

appeal the termination of their parental rights. See 519 

U. S., at 119–124. In Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Court invoked both principles to invalidate a prohibition on the 

distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons but 

not married persons. See 405 U. S., at 446–454. And in 

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, the Court invalidated under both principles a law that allowed steriliza-
 

 

22 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Opinion of the Court 

tion of habitual criminals. See 316 U. S., at 538–543. 

In Lawrence the Court acknowledged the interlocking

nature of these constitutional safeguards in the context of 

the legal treatment of gays and lesbians. See 539 U. S., at 

575. Although Lawrence elaborated its holding under the 

Due Process Clause, it acknowledged, and sought to remedy, the continuing inequality that resulted from laws

making intimacy in the lives of gays and lesbians a crime

against the State. See ibid. Lawrence therefore drew 

upon principles of liberty and equality to define and protect the rights of gays and lesbians, holding the State

“cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by

making their private sexual conduct a crime.” Id., at 578. 

This dynamic also applies to same-sex marriage. It is 

now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of 

same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged

that they abridge central precepts of equality. Here the 

marriage laws enforced by the respondents are in essence 

unequal: same-sex couples are denied all the benefits

afforded to opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long

history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to 

same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and

continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays

and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. 

And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process

Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the

fundamental right to marry. See, e.g., Zablocki, supra, at 

383–388; Skinner, 316 U. S., at 541. 

These considerations lead to the conclusion that the 

right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the

liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and 

Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment 

couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right 

and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex 

couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No 
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 23 

Opinion of the Court 

longer may this liberty be denied to them. Baker v. Nelson 

must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid 

to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil 

marriage on the same terms and conditions as oppositesex couples. 

IV 

There may be an initial inclination in these cases to 

proceed with caution—to await further legislation, litigation, and debate. The respondents warn there has been

insufficient democratic discourse before deciding an issue

so basic as the definition of marriage. In its ruling on the

cases now before this Court, the majority opinion for the 

Court of Appeals made a cogent argument that it would be

appropriate for the respondents’ States to await further

public discussion and political measures before licensing 

same-sex marriages. See DeBoer, 772 F. 3d, at 409. 

Yet there has been far more deliberation than this 

argument acknowledges. There have been referenda, 

legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns, as well as

countless studies, papers, books, and other popular and

scholarly writings. There has been extensive litigation in

state and federal courts. See Appendix A, infra. Judicial 

opinions addressing the issue have been informed by the 

contentions of parties and counsel, which, in turn, reflect

the more general, societal discussion of same-sex marriage 

and its meaning that has occurred over the past decades. 

As more than 100 amici make clear in their filings, many 

of the central institutions in American life—state and local 

governments, the military, large and small businesses,

labor unions, religious organizations, law enforcement,

civic groups, professional organizations, and universities—

have devoted substantial attention to the question. This 

has led to an enhanced understanding of the issue—an 

understanding reflected in the arguments now presented 
 

 

 

24 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Opinion of the Court 

for resolution as a matter of constitutional law. 

Of course, the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, so long as that 

process does not abridge fundamental rights. Last Term, 

a plurality of this Court reaffirmed the importance of the 

democratic principle in Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U. S. ___ 

(2014), noting the “right of citizens to debate so they can

learn and decide and then, through the political process,

act in concert to try to shape the course of their own 

times.” Id., at ___ – ___ (slip op., at 15–16). Indeed, it is 

most often through democracy that liberty is preserved 

and protected in our lives. But as Schuette also said, 

“[t]he freedom secured by the Constitution consists, in one

of its essential dimensions, of the right of the individual

not to be injured by the unlawful exercise of governmental 

power.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 15). Thus, when the rights

of persons are violated, “the Constitution requires redress 

by the courts,” notwithstanding the more general value of 

democratic decisionmaking. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 17).

This holds true even when protecting individual rights

affects issues of the utmost importance and sensitivity. 

The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a 

fundamental right. The Nation’s courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own

direct, personal stake in our basic charter. 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. The idea of the 

Constitution “was to withdraw certain subjects from the 

vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond

the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them

as legal principles to be applied by the courts.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 638 (1943).

This is why “fundamental rights may not be submitted to 

a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” Ibid. 
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 25 

Opinion of the Court 

It is of no moment whether advocates of same-sex marriage now enjoy or lack momentum in the democratic 

process. The issue before the Court here is the legal question whether the Constitution protects the right of samesex couples to marry.

This is not the first time the Court has been asked to 

adopt a cautious approach to recognizing and protecting 

fundamental rights. In Bowers, a bare majority upheld a

law criminalizing same-sex intimacy. See 478 U. S., at 

186, 190–195. That approach might have been viewed as

a cautious endorsement of the democratic process, which

had only just begun to consider the rights of gays and

lesbians. Yet, in effect, Bowers upheld state action that

denied gays and lesbians a fundamental right and caused 

them pain and humiliation. As evidenced by the dissents 

in that case, the facts and principles necessary to a correct

holding were known to the Bowers Court. See id., at 199 

(Blackmun, J., joined by Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens,

JJ., dissenting); id., at 214 (Stevens, J., joined by Brennan

and Marshall, JJ., dissenting). That is why Lawrence held 

Bowers was “not correct when it was decided.” 539 U. S., 

at 578. Although Bowers was eventually repudiated in 

Lawrence, men and women were harmed in the interim, 

and the substantial effects of these injuries no doubt 

lingered long after Bowers was overruled. Dignitary

wounds cannot always be healed with the stroke of a pen. 

A ruling against same-sex couples would have the same 

effect—and, like Bowers, would be unjustified under the

Fourteenth Amendment. The petitioners’ stories make

clear the urgency of the issue they present to the Court. 

James Obergefell now asks whether Ohio can erase his

marriage to John Arthur for all time. April DeBoer and

Jayne Rowse now ask whether Michigan may continue to 

deny them the certainty and stability all mothers desire to

protect their children, and for them and their children the

childhood years will pass all too soon. Ijpe DeKoe and 
 

26 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Opinion of the Court 

Thomas Kostura now ask whether Tennessee can deny to

one who has served this Nation the basic dignity of recognizing his New York marriage. Properly presented with

the petitioners’ cases, the Court has a duty to address

these claims and answer these questions.

Indeed, faced with a disagreement among the Courts of

Appeals—a disagreement that caused impermissible 

geographic variation in the meaning of federal law—the

Court granted review to determine whether same-sex 

couples may exercise the right to marry. Were the Court 

to uphold the challenged laws as constitutional, it would 

teach the Nation that these laws are in accord with our 

society’s most basic compact. Were the Court to stay its

hand to allow slower, case-by-case determination of the 

required availability of specific public benefits to same-sex 

couples, it still would deny gays and lesbians many rights 

and responsibilities intertwined with marriage. 

The respondents also argue allowing same-sex couples

to wed will harm marriage as an institution by leading to 

fewer opposite-sex marriages. This may occur, the respondents contend, because licensing same-sex marriage

severs the connection between natural procreation and

marriage. That argument, however, rests on a counterintuitive view of opposite-sex couple’s decisionmaking processes regarding marriage and parenthood. Decisions 

about whether to marry and raise children are based on

many personal, romantic, and practical considerations; 

and it is unrealistic to conclude that an opposite-sex couple would choose not to marry simply because same-sex 

couples may do so. See Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F. 3d 1193, 

1223 (CA10 2014) (“[I]t is wholly illogical to believe that

state recognition of the love and commitment between 

same-sex couples will alter the most intimate and personal

decisions of opposite-sex couples”). The respondents have

not shown a foundation for the conclusion that allowing 

same-sex marriage will cause the harmful outcomes they 
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 27 

Opinion of the Court 

describe. Indeed, with respect to this asserted basis for 

excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry, it is

appropriate to observe these cases involve only the rights 

of two consenting adults whose marriages would pose no 

risk of harm to themselves or third parties. 

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those 

who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The 

First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and

persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach 

the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their

lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to

continue the family structure they have long revered. The 

same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for 

other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing samesex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a 

matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage 

those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit 

the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the

same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex. 

V 

These cases also present the question whether the Constitution requires States to recognize same-sex marriages 

validly performed out of State. As made clear by the case

of Obergefell and Arthur, and by that of DeKoe and Kostura, the recognition bans inflict substantial and continuing

harm on same-sex couples.

Being married in one State but having that valid marriage denied in another is one of “the most perplexing and 

distressing complication[s]” in the law of domestic relations. Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287, 299 

(1942) (internal quotation marks omitted). Leaving the 

current state of affairs in place would maintain and pro-
 

 

28 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Opinion of the Court 

mote instability and uncertainty. For some couples, even

an ordinary drive into a neighboring State to visit family

or friends risks causing severe hardship in the event of a

spouse’s hospitalization while across state lines. In light

of the fact that many States already allow same-sex marriage—and hundreds of thousands of these marriages

already have occurred—the disruption caused by the

recognition bans is significant and ever-growing. 

As counsel for the respondents acknowledged at argument, if States are required by the Constitution to issue

marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the justifications 

for refusing to recognize those marriages performed elsewhere are undermined. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 

2, p. 44. The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all 

States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it 

now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to 

refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed

in another State on the ground of its same-sex character. 

* * * 

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.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth 

Circuit is reversed. 

It is so ordered. 
Opinion of the Court 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 29 

Appendix A to opinion of the Court 

APPENDICES 

A 

State and Federal Judicial Decisions 

Addressing Same-Sex Marriage
 

United States Courts of Appeals Decisions 

Adams v. Howerton, 673 F. 2d 1036 (CA9 1982) 

Smelt v. County of Orange, 447 F. 3d 673 (CA9 2006) 

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F. 3d 859 

(CA8 2006) 

Windsor v. United States, 699 F. 3d 169 (CA2 2012) 

Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 682 F. 3d 1 (CA1 2012) 

Perry v. Brown, 671 F. 3d 1052 (CA9 2012) 

Latta v. Otter, 771 F. 3d 456 (CA9 2014) 

Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F. 3d 648 (CA7 2014) 

Bishop v. Smith, 760 F. 3d 1070 (CA10 2014) 

Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F. 3d 352 (CA4 2014) 

Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F. 3d 1193 (CA10 2014) 

DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F. 3d 388 (CA6 2014) 

Latta v. Otter, 779 F. 3d 902 (CA9 2015) (O’Scannlain,

J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc) 

United States District Court Decisions 

Adams v. Howerton, 486 F. Supp. 1119 (CD Cal. 1980) 

Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning, 290 

F. Supp. 2d 1004 (Neb. 2003) 

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 368 F. Supp. 

2d 980 (Neb. 2005) 

Wilson v. Ake, 354 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (MD Fla. 2005) 

Smelt v. County of Orange, 374 F. Supp. 2d 861 (CD Cal. 

2005) 

Bishop v. Oklahoma ex rel. Edmondson, 447 F. Supp. 2d 

1239 (ND Okla. 2006) 
 

Opinion of the Court 

 

 

30 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Appendix A to opinion of the Court 

Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 698 F. Supp. 2d 234 (Mass. 2010) 

Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, 699 F. Supp. 2d 

374 (Mass. 2010) 

Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (ND Cal. 

2010) 

Dragovich v. Department of Treasury, 764 F. Supp. 2d 

1178 (ND Cal. 2011) 

Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, 824
 

F. Supp. 2d 968 (ND Cal. 2012)
 

Dragovich v. Department of Treasury, 872 F. Supp. 2d
 

944 (ND Cal. 2012)
 

Windsor v. United States, 833 F. Supp. 2d 394 (SDNY
 

2012) 

Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, 881 

F. Supp. 2d 294 (Conn. 2012) 

Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (Haw. 

