Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

28 

OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Opinion of the Court 

mote instability and uncertainty.  For some couples, even
an  ordinary  drive  into  a  neighboring  State  to  visit  family
or friends risks causing severe hardship in the event of  a
spouse’s  hospitalization  while  across  state  lines.    In  light
of the fact that many States already allow same-sex mar-
riage—and  hundreds  of  thousands  of  these  marriages
already  have  occurred—the  disruption  caused  by  the
recognition bans is significant and ever-growing. 

As  counsel  for  the  respondents  acknowledged  at  argu-
ment,  if  States  are  required  by  the  Constitution  to  issue
marriage  licenses  to  same-sex  couples,  the  justifications 
for  refusing  to  recognize  those  marriages  performed  else-
where are  undermined.  See Tr. of Oral  Arg. on Question 
2, p. 44.  The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex cou-
ples  may  exercise  the  fundamental  right  to  marry  in  all 
States.  It  follows  that  the  Court  also  must  hold—and  it 
now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to 
refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed
in another State on the ground of its same-sex character. 

* 

* 

* 
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embod-
ies  the  highest  ideals  of  love,  fidelity,  devotion,  sacrifice, 
and  family.  In  forming  a  marital  union,  two  people  be-
come something greater than once they were.  As some of 
the  petitioners  in  these  cases  demonstrate,  marriage 
embodies  a  love  that  may  endure  even  past  death.    It 
would  misunderstand  these  men  and  women  to  say  they 
disrespect the idea of marriage.  Their plea is that they do
respect  it,  respect  it  so  deeply  that  they  seek  to  find  its
fulfillment  for  themselves.    Their  hope  is  not  to  be  con-
demned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civiliza-
tion’s oldest institutions.  They ask for equal dignity in the 
eyes of the law.  The Constitution grants them that right.

The  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Sixth 

Circuit is reversed. 

It is so ordered.