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

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 federal-
law 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  Su-
preme  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  same-
sex  couples,  either  through  judicial  or  legislative  proc- 
esses.  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 scorn-
ful  or  disparaging  commentary,  courts  have  written  a 
substantial  body  of  law  considering  all  sides  of  these  is-
sues.  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