2012) 

Nov. 14, 2013) 

Gray v. Orr, 4 F. Supp. 3d 984 (ND Ill. 2013) 

Lee v. Orr, 2013 WL 6490577 (ND Ill., Dec. 10, 2013) 

1252 (ND Okla. 2014) 

Bourke v. Beshear, 996 F. Supp. 2d 542 (WD Ky. 2014) 

Lee v. Orr, 2014 WL 683680 (ND Ill., Feb. 21, 2014) 

Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F. Supp. 2d 456 (ED Va. 2014) 

De Leon v. Perry, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632 (WD Tex. 2014) 

Tanco v. Haslam, 7 F. Supp. 3d 759 (MD Tenn. 2014) 

DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (ED Mich. 2014) 

Henry v. Himes, 14 F. Supp. 3d 1036 (SD Ohio 2014) 

Latta v. Otter, 19 F. Supp. 3d 1054 (Idaho 2014) 

Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F. Supp. 2d 996 (Nev. 2012) 

Merritt v. Attorney General, 2013 WL 6044329 (MD La., 

Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (Utah 2013) 

Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F. Supp. 2d 968 (SD Ohio 

2013) 

Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder, 962 F. Supp. 2d 
Opinion of the Court 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 31 

Appendix A to opinion of the Court 

Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (Ore. 2014) 

Evans v. Utah, 21 F. Supp. 3d 1192 (Utah 2014) 

Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F. Supp. 2d 410 (MD Pa. 2014) 

Wolf v. Walker, 986 F. Supp. 2d 982 (WD Wis. 2014) 

Baskin v. Bogan, 12 F. Supp. 3d 1144 (SD Ind. 2014) 

Love v. Beshear, 989 F. Supp. 2d 536 (WD Ky. 2014) 

Burns v. Hickenlooper, 2014 WL 3634834 (Colo., July 

23, 2014) 

Bowling v. Pence, 39 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (SD Ind. 2014) 

Brenner v. Scott, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (ND Fla. 2014) 

Robicheaux v. Caldwell, 2 F. Supp. 3d 910 (ED La. 2014) 

General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Resinger, 12 F. Supp. 3d 790 (WDNC 2014) 

Hamby v. Parnell, 56 F. Supp. 3d 1056 (Alaska 2014) 

Fisher-Borne v. Smith, 14 F. Supp. 3d 695 (MDNC 2014) 

5320642 (Ariz., Oct. 17, 2014) 

(Kan., Nov. 4, 2014) 

(SD W. Va., Nov. 7, 2014) 

Condon v. Haley, 21 F. Supp. 3d 572 (S.C. 2014) 

Bradacs v. Haley, 58 F. Supp. 3d 514 (S.C. 2014) 

6685391 (ED Ark., Nov. 25, 2014) 

Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant, ___ F. Supp. 

3d ___, 2014 WL 6680570 (SD Miss., Nov. 25, 2014) 

Inniss v. Aderhold, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2015 WL 300593 

(ND Ga., Jan. 8, 2015) 

Majors v. Horne, 14 F. Supp. 3d 1313 (Ariz. 2014) 

Connolly v. Jeanes, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2014 WL 

Guzzo v. Mead, 2014 WL 5317797 (Wyo., Oct. 17, 2014) 

Conde-Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, 54 F. Supp. 3d 157 (PR 

2014) 

Marie v. Moser, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2014 WL 5598128 

Lawson v. Kelly, 58 F. Supp. 3d 923 (WD Mo. 2014) 

McGee v. Cole, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2014 WL 5802665 

Rolando v. Fox, 23 F. Supp. 3d 1227 (Mont. 2014) 

Jernigan v. Crane, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2014 WL 
 

Opinion of the Court 

 

32 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Appendix A to opinion of the Court 

Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard, 61 F. Supp. 3d 862 (S. D., 

2015) 

Caspar v. Snyder, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2015 WL 224741

(ED Mich., Jan. 15, 2015) 

Searcey v. Strange, 2015 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 7776 (SD 

Ala., Jan. 23, 2015) 

Strawser v. Strange, 44 F. Supp. 3d 1206 (SD Ala. 2015) 

Waters v. Ricketts, 48 F. Supp. 3d 1271 (Neb. 2015) 

State Highest Court Decisions 

Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N. W. 2d 185 (1971) 

Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S. W. 2d 588 (Ky. 1973) 

Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 852 P. 2d 44 (1993) 

Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A. 2d 307 (D. C. 1995) 

Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999) 

Brause v. State, 21 P. 3d 357 (Alaska 2001) (ripeness) 

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 

309, 798 N. E. 2d 941 (2003) 

In re Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 440 Mass. 

1201, 802 N. E. 2d 565 (2004) 

Li v. State, 338 Or. 376, 110 P. 3d 91 (2005) 

Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health,446 Mass. 

350, 844 N. E. 2d 623 (2006) 

Lewis v. Harris, 188 N. J. 415, 908 A. 2d 196 (2006) 

Andersen v. King County, 158 Wash. 2d 1, 138 P. 3d 963 

(2006) 

Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N. Y. 3d 338, 855 N. E. 2d 1 

(2006) 

Conaway v. Deane, 401 Md. 219, 932 A. 2d 571 (2007) 

In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757, 183 P. 3d 384 

(2008) 

Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 

135, 957 A. 2d 407 (2008) 

Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364, 207 P. 3d 48 (2009) 
Opinion of the Court 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 33 

Appendix A to opinion of the Court 

Varnum v. Brien, 763 N. W. 2d 862 (Iowa 2009) 

Griego v. Oliver, 2014–NMSC–003, ___ N. M. ___, 316 

P. 3d 865 (2013) 

Garden State Equality v. Dow, 216 N. J. 314, 79 A. 3d 

1036 (2013) 

Ex parte State ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute, ___ So. 

3d ___, 2015 WL 892752 (Ala., Mar. 3, 2015) 
 

Opinion of the Court 

 

34 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Appendix B to opinion of the Court 

B 

State Legislation and Judicial Decisions

Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage
 

Legislation 

Del. Code Ann., Tit. 13, §129 (Cum. Supp. 2014) 

D. C. Act No. 18–248, 57 D. C. Reg. 27 (2010) 

Haw. Rev. Stat. §572 –1 (2006) and 2013 Cum. Supp.) 

Ill. Pub. Act No. 98–597 

Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 19, §650–A (Cum. Supp. 2014) 

2012 Md. Laws p. 9

2013 Minn Laws p. 404

2009 N. H. Laws p. 60

2011 N. Y Laws p. 749

2013 R. I. Laws p. 7

2009 Vt. Acts & Resolves p. 33

2012 Wash. Sess. Laws p. 199 

Judicial Decisions 

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 

309, 798 N. E. 2d 941 (2003) 

Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 

135, 957 A. 2d 407 (2008) 

Varnum v. Brien, 763 N. W. 2d 862 (Iowa 2009) 

Griego v. Oliver, 2014–NMSC–003, ___ N. M. ___, 316 

P. 3d 865 (2013) 

Garden State Equality v. Dow, 216 N. J. 314, 79 A. 3d 

1036 (2013) 
 

_________________ 

_________________ 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 1 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Nos. 14–556, 14-562, 14-571 and 14–574 

JAMES OBERGEFELL, ET AL., PETITIONERS 

14–556 v. 

RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.; 

VALERIA TANCO, ET AL., PETITIONERS 

14–562 v. 

BILL HASLAM, GOVERNOR OF 

TENNESSEE, ET AL.; 

APRIL DEBOER, ET AL., PETITIONERS 

14–571 v. 

RICK SNYDER, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, 

ET AL.; AND 

GREGORY BOURKE, ET AL., PETITIONERS 

14–574 v. 

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. That position has undeniable appeal; over the 
 

 

 

 

2 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and 

the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow 

marriage between two people of the same sex.

But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex 

marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.

Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what

the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified

the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither 

force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 

78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).

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. 
 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 3 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

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. The majority expressly 

disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of 

humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society 

according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of 

injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and 

orders the transformation of a social institution that has 

formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the 

Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are? 

It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court 

has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” 

Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., 

dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned with

the wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J.,

dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained 

conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when 

the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral

principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 

19. I have no choice but to dissent. 

Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not 

about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is 

instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that 

decision 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. The Constitution leaves no 

doubt about the answer. 
 

 

 

 

4 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting
 

I 

Petitioners and their amici base their arguments on the

“right to marry” and the imperative of “marriage equality.”

There is no serious dispute that, under our precedents, the

Constitution protects a right to marry and requires States

to apply their marriage laws equally. The real question in 

these cases is what constitutes “marriage,” or—more

precisely—who decides what constitutes “marriage”?

The majority largely ignores these questions, relegating

ages of human experience with marriage to a paragraph or 

two. Even if history and precedent are not “the end” of 

these cases, ante, at 4, I would not “sweep away what has

so long been settled” without showing greater respect for

all that preceded us. Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 

U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 8). 

A 

As the majority acknowledges, marriage “has existed for

millennia and across civilizations.” Ante, at 3. For all 

those millennia, across all those civilizations, “marriage”

referred to only one relationship: the union of a man and a 

woman. See ante, at 4; Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, 

p. 12 (petitioners conceding that they are not aware of any 

society that permitted same-sex marriage before 2001). As 

the Court explained two Terms ago, “until recent years,

. . . marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had 

been thought of by most people as essential to the very 

definition of that term and to its role and function 

throughout the history of civilization.” United States v. 

Windsor, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 13). 

This universal definition of marriage as the union of a

man and a woman is no historical coincidence. Marriage

did not come about as a result of a political movement,

discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other

moving force of world history—and certainly not as a 

result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbi-
 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 5 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

ans. It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need:

ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and 

father committed to raising them in the stable conditions 

of a lifelong relationship. See G. Quale, A History of 

Marriage Systems 2 (1988); cf. M. Cicero, De Officiis 57

(W. Miller transl. 1913) (“For since the reproductive instinct is by nature’s gift the common possession of all 

living creatures, the first bond of union is that between 

husband and wife; the next, that between parents and 

children; then we find one home, with everything in 

common.”).

The premises supporting this concept of marriage are so

fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The 

human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs 

through sexual relations between a man and a woman.

When sexual relations result in the conception of a child,

that child’s prospects are generally better if the mother

and father stay together rather than going their separate 

ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society, 

sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur

only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting 

bond. 

Society has recognized that bond as marriage. And by

bestowing a respected status and material benefits on

married couples, society encourages men and women to 

conduct sexual relations within marriage rather than

without. As one prominent scholar put it, “Marriage is a

socially arranged solution for the problem of getting people 

to stay together and care for children that the mere desire 

for children, and the sex that makes children possible,

does not solve.” J. Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem 41 

(2002).

This singular understanding of marriage has prevailed 

in the United States throughout our history. The majority

accepts that at “the time of the Nation’s founding [marriage] was understood to be a voluntary contract between 
 

 

6 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

a man and a woman.” Ante, at 6. Early Americans drew 

heavily on legal scholars like William Blackstone, who

regarded marriage between “husband and wife” as one of 

the “great relations in private life,” and philosophers like

John Locke, who described marriage as “a voluntary compact between man and woman” centered on “its chief end,

procreation” and the “nourishment and support” of children. 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *410; J. Locke, 

Second Treatise of Civil Government §§78–79, p. 39 (J. 

Gough ed. 1947). To those who drafted and ratified the 

Constitution, this conception of marriage and family “was

a given: its structure, its stability, roles, and values accepted by all.” Forte, The Framers’ Idea of Marriage and 

Family, in The Meaning of Marriage 100, 102 (R. George 

& J. Elshtain eds. 2006). 

The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage,

and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he

whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and 

wife.” Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 17) (quoting 

In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594 (1890)). There is no 

dispute that every State at the founding—and every State

throughout our history until a dozen years ago—defined

marriage in the traditional, biologically rooted way. The 

four States in these cases are typical. Their laws, before 

and after statehood, have treated marriage as the union of 

a man and a woman. See DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F. 3d 388, 

396–399 (CA6 2014). Even when state laws did not specify this definition expressly, no one doubted what they 

meant. See Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S. W. 2d 588, 589 (Ky. 

