Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 1

(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 cou-
ples  and  two  men  whose  same-sex  partners  are  deceased,  filed  suits 
in  Federal  District  Courts  in  their  home  States,  claiming  that  re-
spondent  state  officials  violate  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  by  deny-
ing 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  mar-
riage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawful-
ly 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 respond-
ents, it would demean a timeless institution if marriage were extend-
ed  to  same-sex  couples.    But  the  petitioners,  far  from  seeking  to  de-
value 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 Ten-
nessee, 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.