Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 87

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  re-
strained,  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 petition-
ers 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  govern-
mental 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 certif-
icates,  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 consor-
tium  damages  in  tort  suits.    But  receiving  governmental 
recognition  and  benefits  has  nothing  to  do  with  any  un-
derstanding  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