App. 1973). The meaning of “marriage” went without 

saying.

Of course, many did say it. In his first American dictionary, Noah Webster defined marriage as “the legal 

union of a man and woman for life,” which served the 

purposes of “preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the

sexes, . . . promoting domestic felicity, and . . . securing the 
 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 7 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

maintenance and education of children.” 1 An American 

Dictionary of the English Language (1828). An influential 

19th-century treatise defined marriage as “a civil status, 

existing in one man and one woman legally united for life 

for those civil and social purposes which are based in the 

distinction of sex.” J. Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of

Marriage and Divorce 25 (1852). The first edition of 

Black’s Law Dictionary defined marriage as “the civil

status of one man and one woman united in law for life.” 

Black’s Law Dictionary 756 (1891) (emphasis deleted). 

The dictionary maintained essentially that same definition

for the next century.

This Court’s precedents have repeatedly described 

marriage in ways that are consistent only with its traditional meaning. Early cases on the subject referred to

marriage as “the union for life of one man and one woman,” Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15, 45 (1885), which 

forms “the foundation of the family and of society, without 

which there would be neither civilization nor progress,” 

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211 (1888). We later 

described marriage as “fundamental to our very existence 

and survival,” an understanding that necessarily implies a

procreative component. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 

(1967); see Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 

U. S. 535, 541 (1942). More recent cases have directly 

connected the right to marry with the “right to procreate.” 

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, 386 (1978).

As the majority notes, some aspects of marriage have

changed over time. Arranged marriages have largely 

given way to pairings based on romantic love. States have 

replaced coverture, the doctrine by which a married man 

and woman became a single legal entity, with laws that

respect each participant’s separate status. Racial restrictions on marriage, which “arose as an incident to 

slavery” to promote “White Supremacy,” were repealed by

many States and ultimately struck down by this Court. 
 

 

 

 

8 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

Loving, 388 U. S., at 6–7. 

The majority observes that these developments “were

not mere superficial changes” in marriage, but rather

“worked deep transformations in its structure.” Ante, at 

6–7. They did not, however, work any transformation in 

the core structure of marriage as the union between a man

and a woman. If you had asked a person on the street how 

marriage was defined, no one would ever have said, “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, where the woman 

is subject to coverture.” The majority may be right that

the “history of marriage is one of both continuity and

change,” but the core meaning of marriage has endured. 

Ante, at 6. 

B 

Shortly after this Court struck down racial restrictions

on marriage in Loving, a gay couple in Minnesota sought a 

marriage license. They argued that the Constitution 

required States to allow marriage between people of the

same sex for the same reasons that it requires States to

allow marriage between people of different races. The 

Minnesota Supreme Court rejected their analogy to Loving, and this Court summarily dismissed an appeal. 

Baker v. Nelson, 409 U. S. 810 (1972).

In the decades after Baker, greater numbers of gays and 

lesbians began living openly, and many expressed a desire 

to have their relationships recognized as marriages. Over 

time, more people came to see marriage in a way that

could be extended to such couples. Until recently, this

new view of marriage remained a minority position. After 

the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2003 interpreted its State Constitution to require recognition of 

same-sex marriage, many States—including the four at 

issue here—enacted constitutional amendments formally 

adopting the longstanding definition of marriage. 

Over the last few years, public opinion on marriage has 
 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 9 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

shifted rapidly. In 2009, the legislatures of Vermont, New 

Hampshire, and the District of Columbia became the first

in the Nation to enact laws that revised the definition of 

marriage to include same-sex couples, while also providing 

accommodations for religious believers. In 2011, the New 

York Legislature enacted a similar law. 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. 3d, at 396, 403. That 

decision interpreted the Constitution correctly, and I 

would affirm. 

II 

Petitioners first contend that the marriage laws of their

States violate the Due Process Clause. The Solicitor General of the United States, appearing in support of petitioners, expressly disowned that position before this Court. 

See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 38–39. The majority

nevertheless resolves these cases for petitioners based 
 

 

 

10 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

almost entirely on the Due Process Clause.

The majority purports to identify four “principles and

traditions” in this Court’s due process precedents that 

support a fundamental right for same-sex couples to 

marry. Ante, at 12. In reality, however, the majority’s approach has no basis in principle or tradition, except for the 

unprincipled tradition of judicial policymaking that characterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New 

York, 198 U. S. 45. Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, 

the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause 

gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry

because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a 

legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter 

of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law. 

A 

Petitioners’ “fundamental right” claim falls into the

most sensitive category of constitutional adjudication. 

Petitioners do not contend that their States’ marriage laws

violate an enumerated constitutional right, such as the 

freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. 

There is, after all, no “Companionship and Understanding” or “Nobility and Dignity” Clause in the Constitution. 

See ante, at 3, 14. They argue instead that the laws violate a right implied by the Fourteenth Amendment’s

requirement that “liberty” may not be deprived without 

“due process of law.”

This Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause to

include a “substantive” component that protects certain

liberty interests against state deprivation “no matter what

process is provided.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 302 

(1993). The theory is that some liberties are “so rooted in 

the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked

as fundamental,” and therefore cannot be deprived without compelling justification. Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 
 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 11 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

U. S. 97, 105 (1934).

Allowing unelected federal judges to select which unenumerated rights rank as “fundamental”—and to strike 

down state laws on the basis of that determination—raises 

obvious concerns about the judicial role. Our precedents

have accordingly insisted that judges “exercise the utmost 

care” in identifying implied fundamental rights, “lest the

liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly

transformed into the policy preferences of the Members of 

this Court.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720 

(1997) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Kennedy,

Unenumerated Rights and the Dictates of Judicial Restraint 13 (1986) (Address at Stanford) (“One can conclude 

that certain essential, or fundamental, rights should exist

in any just society. It does not follow that each of those 

essential rights is one that we as judges can enforce under 

the written Constitution. The Due Process Clause is not a 

guarantee of every right that should inhere in an ideal

system.”).

The need for restraint in administering the strong medicine of substantive due process is a lesson this Court has 

learned the hard way. The Court first applied substantive

due process to strike down a statute in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857). There the Court invalidated the 

Missouri Compromise on the ground that legislation restricting the institution of slavery violated the implied 

rights of slaveholders. The Court relied on its own conception of liberty and property in doing so. It asserted that 

“an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United

States of his liberty or property, merely because he came

himself or brought his property into a particular Territory

of the United States . . . could hardly be dignified with the

name of due process of law.” Id., at 450. In a dissent that 

has outlasted the majority opinion, Justice Curtis explained that when the “fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws [are] abandoned, and the theoretical 
 

 

 

12 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

opinions of individuals are allowed to control” the Constitution’s meaning, “we have no longer a Constitution; we 

are under the government of individual men, who for the 

time being have power to declare what the Constitution is,

according to their own views of what it ought to mean.” 

Id., at 621.

 Dred Scott’s holding was overruled on the battlefields of

the Civil War and by constitutional amendment after

Appomattox, but its approach to the Due Process Clause

reappeared. In a series of early 20th-century cases, most 

prominently Lochner v. New York, this Court invalidated 

state statutes that presented “meddlesome interferences 

with the rights of the individual,” and “undue interference

with liberty of person and freedom of contract.” 198 U. S., 

at 60, 61. In Lochner itself, the Court struck down a New 

York law setting maximum hours for bakery employees, 

because there was “in our judgment, no reasonable foundation for holding this to be necessary or appropriate as a

health law.” Id., at 58. 

The dissenting Justices in Lochner explained that the

New York law could be viewed as a reasonable response to

legislative concern about the health of bakery employees,

an issue on which there was at least “room for debate and 

for an honest difference of opinion.” Id., at 72 (opinion of 

Harlan, J.). The majority’s contrary conclusion required

adopting as constitutional law “an economic theory which 

a large part of the country does not entertain.” Id., at 75 

(opinion of Holmes, J.). As Justice Holmes memorably put

it, “The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics,” a leading work on the philosophy of Social Darwinism. Ibid. The Constitution “is 

not intended to embody a particular economic theory . . . . 

It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and 

the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and 

familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude

our judgment upon the question whether statutes embody-
 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 13 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

ing them conflict with the Constitution.” Id., at 75–76. 

In the decades after Lochner, the Court struck down 

nearly 200 laws as violations of individual liberty, often

over strong dissents contending that “[t]he criterion of

constitutionality is not whether we believe the law to be

for the public good.” Adkins v. Children’s Hospital of 

D. C., 261 U. S. 525, 570 (1923) (opinion of Holmes, J.). By

empowering judges to elevate their own policy judgments 

to the status of constitutionally protected “liberty,” the 

Lochner line of cases left “no alternative to regarding the 

court as a . . . legislative chamber.” L. Hand, The Bill of 

Rights 42 (1958).

Eventually, the Court recognized its error and vowed

not to repeat it. “The doctrine that . . . due process authorizes courts to hold laws unconstitutional when they believe 

the legislature has acted unwisely,” we later explained,

“has long since been discarded. We have returned to the 

original constitutional proposition that courts do not 

substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies, who are elected to pass laws.” 

Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U. S. 726, 730 (1963); see DayBrite Lighting, Inc. v. Missouri, 342 U. S. 421, 423 (1952) 

(“we do not sit as a super-legislature to weigh the wisdom

of legislation”). Thus, it has become an accepted rule that 

the Court will not hold laws unconstitutional simply because we find them “unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought.” Williamson v. 

Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U. S. 483, 488 (1955). 

Rejecting Lochner does not require disavowing the

doctrine of implied fundamental rights, and this Court has

not done so. But to avoid repeating Lochner’s error of 

converting personal preferences into constitutional mandates, our modern substantive due process cases have

stressed the need for “judicial self-restraint.” Collins v. 

Harker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 125 (1992). Our precedents

have required that implied fundamental rights be “objec-
 

 

 

14 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

tively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such 

that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were 

sacrificed.” Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 720–721 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

Although the Court articulated the importance of history and tradition to the fundamental rights inquiry most 

 precisely in Glucksberg, many other cases both before and 

after have adopted the same approach. See, e.g., District 

Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 

U. S. 52, 72 (2009); Flores, 507 U. S., at 303; United States 

v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 751 (1987); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality opinion); see also 

id., at 544 (White, J., dissenting) (“The Judiciary, including this Court, is the most vulnerable and comes nearest

to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or even the design of the Constitution.”); Troxel v. 

Granville, 530 U. S. 57, 96–101 (2000) (KENNEDY, J., 

dissenting) (consulting “‘[o]ur Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices’” and concluding that “[w]e owe it to

the Nation’s domestic relations legal structure . . . to 

proceed with caution” (quoting Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 

721)).

Proper reliance on history and tradition of course requires looking beyond the individual law being challenged, 

so that every restriction on liberty does not supply its own

constitutional justification. The Court is right about that. 

Ante, at 18. But given the few “guideposts for responsible 

decisionmaking in this unchartered area,” Collins, 503 

U. S., at 125, “an approach grounded in history imposes

limits on the judiciary that are more meaningful than any 

based on [an] abstract formula,” Moore, 431 U. S., at 504, 

n. 12 (plurality opinion). Expanding a right suddenly and 

dramatically is likely to require tearing it up from its 

roots. Even a sincere profession of “discipline” in identify-
 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 15 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

ing fundamental rights, ante, at 10–11, does not provide a 

meaningful constraint on a judge, for “what he is really

likely to be ‘discovering,’ whether or not he is fully aware 

of it, are his own values,” J. Ely, Democracy and Distrust

44 (1980). The only way to ensure restraint in this delicate enterprise is “continual insistence upon respect for 

the teachings of history, solid recognition of the basic

values that underlie our society, and wise appreciation of 

the great roles [of] the doctrines of federalism and separation of powers.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 

501 (1965) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment). 

