Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 48.0

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  rea-
soned  decision,  the  Court  of  Appeals  acknowledged  the
democratic  “momentum”  in  favor  of  “expand[ing]  the 
definition  of  marriage  to  include  gay  couples,”  but  con-
cluded that petitioners had not made “the case for consti-
tutionalizing  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 Gen-
eral of the United States, appearing in support of petition-
ers,  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