Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 32

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  advo-
cate  with  utmost,  sincere  conviction  that,  by  divine  pre-
cepts,  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 same-
sex  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 search-
ing  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 Con-
stitution  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  Kos- 
tura, the recognition bans inflict substantial and continuing
harm on same-sex couples.

Being  married  in  one  State  but  having  that  valid  mar-
riage denied in another is one of “the most perplexing and 
distressing  complication[s]”  in  the  law  of  domestic  rela-
tions.  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-