B 

The majority acknowledges none of this doctrinal background, and it is easy to see why: Its aggressive application of substantive due process breaks sharply with decades of precedent and returns the Court to the 

unprincipled approach of Lochner. 

1 

The majority’s driving themes are that marriage is

desirable and petitioners desire it. The opinion describes

the “transcendent importance” of marriage and repeatedly

insists that petitioners do not seek to “demean,” “devalue,”

“denigrate,” or “disrespect” the institution. Ante, at 3, 4, 6, 

28. Nobody disputes those points. Indeed, the compelling

personal accounts of petitioners and others like them are 

likely a primary reason why many Americans have

changed their minds about whether same-sex couples 

should be allowed to marry. As a matter of constitutional 

law, however, the sincerity of petitioners’ wishes is not 

relevant. 

When the majority turns to the law, it relies primarily

on precedents discussing the fundamental “right to marry.” 

Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95 (1987); Zablocki, 

434 U. S., at 383; see Loving, 388 U. S., at 12. These cases 
 

 

16 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

do not hold, of course, that anyone who wants to get married has a constitutional right to do so. They instead

require a State to justify barriers to marriage as that

institution has always been understood. In Loving, the 

Court held that racial restrictions on the right to marry

lacked a compelling justification. In Zablocki, restrictions 

based on child support debts did not suffice. In Turner, 

restrictions based on status as a prisoner were deemed 

impermissible.

None of the laws at issue in those cases purported to

change the core definition of marriage as the union of a 

man and a woman. The laws challenged in Zablocki and 

Turner did not define marriage as “the union of a man and 

a woman, where neither party owes child support or is in 

prison.” Nor did the interracial marriage ban at issue in 

Loving define marriage as “the union of a man and a 

woman of the same race.” See Tragen, Comment, Statutory Prohibitions Against Interracial Marriage, 32 Cal.

L. Rev. 269 (1944) (“at common law there was no ban on 

interracial marriage”); post, at 11–12, n. 5 (THOMAS, J., 

dissenting). Removing racial barriers to marriage therefore did not change what a marriage was any more than

integrating schools changed what a school was. As the 

majority admits, the institution of “marriage” discussed in

every one of these cases “presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners.” Ante, at 11. 

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. See Windsor, 570 

U. S., at ___ (ALITO, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 8) (“What

Windsor and the United States seek . . . is not the protection of a deeply rooted right but the recognition of a very

new right.”). Neither petitioners nor the majority cites a 
 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 17 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

single case or other legal source providing any basis for 

such a constitutional right. None exists, and that is 

enough to foreclose their claim. 

2 

The majority suggests that “there are other, more instructive precedents” informing the right to marry. Ante, 

at 12. Although not entirely clear, this reference seems to

correspond to a line of cases discussing an implied fundamental “right of privacy.” Griswold, 381 U. S., at 486. In 

the first of those cases, the Court invalidated a criminal 

law that banned the use of contraceptives. Id., at 485– 

486. The Court stressed the invasive nature of the ban, 

which threatened the intrusion of “the police to search the 

sacred precincts of marital bedrooms.” Id., at 485. In the 

Court’s view, such laws infringed the right to privacy in its 

most basic sense: the “right to be let alone.” Eisenstadt v. 

Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453–454, n. 10 (1972) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Olmstead v. United States, 277 

U. S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

The Court also invoked the right to privacy in Lawrence 

v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003), which struck down a Texas 

statute criminalizing homosexual sodomy. Lawrence 

relied on the position that criminal sodomy laws, like bans 

on contraceptives, invaded privacy by inviting “unwarranted government intrusions” that “touc[h] upon the 

most private human conduct, sexual behavior . . . in the

most private of places, the home.” Id., at 562, 567. 

Neither Lawrence nor any other precedent in the privacy line of cases supports the right that petitioners assert

here. Unlike criminal laws banning contraceptives and

sodomy, the marriage laws at issue here involve no government intrusion. They create no crime and impose no 

punishment. Same-sex couples remain free to live together,

to engage in intimate conduct, and to raise their families as they see fit. No one is “condemned to live in loneli-
 

 

 

 

18 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

ness” by the laws challenged in these cases—no one. Ante, 

at 28. At the same time, the laws in no way interfere with 

the “right to be let alone.” 

The majority also relies on Justice Harlan’s influential

dissenting opinion in Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497 (1961). 

As the majority recounts, that opinion states that “[d]ue 

process has not been reduced to any formula.” Id., at 542. 

But far from conferring the broad interpretive discretion

that the majority discerns, Justice Harlan’s opinion makes 

clear that courts implying fundamental rights are not

“free to roam where unguided speculation might take

them.” Ibid. They must instead have “regard to what 

history teaches” and exercise not only “judgment” but

“restraint.” Ibid. Of particular relevance, Justice Harlan

explained that “laws regarding marriage which provide 

both when the sexual powers may be used and the legal 

and societal context in which children are born and 

brought up . . . form a pattern so deeply pressed into the 

substance of our social life that any Constitutional doctrine in this area must build upon that basis.” Id., at 546. 

In sum, the privacy cases provide no support for the

majority’s position, because petitioners do not seek privacy. Quite the opposite, they seek public recognition of 

their relationships, along with corresponding government 

benefits. Our cases have consistently refused to allow 

litigants to convert the shield provided by constitutional 

liberties into a sword to demand positive entitlements

from the State. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. 

of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189, 196 (1989); San Antonio 

Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 35–37 

(1973); post, at 9–13 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Thus, 

although the right to privacy recognized by our precedents

certainly plays a role in protecting the intimate conduct of 

same-sex couples, it provides no affirmative right to redefine marriage and no basis for striking down the laws at

issue here. 
 

 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 19 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

3 

Perhaps recognizing how little support it can derive

from precedent, the majority goes out of its way to jettison 

the “careful” approach to implied fundamental rights

taken by this Court in Glucksberg. Ante, at 18 (quoting 

521 U. S., at 721). It is revealing that the majority’s position requires it to effectively overrule Glucksberg, the 

leading modern case setting the bounds of substantive due 

process. At least this part of the majority opinion has the 

virtue of candor. Nobody could rightly accuse the majority

of taking a careful approach. 

Ultimately, only one precedent offers any support for 

the majority’s methodology: Lochner v. New York, 198 

U. S. 45. The majority opens its opinion by announcing 

petitioners’ right to “define and express their identity.” 

Ante, at 1–2. The majority later explains that “the right to

personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the

concept of individual autonomy.” Ante, at 12. This freewheeling notion of individual autonomy echoes nothing so

much as “the general right of an individual to be free in his 

person and in his power to contract in relation to his own 

labor.” Lochner, 198 U. S., at 58 (emphasis added).

To be fair, the majority does not suggest that its individual autonomy right is entirely unconstrained. The 

constraints it sets are precisely those that accord with its 

own “reasoned judgment,” informed by its “new insight”

into the “nature of injustice,” which was invisible to all

who came before but has become clear “as we learn [the] 

meaning” of liberty. Ante, at 10, 11. The truth is that 

today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s

own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to 

marry because they want to, and that “it would disparage 

their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them

this right.” Ante, at 19. Whatever force that belief may 

have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis 

in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences 
 

 

20 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

adopted in Lochner. See 198 U. S., at 61 (“We do not 

believe in the soundness of the views which uphold this

law,” which “is an illegal interference with the rights of

individuals . . . to make contracts regarding labor upon 

such terms as they may think best”). 

The majority recognizes that today’s cases do not mark 

“the first time the Court has been asked to adopt a cautious approach to recognizing and protecting fundamental 

rights.” Ante, at 25. On that much, we agree. The Court 

was “asked”—and it agreed—to “adopt a cautious approach” to implying fundamental rights after the debacle

of the Lochner era. Today, the majority casts caution

aside and revives the grave errors of that period. 

One immediate question invited by the majority’s position is whether States may retain the definition of marriage as a union of two people. Cf. Brown v. Buhman, 947 

F. Supp. 2d 1170 (Utah 2013), appeal pending, No. 14-

4117 (CA10). 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.

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning

would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental

right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond

between two men or two women who seek to marry and in

their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 

13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, 

seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex 

couple has the constitutional right to marry because their 
 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 21 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing

their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why

wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or 

more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay

and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of

this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships? See Bennett, Polyamory: The Next Sexual 

Revolution? Newsweek, July 28, 2009 (estimating 500,000

polyamorous families in the United States); Li, Married

Lesbian “Throuple” Expecting First Child, N. Y. Post, Apr.

23, 2014; Otter, Three May Not Be a Crowd: The Case for 

a Constitutional Right to Plural Marriage, 64 Emory L. J.

1977 (2015).

I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex 

couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may

well be relevant differences that compel different legal

analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to 

any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral

argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have 

such an institution.” Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 6. 

But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do 

not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either. 

4 

Near the end of its opinion, the majority offers perhaps 

the clearest insight into its decision. Expanding marriage 

to include same-sex couples, the majority insists, would 

“pose no risk of harm to themselves or third parties.” 

Ante, at 27. This argument again echoes Lochner, which 

relied on its assessment that “we think that a law like the 

one before us involves neither the safety, the morals nor

the welfare of the public, and that the interest of the

public is not in the slightest degree affected by such an

act.” 198 U. S., at 57. 
 

 

 

 

22 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

Then and now, this assertion of the “harm principle”

sounds more in philosophy than law. The elevation of the 

fullest individual self-realization over the constraints that 

society has expressed in law may or may not be attractive

moral philosophy. But a Justice’s commission does not 

confer any special moral, philosophical, or social insight 

sufficient to justify imposing those perceptions on fellow 

citizens under the pretense of “due process.” There is 

indeed a process due the people on issues of this sort—the 

democratic process. Respecting that understanding requires the Court to be guided by law, not any particular

school of social thought. As Judge Henry Friendly once

put it, echoing Justice Holmes’s dissent in Lochner, the 

Fourteenth Amendment does not enact John Stuart Mill’s 

On Liberty any more than it enacts Herbert Spencer’s

Social Statics. See Randolph, Before Roe v. Wade: Judge 

Friendly’s Draft Abortion Opinion, 29 Harv. J. L. & Pub.

Pol’y 1035, 1036–1037, 1058 (2006). And it certainly does 

not enact any one concept of marriage.

The majority’s understanding of due process lays out a

tantalizing vision of the future for Members of this Court: 

If an unvarying social institution enduring over all of 

recorded history cannot inhibit judicial policymaking, 

what can? But this approach is dangerous for the rule of 

law. The purpose of insisting that implied fundamental

rights have roots in the history and tradition of our people

is to ensure that when unelected judges strike down democratically enacted laws, they do so based on something 

more than their own beliefs. The Court today not only

overlooks our country’s entire history and tradition but 

actively repudiates it, preferring to live only in the heady 

days of the here and now. I agree with the majority that 

the “nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in 

our own times.” Ante, at 11. As petitioners put it, “times 

can blind.” Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 9, 10. But to 

blind yourself to history is both prideful and unwise. “The 
 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 23 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

past is never dead. It’s not even past.” W. Faulkner, 

Requiem for a Nun 92 (1951). 

III 

In addition to their due process argument, petitioners 

contend that the Equal Protection Clause requires their 

States to license and recognize same-sex marriages. The 

majority does not seriously engage with this claim. Its 

discussion is, quite frankly, difficult to follow. The central 

point seems to be that there is a “synergy between” the 

Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause, and 

that some precedents relying on one Clause have also

relied on the other. Ante, at 20. Absent from this portion

of the opinion, however, is anything resembling our usual

framework for deciding equal protection cases. It is casebook doctrine that the “modern Supreme Court’s treatment of equal protection claims has used a means-ends 

methodology in which judges ask whether the classification the government is using is sufficiently related to the

goals it is pursuing.” G. Stone, L. Seidman, C. Sunstein, 

M. Tushnet, & P. Karlan, Constitutional Law 453 (7th ed.

2013). The majority’s approach today is different: 

“Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal 

protection may rest on different precepts and are not

always co-extensive, yet in some instances each may

be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the 

other. In any particular case one Clause may be 

thought to capture the essence of the right in a more 

accurate and comprehensive way, even as the two

Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.” Ante, at 19. 

