Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 89

12 

OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

tenced to a year of imprisonment, suspended for a term of 
25  years  on  the  condition  that  they  not  reenter  the  Com-
monwealth  together  during  that  time.    Id.,  at  3.6    In  a  
similar  vein,  Zablocki  v.  Redhail,  434  U. S.  374  (1978), 
involved  a  man  who  was  prohibited,  on  pain  of  criminal
penalty,  from  “marry[ing]  in  Wisconsin  or  elsewhere”
because  of  his  outstanding  child-support  obligations,  id., 
at  387;  see  id.,  at  377–378.    And  Turner  v.  Safley,  482 
U. S.  78  (1987),  involved  state  inmates  who  were  prohib-
ited from entering marriages without the permission of the
superintendent of the prison, permission that could not be 
granted  absent  compelling  reasons,  id.,  at  82.  In  none  of 
those  cases  were  individuals  denied  solely  governmental 
—————— 

slavery in the colony.  Id., at 19–20.  Virginia’s antimiscegenation laws 
likewise were passed in a 1691 resolution entitled “An act for suppress-
ing  outlying  Slaves.”    Act  of  Apr.  1691,  Ch.  XVI,  3  Va.  Stat.  86  (W. 
Hening ed. 1823) (reprint 1969) (italics deleted).  “It was not until the 
Civil  War  threw  the  future  of  slavery  into  doubt  that  lawyers,  legisla-
tors,  and  judges  began  to  develop  the  elaborate  justifications  that
signified the emergence of miscegenation law and made restrictions on 
interracial  marriage  the  foundation  of  post-Civil  War  white  suprem-
acy.”  Pascoe, supra, at 27–28. 

Laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman do not 
share  this  sordid  history.    The  traditional  definition  of  marriage  has
prevailed  in  every  society  that  has  recognized  marriage  throughout
history.  Brief for Scholars of History and Related Disciplines as Amici 
Curiae 1.  It arose not out of a desire to shore up an invidious institu-
tion  like  slavery,  but  out  of  a  desire  “to  increase  the  likelihood  that 
children will be born and raised in stable and enduring family units by
both  the  mothers  and  the  fathers  who  brought  them  into  this  world.” 
Id.,  at  8.  And  it  has  existed  in  civilizations  containing  all  manner  of
views  on  homosexuality.    See  Brief  for  Ryan  T.  Anderson  as  Amicus 
Curiae  11–12  (explaining  that  several  famous  ancient  Greeks  wrote 
approvingly  of  the  traditional  definition  of  marriage,  though  same-sex
sexual relations were common in Greece at the time). 

6 The  prohibition  extended  so  far  as  to  forbid  even  religious  ceremo-
nies, thus raising a serious question under the First Amendment’s Free
Exercise  Clause,  as  at  least  one  amicus  brief  at  the  time  pointed  out. 
Brief  for  John  J.  Russell  et al.  as  Amici  Curiae  in  Loving  v.  Virginia, 
O.T. 1966, No. 395, pp. 12–16.