Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 17

12 

OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Opinion of the Court 

has  made  assumptions  defined  by  the  world  and  time  of 
which  it  is  a  part.    This  was  evident  in  Baker  v.  Nelson, 
409 U. S. 810, a one-line summary decision issued in 1972, 
holding  the  exclusion  of  same-sex  couples  from  marriage 
did not present a substantial federal question.

Still, there are other, more instructive precedents.  This 
Court’s  cases  have  expressed  constitutional  principles  of 
broader reach.  In defining the right to marry these cases 
have  identified  essential  attributes  of  that  right  based  in
history, tradition, and other constitutional liberties inher-
ent  in  this  intimate  bond.    See,  e.g.,  Lawrence,  539  U. S., 
at  574;  Turner,  supra,  at  95;  Zablocki,  supra,  at  384; 
Loving,  supra,  at  12;  Griswold,  supra,  at  486.    And  in 
assessing  whether  the  force  and  rationale  of  its  cases 
apply  to  same-sex  couples,  the  Court  must  respect  the 
basic  reasons  why  the  right  to  marry  has  been  long  pro-
tected.  See,  e.g.,  Eisenstadt,  supra,  at  453–454;  Poe,  su-
pra, at 542–553 (Harlan, J., dissenting).

This  analysis  compels  the  conclusion  that  same-sex
couples may exercise the right to marry.  The four princi-
ples  and  traditions  to  be  discussed  demonstrate  that  the 
reasons  marriage  is  fundamental  under  the  Constitution
apply with equal force to same-sex couples.

A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that 
the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent
in  the  concept  of  individual  autonomy.  This  abiding  con-
nection between marriage and liberty is why Loving inval-
idated  interracial  marriage  bans  under  the  Due  Process
Clause.  See  388  U. S.,  at  12;  see also  Zablocki,  supra,  at 
384  (observing  Loving  held  “the  right  to  marry  is  of  fun-
damental  importance  for  all  individuals”).  Like  choices 
concerning  contraception,  family  relationships,  procrea-
tion,  and  childrearing,  all  of  which  are  protected  by  the 
Constitution,  decisions  concerning  marriage  are  among 
the most intimate that an individual can make.  See Law-
rence, supra, at 574.  Indeed, the Court has noted it would