The majority goes on to assert in conclusory fashion that

the Equal Protection Clause provides an alternative basis 

for its holding. Ante, at 22. Yet the majority fails to provide even a single sentence explaining how the Equal 
 

 

24 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

Protection Clause supplies independent weight for its 

position, nor does it attempt to justify its gratuitous violation of the canon against unnecessarily resolving constitutional questions. See Northwest Austin Municipal Util. 

Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193, 197 (2009). In any 

event, the marriage laws at issue here do not violate the

Equal Protection Clause, because distinguishing between 

opposite-sex and same-sex couples is rationally related to 

the States’ “legitimate state interest” in “preserving the 

traditional institution of marriage.” Lawrence, 539 U. S., 

at 585 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment).

It is important to note with precision which laws petitioners have challenged. Although they discuss some of

the ancillary legal benefits that accompany marriage, such

as hospital visitation rights and recognition of spousal 

status on official documents, petitioners’ lawsuits target

the laws defining marriage generally rather than those 

allocating benefits specifically. The equal protection

analysis might be different, in my view, if we were confronted with a more focused challenge to the denial of 

certain tangible benefits. Of course, those more selective 

claims will not arise now that the Court has taken the 

drastic step of requiring every State to license and recognize marriages between same-sex couples. 

IV 

The legitimacy of this Court ultimately rests “upon the

respect accorded to its judgments.” Republican Party of 

Minn. v. White, 536 U. S. 765, 793 (2002) (KENNEDY, J., 

concurring). That respect flows from the perception—and

reality—that we exercise humility and restraint in deciding cases according to the Constitution and law. The role 

of the Court envisioned by the majority today, however, is 

anything but humble or restrained. Over and over, the 

majority exalts the role of the judiciary in delivering social 

change. In the majority’s telling, it is the courts, not the 
 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 25 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

people, who are responsible for making “new dimensions of

freedom . . . apparent to new generations,” for providing

“formal discourse” on social issues, and for ensuring “neutral discussions, without scornful or disparaging commentary.” Ante, at 7–9. 

Nowhere is the majority’s extravagant conception of

judicial supremacy more evident than in its description—

and dismissal—of the public debate regarding same-sex 

marriage. Yes, the majority concedes, on one side are 

thousands of years of human history in every society

known to have populated the planet. But on the other 

side, there has been “extensive litigation,” “many thoughtful District Court decisions,” “countless studies, papers, 

books, and other popular and scholarly writings,” and 

“more than 100” amicus briefs in these cases alone. Ante, 

at 9, 10, 23. What would be the point of allowing the 

democratic process to go on? It is high time for the Court

to decide the meaning of marriage, based on five lawyers’ 

“better informed understanding” of “a liberty that remains 

urgent in our own era.” Ante, at 19. The answer is surely 

there in one of those amicus briefs or studies. 

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.” Ante, at 8. In our democracy,

debate about the content of the law is not an exhaustion 

requirement to be checked off before courts can impose 

their will. “Surely the Constitution does not put either the

legislative branch or the executive branch in the position

of a television quiz show contestant so that when a given 

period of time has elapsed and a problem remains unre-
 

 

26 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

solved by them, the federal judiciary may press a buzzer

and take its turn at fashioning a solution.” Rehnquist,

The Notion of a Living Constitution, 54 Texas L. Rev. 693,

700 (1976). As a plurality of this Court explained just last

year, “It is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that voters are not capable of deciding an issue of 

this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds.” Schuette 

v. BAMN, 572 U. S. ___, ___ –___ (2014) (slip op., at 16– 

17).

The Court’s accumulation of power does not occur in a 

vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people. And they 

know it. Here and abroad, people are in the midst of a 

serious and thoughtful public debate on the issue of samesex marriage. They see voters carefully considering samesex marriage, casting ballots in favor or opposed, and

sometimes changing their minds. They see political leaders similarly reexamining their positions, and either reversing course or explaining adherence to old convictions

confirmed anew. They see governments and businesses

modifying policies and practices with respect to same-sex 

couples, and participating actively in the civic discourse. 

They see countries overseas democratically accepting

profound social change, or declining to do so. This deliberative process is making people take seriously questions 

that they may not have even regarded as questions before. 

When decisions are reached through democratic means,

some people will inevitably be disappointed with the results. But those whose views do not prevail at least know

that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the

tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result

of a fair and honest debate. In addition, they can gear up

to raise the issue later, hoping to persuade enough on the

winning side to think again. “That is exactly how our

system of government is supposed to work.” Post, at 2–3 

(SCALIA, J., dissenting).

But today the Court puts a stop to all that. By deciding 
 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 27 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it 

from the realm of democratic decision. There will be 

consequences to shutting down the political process on an

issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate

tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely

to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not 

seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide. As a 

thoughtful commentator observed about another issue, 

“The political process was moving . . . , not swiftly enough

for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian 

institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handed

judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to

have provoked, not resolved, conflict.” Ginsburg, Some

Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. 

Wade, 63 N. C. L. Rev. 375, 385–386 (1985) (footnote

omitted). Indeed, however heartened the proponents of 

same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the 

opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from 

persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their 

cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change

were freshening at their backs.

Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to 

creating rights. They have constitutional power only to 

resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have

the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties

not before the court or to anticipate problems that may

arise from the exercise of a new right. Today’s decision,

for example, 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. Amdt. 1. 

Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters

and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex 

marriage democratically to include accommodations for 
 

 

 

28 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing samesex 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. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment 

guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion.

Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses. 

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. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. 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.

Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision

is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully

those on the other side of the debate. The majority offers a

cursory assurance that it does not intend to disparage 

people who, as a matter of conscience, cannot accept samesex marriage. Ante, at 19. That disclaimer is hard to 

square with the very next sentence, in which the majority 

explains that “the necessary consequence” of laws codifying the traditional definition of marriage is to “demea[n]

or stigmatiz[e]” same-sex couples. Ante, at 19. The majority reiterates such characterizations over and over. By the 

majority’s account, Americans who did nothing more than 

follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for 

our entire history—in particular, the tens of millions of 

people who voted to reaffirm their States’ enduring defini-
 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 29 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

tion of marriage—have acted to “lock . . . out,” “disparage,”

“disrespect and subordinate,” and inflict “[d]ignitary

wounds” upon their gay and lesbian neighbors. Ante, at 

17, 19, 22, 25. These apparent assaults on the character of

fairminded people will have an effect, in society and in 

court. See post, at 6–7 (ALITO, J., dissenting). Moreover, 

they are entirely gratuitous. It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to

same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s “better informed 

understanding” as bigoted. Ante, at 19. 

In the face of all this, a much different view of the 

Court’s role is possible. That view is more modest and 

restrained. It is more skeptical that the legal abilities of 

judges also reflect insight into moral and philosophical 

issues. It is more sensitive to the fact that judges are 

unelected and unaccountable, and that the legitimacy of 

their power depends on confining it to the exercise of legal 

judgment. It is more attuned to the lessons of history, and 

what it has meant for the country and Court when Justices have exceeded their proper bounds. And it is less 

pretentious than to suppose 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. 

* * * 

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.

I respectfully dissent. 
_________________ 

_________________ 

 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 1 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Nos. 14–556, 14-562, 14-571 and 14–574 

JAMES OBERGEFELL, ET AL., PETITIONERS 

14–556 v. 

RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.; 

VALERIA TANCO, ET AL., PETITIONERS 

14–562 v. 

BILL HASLAM, GOVERNOR OF 

TENNESSEE, ET AL.; 

APRIL DEBOER, ET AL., PETITIONERS 

14–571 v. 

RICK SNYDER, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, 

ET AL.; AND 

GREGORY BOURKE, ET AL., PETITIONERS 

14–574 v. 

STEVE BESHEAR, GOVERNOR OF 

KENTUCKY 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

[June 26, 2015]

 JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins,

dissenting. 

I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American

democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil 

consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. 
 

2 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that 

conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps 

have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the 

effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of 

special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it 

is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and 

the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a 

majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The 

opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—

and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the

Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This 

practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of 

Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the 

freedom to govern themselves. 

I 

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over

same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its 

best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, 

but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the 

arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates 

of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to.1 Win or lose, advocates 

for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the 

knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later 

electoral win. That is exactly how our system of govern-

—————— 

1Brief for Respondents in No. 14–571, p. 14. 
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 3 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

ment is supposed to work.2 

The Constitution places some constraints on self-rule—

constraints adopted by the People themselves when they 

ratified the Constitution and its Amendments. Forbidden 

are laws “impairing the Obligation of Contracts,”3 denying 

“Full Faith and Credit” to the “public Acts” of other 

States,4 prohibiting the free exercise of religion,5 abridging 

the freedom of speech,6 infringing the right to keep and 

bear arms,7 authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures,8 and so forth. Aside from these limitations, those 

powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to the

people”9 can be exercised as the States or the People desire. These cases ask us to decide whether the Fourteenth 

Amendment contains a limitation that requires the States

to license and recognize marriages between two people of 

the same sex. Does it remove that issue from the political 

process?

Of course not. 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.”10 

—————— 

2Accord, Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2014) (plurality 

opinion) (slip op., at 15–17). 3U. S. Const., Art. I, §10. 

4Art. IV, §1. 

5Amdt. 1. 

6 Ibid. 7Amdt. 2. 

8Amdt. 4. 

9Amdt. 10. 

10 United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 16)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 
 

 

 

4 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

“[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has

deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to 

domestic relations.”11 

But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth 

Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited

marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted 

the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these 

cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a 

vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of 

law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable 

that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification.12 

We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not 

expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, 

and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, 

widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the 

Amendment’s ratification. Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate

over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue. 

But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking

even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries 

and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a 

candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the 

People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those 

rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,”

thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.13 

That is so because “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did

not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its 

—————— 

11 Id., at ___ (slip op., at 17). 12See Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2014) (slip 

op., at 7–8). 13 Ante, at 10. 
 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 5 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

dimensions . . . . ”14 One would think that sentence would 

continue: “. . . and therefore they provided for a means by 

which the People could amend the Constitution,” or perhaps “. . . and therefore they left the creation of additional 

liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the 

same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process 

of legislation.” But no. What logically follows, in the

majority’s judge-empowering estimation, is: “and so they

entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the 

right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”15 The “we,” needless to say, is the nine of us. “History

and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do 

not set its outer boundaries.”16 Thus, rather than focusing 

on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of 

ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four

“principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, 

prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution

consisting of one man and one woman.17 

This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, 

super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds 

with our system of government. Except as limited by a 

constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the 

States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even

those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People

subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does 

not deserve to be called a democracy. 

Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers;

whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section 

—————— 

14 Ante, at 11. 15 Ibid. 16 Ante, at 10–11. 17 Ante, at 12–18. 
 

6 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists

of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers18 who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four 

of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them 

grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails 

from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner

(California does not count). Not a single evangelical

Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of 

Americans19), or even a Protestant of any denomination. 

The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body 

voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if 

they were functioning as judges, answering the legal 

question whether the American people had ever ratified a

constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe

the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the 

Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; 

they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of

same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a 

select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is 

to violate a principle even more fundamental than no 

taxation without representation: no social transformation 

without representation. 

II 

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in

today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose

today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that 

—————— 

18The predominant attitude of tall-building lawyers with respect to 

the questions presented in these cases is suggested by the fact that the

American Bar Association deemed it in accord with the wishes of its 

members to file a brief in support of the petitioners. See Brief for 

American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae in Nos. 14–571 and 14– 

574, pp. 1–5. 19See Pew Research Center, America’s Changing Religious Landscape 4 (May 12, 2015). 
 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 7 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 

years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification

and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in

2003.20 They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person

alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else

in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—

minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver 

Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, 

William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, 

Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—

could not. They are certain that the People ratified the

Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to

remove questions from the democratic process when that

is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices 

know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is 

contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as 

government itself, and accepted by every nation in history 

until 15 years ago,21 cannot possibly be supported by 

anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are

willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with 

that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the 

unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies,

stands against the Constitution.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious

as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, 

even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is 

something else for the official opinion of the Court to do 

so.22 Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often 

—————— 

20 Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N. E. 

2d 941 (2003). 21 Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ (ALITO, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 7). 22 If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all

within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that 
 

 

8 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that,

through its enduring bond, two persons together can find

other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”23 (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and

spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if 

intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is 

abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the 

nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but 

anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that

happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can

prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a

better informed understanding of how constitutional 

imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our 

own era.”24 (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that

means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty 

[never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, 

“[i]n any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or 

Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive 

way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.”25 

(What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due

process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive 

way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And 

the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies 

nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court 

—————— 

allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their 

identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the

United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of

John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the 

fortune cookie. 23 Ante, at 13. 24 Ante, at 19. 25 Ibid. 
 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 9 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the 

opinion is correct that the two clauses “converge in the

identification and definition of [a] right,” that is only

because the majority’s likes and dislikes are predictably 

compatible.) I could go on. The world does not expect 

logic and precision in poetry or inspirational popphilosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s 

reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis. 

* * * 

Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and 

pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the

“least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has

“neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must

ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and 

the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”26 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. 

—————— 

26The Federalist No. 78, pp. 522, 523 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). 
_________________ 

_________________ 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 1 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Nos. 14–556, 14-562, 14-571 and 14–574 

JAMES OBERGEFELL, ET AL., PETITIONERS 

14–556 v. 

RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.; 

VALERIA TANCO, ET AL., PETITIONERS 

14–562 v. 

BILL HASLAM, GOVERNOR OF 

TENNESSEE, ET AL.; 

APRIL DEBOER, ET AL., PETITIONERS 

14–571 v. 

RICK SNYDER, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, 

ET AL.; AND 

GREGORY BOURKE, ET AL., PETITIONERS 

14–574 v. 

STEVE BESHEAR, GOVERNOR OF 

KENTUCKY 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

[June 26, 2015]

 JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins,

dissenting. 

The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the

Constitution, but with the principles upon which our

Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been

understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our 
 

 

 

2 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty.

Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a

“liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to 

the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along

the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of 

Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests 

instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts 

the relationship between the individual and the state in

our Republic. I cannot agree with it. 

I 

The majority’s decision today will require States to issue

marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize 

same-sex marriages entered in other States largely based

on a constitutional provision guaranteeing “due process”

before a person is deprived of his “life, liberty, or property.” I have elsewhere explained the dangerous fiction of

treating the Due Process Clause as a font of substantive 

rights. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 811–812 

(2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in 

judgment). It distorts the constitutional text, which guarantees only whatever “process” is “due” before a person is

deprived of life, liberty, and property. U. S. Const., Amdt. 

14, §1. Worse, it 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. 

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 

U. S. 833, 953, 965 (1992) (Rehnquist, C. J., concurring in

judgment in part and dissenting in part) (quoting Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 502 (1965) (Harlan, J.,

concurring in judgment)). 

By straying from the text of the Constitution, substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People 

from whom they derive their authority. Petitioners argue 
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 3 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

that by enshrining the traditional definition of marriage in

their State Constitutions through voter-approved amendments, the States have put the issue “beyond the reach of

the normal democratic process.” Brief for Petitioners in 

No. 14–562, p. 54. But the result petitioners seek is far 

less democratic. They ask nine judges on this Court to

enshrine their definition of marriage in the Federal Constitution and thus put it beyond the reach of the normal

democratic process for the entire Nation. That a “bare 

majority” of this Court, ante, at 25, is able to grant this

wish, wiping out with a stroke of the keyboard the results 

of the political process in over 30 States, based on a provision that guarantees only “due process” is but further

evidence of the danger of substantive due process.1 

II 

Even if the doctrine of substantive due process were

somehow defensible—it is not—petitioners still would not 

have a claim. To invoke the protection of the Due Process 

Clause at all—whether under a theory of “substantive” or

“procedural” due process—a party must first identify a 

deprivation of “life, liberty, or property.” The majority

claims these state laws deprive petitioners of “liberty,” but 

the concept of “liberty” it conjures up bears no resemblance to any plausible meaning of that word as it is used 

in the Due Process Clauses. 

—————— 

1The majority states that the right it believes is “part of the liberty 

promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that 

Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.” Ante, at 

19. Despite the “synergy” it finds “between th[ese] two protections,” 

ante, at 20, the majority clearly uses equal protection only to shore up

its substantive due process analysis, an analysis both based on an

imaginary constitutional protection and revisionist view of our history 

and tradition. 
 

 

4 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

A 

1 

As used in the Due Process Clauses, “liberty” most likely 

refers to “the power of loco-motion, of changing situation, 

or removing one’s person to whatsoever place one’s own 

inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint,

unless by due course of law.” 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 130 (1769) (Blackstone).

That definition is drawn from the historical roots of the 

Clauses and is consistent with our Constitution’s text and 

structure. 

Both of the Constitution’s Due Process Clauses reach 

back to Magna Carta. See Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 

U. S. 97, 101–102 (1878). Chapter 39 of the original

Magna Carta provided, “No free man shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, banished, or in any way 

destroyed, nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, 

except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law 

of the land.” Magna Carta, ch. 39, in A. Howard, Magna

Carta: Text and Commentary 43 (1964). Although the 

1215 version of Magna Carta was in effect for only a few 

weeks, this provision was later reissued in 1225 with

modest changes to its wording as follows: “No freeman 

shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon 

him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his 

peers or by the law of the land.” 1 E. Coke, The Second 

Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England 45 (1797). In 

his influential commentary on the provision many years

later, Sir Edward Coke interpreted the words “by the law 

of the land” to mean the same thing as “by due proces of 

the common law.” Id., at 50. 

After Magna Carta became subject to renewed interest 

in the 17th century, see, e.g., ibid., William Blackstone 

referred to this provision as protecting the “absolute rights 
 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 5 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

of every Englishman.” 1 Blackstone 123. And he formulated those absolute rights as “the right of personal security,” which included the right to life; “the right of personal 

liberty”; and “the right of private property.” Id., at 125. 

He defined “the right of personal liberty” as “the power of

loco-motion, of changing situation, or removing one’s

person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may 

direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due 

course of law.” Id., at 125, 130.2 

The Framers drew heavily upon Blackstone’s formulation, adopting provisions in early State Constitutions that

replicated Magna Carta’s language, but were modified to

refer specifically to “life, liberty, or property.”3 State 

—————— 

2The seeds of this articulation can also be found in Henry Care’s

influential treatise, English Liberties. First published in America in

1721, it described the “three things, which the Law of England . . . 

principally regards and taketh Care of,” as “Life, Liberty and Estate,” 

and described habeas corpus as the means by which one could procure

one’s “Liberty” from imprisonment. The Habeas Corpus Act, comment., 

in English Liberties, or the Free-born Subject’s Inheritance 185 (H. 

Care comp. 5th ed. 1721). Though he used the word “Liberties” by itself 

more broadly, see, e.g., id., at 7, 34, 56, 58, 60, he used “Liberty” in a 

narrow sense when placed alongside the words “Life” or “Estate,” see, 

e.g., id., at 185, 200. 3Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina adopted the phrase

“life, liberty, or property” in provisions otherwise tracking Magna 

Carta: “That no freeman ought to be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized

of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any 

manner destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by

the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.” Md. Const., 

Declaration of Rights, Art. XXI (1776), in 3 Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws 1688 (F. Thorpe ed. 

1909); see also S. C. Const., Art. XLI (1778), in 6 id., at 3257; N. C. 

Const., Declaration of Rights, Art. XII (1776), in 5 id., at 2788. Massachusetts and New Hampshire did the same, albeit with some alterations to Magna Carta’s framework: “[N]o subject shall be arrested, 

imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or

privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled, or deprived of his 

life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the

land.” Mass. Const., pt. I, Art. XII (1780), in 3 id., at 1891; see also 
 

 

 

6 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

decisions interpreting these provisions between the founding and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment

almost uniformly construed the word “liberty” to refer only 

to freedom from physical restraint. See Warren, The New 

“Liberty” Under the Fourteenth Amendment, 39 Harv.

L. Rev. 431, 441–445 (1926). Even one case that has been 

identified as a possible exception to that view merely used 

broad language about liberty in the context of a habeas

corpus proceeding—a proceeding classically associated 

with obtaining freedom from physical restraint. Cf. id., at 

444–445. 

In enacting the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, 

the Framers similarly chose to employ the “life, liberty, or

property” formulation, though they otherwise deviated 

substantially from the States’ use of Magna Carta’s language in the Clause. See Shattuck, The True Meaning of 

the Term “Liberty” in Those Clauses in the Federal and

State Constitutions Which Protect “Life, Liberty, and

Property,” 4 Harv. L. Rev. 365, 382 (1890). When read in 

light of the history of that formulation, it is hard to see 

how the “liberty” protected by the Clause could be interpreted to include anything broader than freedom from 

physical restraint. That was the consistent usage of the

time when “liberty” was paired with “life” and “property.”

See id., at 375. And that usage avoids rendering superfluous those protections for “life” and “property.”

If the Fifth Amendment uses “liberty” in this narrow 

sense, then the Fourteenth Amendment likely does as

well. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516, 534–535 

(1884). Indeed, this Court has previously commented,

“The conclusion is . . . irresistible, that when the same 

phrase was employed in the Fourteenth Amendment [as

was used in the Fifth Amendment], it was used in the 

same sense and with no greater extent.” Ibid. And this 

—————— 

N. H. Const., pt. I, Art. XV (1784), in 4 id., at 2455. 
 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 7 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

Court’s earliest Fourteenth Amendment decisions appear

to interpret the Clause as using “liberty” to mean freedom

from physical restraint. In Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113 

(1877), for example, the Court recognized the relationship 

between the two Due Process Clauses and Magna Carta, 

see id., at 123–124, and implicitly rejected the dissent’s 

argument that “‘liberty’” encompassed “something more 

. . . than mere freedom from physical restraint or the 

bounds of a prison,” id., at 142 (Field, J., dissenting). That 

the Court appears to have lost its way in more recent

years does not justify deviating from the original meaning

of the Clauses. 

2 

Even assuming that the “liberty” in those Clauses encompasses something more than freedom from physical

restraint, it would not include the types of rights claimed

by the majority. In the American legal tradition, liberty

has long been understood as individual freedom from 

governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement. 

The founding-era understanding of liberty was heavily 

influenced by John Locke, whose writings “on natural 

rights and on the social and governmental contract” were 

cited “[i]n pamphlet after pamphlet” by American writers.

B. Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution 27 (1967). Locke described men as existing in a state

of nature, possessed of the “perfect freedom to order their 

actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as

they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, 

without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any 

other man.” J. Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, §4, p. 4 (J. Gough ed. 1947) (Locke). Because that 

state of nature left men insecure in their persons and

property, they entered civil society, trading a portion of 

their natural liberty for an increase in their security. See 
 

8 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

id., §97, at 49. Upon consenting to that order, men obtained civil liberty, or the freedom “to be under no other 

legislative power but that established by consent in the

commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will or 

restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact 

according to the trust put in it.” Id., §22, at 13.4 

This philosophy permeated the 18th-century political

scene in America. A 1756 editorial in the Boston Gazette, 

for example, declared that “Liberty in the State of Nature” 

was the “inherent natural Right” “of each Man” “to make a

free Use of his Reason and Understanding, and to chuse 

that Action which he thinks he can give the best Account 

of,” but that, “in Society, every Man parts with a Small 

Share of his natural Liberty, or lodges it in the publick 

Stock, that he may possess the Remainder without Controul.” Boston Gazette and Country Journal, No. 58, May 

10, 1756, p. 1. Similar sentiments were expressed in

public speeches, sermons, and letters of the time. See 1 C. 

—————— 

4Locke’s theories heavily influenced other prominent writers of the 

17th and 18th centuries. Blackstone, for one, agreed that “natural

liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without 

any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature” and described civil 

liberty as that “which leaves the subject entire master of his own 

conduct,” except as “restrained by human laws.” 1 Blackstone 121–122. 

And in a “treatise routinely cited by the Founders,” Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 

ante, at 5 (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in

part), Thomas Rutherforth wrote, “By liberty we mean the power,

which a man has to act as he thinks fit, where no law restrains him; it 

may therefore be called a mans right over his own actions.” 1 T. Rutherforth, Institutes of Natural Law 146 (1754). Rutherforth explained 

that “[t]he only restraint, which a mans right over his own actions is

originally under, is the obligation of governing himself by the law of

nature, and the law of God,” and that “[w]hatever right those of our

own species may have . . . to restrain [those actions] within certain

bounds, beyond what the law of nature has prescribed, arises from 

some after-act of our own, from some consent either express or tacit, by

which we have alienated our liberty, or transferred the right of directing our actions from ourselves to them.” Id., at 147–148. 
 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 9 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

Hyneman & D. Lutz, American Political Writing During 

the Founding Era 1760–1805, pp. 100, 308, 385 (1983). 

The founding-era idea of civil liberty as natural liberty 

constrained by human law necessarily involved only those

freedoms that existed outside of government. See Hamburger, Natural Rights, Natural Law, and American 

Constitutions, 102 Yale L. J. 907, 918–919 (1993). As one 

later commentator observed, “[L]iberty in the eighteenth

century was thought of much more in relation to ‘negative

liberty’; that is, freedom from, not freedom to, freedom 

from a number of social and political evils, including arbitrary government power.” J. Reid, The Concept of Liberty

in the Age of the American Revolution 56 (1988). Or as 

one scholar put it in 1776, “[T]he common idea of liberty is 

merely negative, and is only the absence of restraint.” R. 

Hey, Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty and the

Principles of Government §13, p. 8 (1776) (Hey). When the 

colonists described laws that would infringe their liberties, 

they discussed laws that would prohibit individuals “from 

walking in the streets and highways on certain saints 

days, or from being abroad after a certain time in the 

evening, or . . . restrain [them] from working up and manufacturing materials of [their] own growth.” Downer, A 

Discourse at the Dedication of the Tree of Liberty, in 1 

Hyneman, supra, at 101. Each of those examples involved

freedoms that existed outside of government. 

B 

Whether we define “liberty” as locomotion or freedom 

from governmental action more broadly, petitioners have 

in no way been deprived of it.

Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible 

definition of “liberty,” that they have been imprisoned or 

physically restrained by the States for participating in

same-sex relationships. To the contrary, they have been

able to cohabitate and raise their children in peace. They 
 

10 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

have been able to hold civil marriage ceremonies in States 

that recognize same-sex marriages and private religious

ceremonies in all States. They have been able to travel 

freely around the country, making their homes where they 

please. Far from being incarcerated or physically restrained, petitioners have been left alone to order their 

lives as they see fit. 

Nor, under the broader definition, can they claim that

the States have restricted their ability to go about their 

daily lives as they would be able to absent governmental 

restrictions. Petitioners do not ask this Court to order the 

States to stop restricting their ability to enter same-sex 

relationships, to engage in intimate behavior, to make 

vows to their partners in public ceremonies, to engage in 

religious wedding ceremonies, to hold themselves out as

married, or to raise children. The States have imposed no 

such restrictions. Nor have the States prevented petitioners from approximating a number of incidents of marriage 

through private legal means, such as wills, trusts, and 

powers of attorney.

Instead, the States have refused to grant them governmental entitlements. Petitioners claim that as a matter of 

“liberty,” they are entitled to access privileges and benefits

that exist solely because of the government. They want, 

for example, to receive the State’s imprimatur on their 

marriages—on state issued marriage licenses, death certificates, or other official forms. And they want to receive

various monetary benefits, including reduced inheritance 

taxes upon the death of a spouse, compensation if a spouse 

dies as a result of a work-related injury, or loss of consortium damages in tort suits. But receiving governmental 

recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of “liberty” that the Framers would have 

recognized.

To the extent that the Framers would have recognized a

natural right to marriage that fell within the broader 
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 11 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

definition of liberty, it would not have included a right to

governmental recognition and benefits. Instead, it would 

have included a right to engage in the very same activities 

that petitioners have been left free to engage in—making 

vows, holding religious ceremonies celebrating those vows, 

raising children, and otherwise enjoying the society of

one’s spouse—without governmental interference. At the 

founding, such conduct was understood to predate government, not to flow from it. As Locke had explained 

many years earlier, “The first society was between man 

and wife, which gave beginning to that between parents 

and children.” Locke §77, at 39; see also J. Wilson, Lectures on Law, in 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1068 

(K. Hall and M. Hall eds. 2007) (concluding “that to the 

institution of marriage the true origin of society must be 

traced”). Petitioners misunderstand the institution of 

marriage when they say that it would “mean little” absent 

governmental recognition. Brief for Petitioners in No. 14– 

556, p. 33.

Petitioners’ misconception of liberty carries over into 

their discussion of our precedents identifying a right to

marry, not one of which has expanded the concept of “liberty” beyond the concept of negative liberty. Those precedents all involved absolute prohibitions on private actions

associated with marriage. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 

(1967), for example, involved a couple who was criminally 

prosecuted for marrying in the District of Columbia and 

cohabiting in Virginia, id., at 2–3.5 They were each sen-

—————— 

5The suggestion of petitioners and their amici that antimiscegenation 

laws are akin to laws defining marriage as between one man and one 

woman is both offensive and inaccurate. “America’s earliest laws 

against interracial sex and marriage were spawned by slavery.” P. 

Pascoe, What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of 

Race in America 19 (2009). For instance, Maryland’s 1664 law prohibiting marriages between “ ‘freeborne English women’ ” and “ ‘Negro

Sla[v]es’ ” was passed as part of the very act that authorized lifelong 
 

 

12 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

tenced to a year of imprisonment, suspended for a term of 

25 years on the condition that they not reenter the Commonwealth together during that time. Id., at 3.6 In a 

similar vein, Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374 (1978), 

involved a man who was prohibited, on pain of criminal

penalty, from “marry[ing] in Wisconsin or elsewhere”

because of his outstanding child-support obligations, id., 

at 387; see id., at 377–378. And Turner v. Safley, 482 

U. S. 78 (1987), involved state inmates who were prohibited from entering marriages without the permission of the

superintendent of the prison, permission that could not be 

granted absent compelling reasons, id., at 82. In none of 

those cases were individuals denied solely governmental 

—————— 

slavery in the colony. Id., at 19–20. Virginia’s antimiscegenation laws 

likewise were passed in a 1691 resolution entitled “An act for suppressing outlying Slaves.” Act of Apr. 1691, Ch. XVI, 3 Va. Stat. 86 (W. 

Hening ed. 1823) (reprint 1969) (italics deleted). “It was not until the 

Civil War threw the future of slavery into doubt that lawyers, legislators, and judges began to develop the elaborate justifications that

signified the emergence of miscegenation law and made restrictions on 

interracial marriage the foundation of post-Civil War white supremacy.” Pascoe, supra, at 27–28. 

Laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman do not 

share this sordid history. The traditional definition of marriage has

prevailed in every society that has recognized marriage throughout

history. Brief for Scholars of History and Related Disciplines as Amici 

Curiae 1. It arose not out of a desire to shore up an invidious institution like slavery, but out of a desire “to increase the likelihood that 

children will be born and raised in stable and enduring family units by

both the mothers and the fathers who brought them into this world.” 

Id., at 8. And it has existed in civilizations containing all manner of

views on homosexuality. See Brief for Ryan T. Anderson as Amicus 

Curiae 11–12 (explaining that several famous ancient Greeks wrote 

approvingly of the traditional definition of marriage, though same-sex

sexual relations were common in Greece at the time). 6The prohibition extended so far as to forbid even religious ceremonies, thus raising a serious question under the First Amendment’s Free

Exercise Clause, as at least one amicus brief at the time pointed out. 

Brief for John J. Russell et al. as Amici Curiae in Loving v. Virginia, 

O.T. 1966, No. 395, pp. 12–16. 
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 13 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

recognition and benefits associated with marriage. 

In a concession to petitioners’ misconception of liberty,

the majority characterizes petitioners’ suit as a quest to 

“find . . . liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and 

having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms

and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.” Ante, at 2. But “liberty” is not lost, nor can it be

found in the way petitioners seek. As a philosophical 

matter, liberty is only freedom from governmental action, 

not an entitlement to governmental benefits. And as a 

constitutional matter, it is likely even narrower than that,

encompassing only freedom from physical restraint and 

imprisonment. The majority’s “better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define . . .

liberty,” ante, at 19,—better informed, we must assume, 

than that of the people who ratified the Fourteenth

Amendment—runs headlong into the reality that our 

Constitution is a “collection of ‘Thou shalt nots,’” Reid v. 

Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 9 (1957) (plurality opinion), not “Thou

shalt provides.” 

III 

The majority’s inversion of the original meaning of 

liberty will likely cause collateral damage to other aspects

of our constitutional order that protect liberty. 

A 

The majority apparently disregards the political process 

as a protection for liberty. Although men, in forming a

civil society, “give up all the power necessary to the ends 

for which they unite into society, to the majority of the 

community,” Locke §99, at 49, they reserve the authority

to exercise natural liberty within the bounds of laws established by that society, id., §22, at 13; see also Hey §§52, 

54, at 30–32. To protect that liberty from arbitrary interference, they establish a process by which that society can 
 

14 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

adopt and enforce its laws. In our country, that process is

primarily representative government at the state level, 

with the Federal Constitution serving as a backstop for 

that process. As a general matter, when the States act 

through their representative governments or by popular

vote, the liberty of their residents is fully vindicated. This 

is no less true when some residents disagree with the 

result; indeed, it seems difficult to imagine any law on 

which all residents of a State would agree. See Locke §98,

at 49 (suggesting that society would cease to function if it 

required unanimous consent to laws). What matters is 

that the process established by those who created the

society has been honored. 

That process has been honored here. The definition of 

marriage has been the subject of heated debate in the

States. Legislatures have repeatedly taken up the matter

on behalf of the People, and 35 States have put the question to the People themselves. In 32 of those 35 States, 

the People have opted to retain the traditional definition 

of marriage. Brief for Respondents in No. 14–571, pp. 1a– 

7a. That petitioners disagree with the result of that process does not make it any less legitimate. Their civil 

liberty has been vindicated. 

B 

Aside from undermining the political processes that 

protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the 

religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.

The history of religious liberty in our country is familiar: 

Many of the earliest immigrants to America came seeking 

freedom to practice their religion without restraint. See 

McConnell, The Origins and Historical Understanding of 

Free Exercise of Religion, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1409, 1422–

1425 (1990). When they arrived, they created their own

havens for religious practice. Ibid. Many of these havens 

were initially homogenous communities with established 
 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 15 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

religions. Ibid. By the 1780’s, however, “America was in

the wake of a great religious revival” marked by a move

toward free exercise of religion. Id., at 1437. Every State

save Connecticut adopted protections for religious freedom

in their State Constitutions by 1789, id., at 1455, and, of 

course, the First Amendment enshrined protection for the 

free exercise of religion in the U. S. Constitution. But that 

protection was far from the last word on religious liberty

in this country, as the Federal Government and the States 

have reaffirmed their commitment to religious liberty by

codifying protections for religious practice. See, e.g., Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 107 Stat. 1488, 42

U. S. C. §2000bb et seq.; Conn. Gen. Stat. §52–571b (2015). 

Numerous amici—even some not supporting the 

States—have cautioned the Court that its decision here 

will “have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications

for religious liberty.” Brief for General Conference of 

Seventh-Day Adventists et al. as Amici Curiae 5. In our 

society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution;

it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today’s

decision might change the former, but it cannot change 

the latter. 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. 

The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It 

makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a

single paragraph, ante, at 27. And even that gesture

indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our 

Nation’s tradition. 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.” Ibid. 

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 
 

 

16 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

practice.7 

Although our Constitution provides some protection 

against such governmental restrictions on religious practices, the People have long elected to afford broader protections than this Court’s constitutional precedents mandate. 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. 

IV 

Perhaps recognizing that these cases do not actually

involve liberty as it has been understood, the majority 

goes to great lengths to assert that its decision will advance the “dignity” of same-sex couples. Ante, at 3, 13, 26, 

28.8 The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the 

Constitution contains no “dignity” Clause, and even if it

did, the government would be incapable of bestowing 

dignity.

Human dignity has long been understood in this country 

to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” 

—————— 

7Concerns about threats to religious liberty in this context are not 

unfounded. During the hey-day of antimiscegenation laws in this

country, for instance, Virginia imposed criminal penalties on ministers

who performed marriage in violation of those laws, though their religions would have permitted them to perform such ceremonies. Va. 

Code Ann. §20–60 (1960). 8The majority also suggests that marriage confers “nobility” on individuals. Ante, at 3. I am unsure what that means. People may choose 

to marry or not to marry. The decision to do so does not make one 

person more “noble” than another. And the suggestion that Americans 

who choose not to marry are inferior to those who decide to enter such 

relationships is specious. 
 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 17 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable

Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all

humans are created in the image of God and therefore of

inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which

this Nation was built. 

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity

cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not 

lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) 

because the government allowed them to be enslaved.

Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity

because the government confined them. And those denied 

governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity

because the government denies them those benefits. The 

government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it 

away.

The majority’s musings are thus deeply misguided, but

at least those musings can have no effect on the dignity of 

the persons the majority demeans. Its mischaracterization of the arguments presented by the States and their 

amici can have no effect on the dignity of those litigants. 

Its rejection of laws preserving the traditional definition of 

marriage can have no effect on the dignity of the people 

who voted for them. Its invalidation of those laws can 

have no effect on the dignity of the people who continue to

adhere to the traditional definition of marriage. And its 

disdain for the understandings of liberty and dignity upon

which this Nation was founded can have no effect on the 

dignity of Americans who continue to believe in them. 

* * * 

Our Constitution—like the Declaration of Independence

before it—was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, 

not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded

from—not provided by—the State. Today’s decision casts 

that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the 

majority misapplies a clause focused on “due process” to

afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible 
 

18 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

understanding of the “liberty” protected by that clause, 

and distorts the principles on which this Nation was

founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences

for our Constitution and our society. I respectfully 

dissent. 
_________________ 

_________________ 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Nos. 14–556, 14-562, 14-571 and 14–574 

JAMES OBERGEFELL, ET AL., PETITIONERS 

14–556 v. 

RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.; 

VALERIA TANCO, ET AL., PETITIONERS 

14–562 v. 

BILL HASLAM, GOVERNOR OF 

TENNESSEE, ET AL.; 

APRIL DEBOER, ET AL., PETITIONERS 

14–571 v. 

RICK SNYDER, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, 

ET AL.; AND 

GREGORY BOURKE, ET AL., PETITIONERS 

14–574 v. 

STEVE BESHEAR, GOVERNOR OF 

KENTUCKY 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

[June 26, 2015]

 JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE 

THOMAS join, dissenting. 

Until the federal courts intervened, the American people

were engaged in a debate about whether their States

should recognize same-sex marriage.1 The question in 

—————— 

1 I use the phrase “recognize marriage” as shorthand for issuing mar-
 

2 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

these cases, however, is not what States should do about 

same-sex marriage but whether the Constitution answers 

that question for them. It does not. The Constitution 

leaves that question to be decided by the people of each 

State. 

I 

The Constitution says nothing about a right to same-sex 

marriage, but the Court holds that the term “liberty” in

the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 

encompasses this right. Our Nation was founded upon the

principle that every person has the unalienable right to 

liberty, but liberty is a term of many meanings. For classical liberals, it may include economic rights now limited 

by government regulation. For social democrats, it 

may include the right to a variety of government benefits. 

For today’s majority, it has a distinctively postmodern 

meaning.

To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their

personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the 

Court has held that “liberty” under the Due Process 

Clause should be understood to protect only those rights 

that are “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 701, 720–721 

(1997). And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex 

marriage is not among those rights. See United States v. 

Windsor, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (ALITO, J., dissenting)

(slip op., at 7). Indeed: 

“In this country, no State permitted same-sex marriage until the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

held in 2003 that limiting marriage to opposite-sex 

couples violated the State Constitution. See 

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 

—————— 

riage licenses and conferring those special benefits and obligations
 

provided under state law for married persons. 
 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 3 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

309, 798 N. E. 2d 941. Nor is the right to same-sex 

marriage deeply rooted in the traditions of other nations. No country allowed same-sex couples to marry

until the Netherlands did so in 2000. 

“What [those arguing in favor of a constitutional 

right to same sex marriage] seek, therefore, is not the 

protection of a deeply rooted right but the recognition

of a very new right, and they seek this innovation not

from a legislative body elected by the people, but from 

unelected judges. Faced with such a request, judges

have cause for both caution and humility.” Id., at ___ 

(slip op., at 7–8) (footnote omitted). 

For today’s majority, it does not matter that the right to

same-sex marriage lacks deep roots or even that it is 

contrary to long-established tradition. The Justices in the 

majority claim the authority to confer constitutional protection upon that right simply because they believe that it 

is fundamental. 

II 

Attempting to circumvent the problem presented by the

newness of the right found in these cases, the majority

claims that the issue is the right to equal treatment.

Noting that marriage is a fundamental right, the majority

argues that a State has no valid reason for denying that 

right to same-sex couples. This reasoning is dependent 

upon a particular understanding of the purpose of civil 

marriage. Although the Court expresses the point in

loftier terms, its argument is that the fundamental purpose of marriage is to promote the well-being of those who 

choose to marry. Marriage provides emotional fulfillment 

and the promise of support in times of need. And by benefiting persons who choose to wed, marriage indirectly

benefits society because persons who live in stable, fulfilling, and supportive relationships make better citizens. 

It is for these reasons, the argument goes, that States 
 

 

4 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

encourage and formalize marriage, confer special benefits

on married persons, and also impose some special obligations. This understanding of the States’ reasons for recognizing marriage enables the majority to argue that samesex marriage serves the States’ objectives in the same way

as opposite-sex marriage. 

This understanding of marriage, which focuses almost

entirely on the happiness of persons who choose to marry,

is shared by many people today, but it is not the traditional 

one. For millennia, marriage was inextricably linked to 

the one thing that only an opposite-sex couple can do: 

procreate.

Adherents to different schools of philosophy use different terms to explain why society should formalize marriage and attach special benefits and obligations to persons who marry. Here, the States defending their

adherence to the traditional understanding of marriage

have explained their position using the pragmatic vocabulary that characterizes most American political discourse.

Their basic argument is that States formalize and promote 

marriage, unlike other fulfilling human relationships, in

order to encourage potentially procreative conduct to take

place within a lasting unit that has long been thought to

provide the best atmosphere for raising children. They

thus argue that there are reasonable secular grounds for

restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. 

If this traditional understanding of the purpose of marriage does not ring true to all ears today, that is probably 

because the tie between marriage and procreation has

frayed. Today, for instance, more than 40% of all children 

in this country are born to unmarried women.2 This de-

—————— 

2See, e.g., Dept. of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, D. 

Martin, B. Hamilton, M. Osterman, S. Curtin, & T. Matthews, Births: 

Final Data for 2013, 64 National Vital Statistics Reports, No. 1, p. 2

(Jan. 15, 2015), online at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/ 
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 5 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

velopment undoubtedly is both a cause and a result of

changes in our society’s understanding of marriage.

While, for many, the attributes of marriage in 21stcentury America have changed, those States that do not 

want to recognize same-sex marriage have not yet given

up on the traditional understanding. They worry that by 

officially abandoning the older understanding, they may

contribute to marriage’s further decay. It is far beyond

the outer reaches of this Court’s authority to say that a 

State may not adhere to the understanding of marriage 

that has long prevailed, not just in this country and others

with similar cultural roots, but also in a great variety of

countries and cultures all around the globe.

As I wrote in Windsor: 

“The family is an ancient and universal human institution. Family structure reflects the characteristics

of a civilization, and changes in family structure and 

in the popular understanding of marriage and the

family can have profound effects. Past changes in the

understanding of marriage—for example, the gradual

ascendance of the idea that romantic love is a prerequisite to marriage—have had far-reaching consequences. But the process by which such consequences 

come about is complex, involving the interaction of

numerous factors, and tends to occur over an extended 

period of time.

“We can expect something similar to take place if 

same-sex marriage becomes widely accepted. The 

long-term consequences of this change are not now

known and are unlikely to be ascertainable for some 

—————— 

nvsr64_01.pdf (all Internet materials as visited June 24, 2015, and

available in Clerk of Court’s case file); cf. Dept. of Health and Human

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center 

for Health Statistics (NCHS), S. Ventura, Changing Patterns of Nonmartial Childbearing in the United States, NCHS Data Brief, No. 18

(May 2009), online at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databrief/db18.pdf. 
 

 

6 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

time to come. There are those who think that allowing same-sex marriage will seriously undermine the

institution of marriage. Others think that recognition of same-sex marriage will fortify a now-shaky 

institution. 

“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread 

acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges 

are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment. The Members of this Court have the authority 

and the responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution. Thus, if the Constitution contained a provision guaranteeing the right to marry a person of the 

same sex, it would be our duty to enforce that right.

But the Constitution simply does not speak to the issue of same-sex marriage. In our system of government, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, and 

the people have the right to control their own destiny. 

Any change on a question so fundamental should be 

made by the people through their elected officials.” 

570 U. S., at ___ (dissenting opinion) (slip op., at 8–10)

(citations and footnotes omitted). 

III 

Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the

people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional 

understanding of marriage. The decision will also have 

other important consequences.

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. E.g., ante, at 11–13. The implications of this

analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to 

stamp out every vestige of dissent. 
 

 

Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 7 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

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. Ante, at 26–27. 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. 

The system of federalism established by our Constitution provides a way for people with different beliefs to live 

together in a single nation. If the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely 

that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and 

others would not. It is also possible that some States

would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights.

The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing 

its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who 

have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of 

gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.

Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on 

this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a 

bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real 

limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their

own sense of what those with political power and cultural

influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope

of the power that today’s majority claims. 

Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to 

restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed. A 

lesson that some will take from today’s decision is that 
 

8 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

preaching about the proper method of interpreting the 

Constitution or the virtues of judicial self-restraint and

humility cannot compete with the temptation to achieve

what is viewed as a noble end by any practicable means. I 

do not doubt that my colleagues in the majority sincerely 

see in the Constitution a vision of liberty that happens to 

coincide with their own. But this sincerity is cause for 

concern, not comfort. What it evidences is the deep and

perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture’s

conception of constitutional interpretation.

 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.