Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 25

20 

OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

Opinion of the Court 

first  declared  the  prohibition  invalid  because  of  its  un-
equal  treatment  of  interracial  couples.    It  stated:  “There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  restricting  the  freedom  to  marry
solely  because  of  racial  classifications  violates  the  central
meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.”  388 U. S., at 12. 
With  this  link  to  equal  protection  the  Court  proceeded  to 
hold  the  prohibition  offended  central  precepts  of  liberty: 
“To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a
basis  as  the  racial  classifications  embodied  in  these  stat-
utes,  classifications  so directly  subversive  of  the  principle
of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is
surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without
due process of law.”  Ibid.  The reasons why marriage is a
fundamental right became more clear and compelling from 
a  full  awareness  and  understanding  of  the  hurt  that  re-
sulted from laws barring interracial unions. 

The  synergy  between  the  two  protections  is  illustrated
further  in  Zablocki.  There  the  Court  invoked  the  Equal
Protection  Clause  as  its  basis  for  invalidating  the  chal-
lenged  law,  which,  as  already  noted,  barred  fathers  who 
were  behind  on  child-support  payments  from  marrying
without  judicial  approval.  The  equal  protection  analysis
depended  in  central  part  on  the  Court’s  holding  that  the 
law  burdened  a  right  “of  fundamental  importance.”    434 
U. S., at 383.  It was the essential nature of the marriage
right, discussed at length in Zablocki, see id., at 383–387, 
that  made  apparent  the  law’s  incompatibility  with  re-
quirements  of  equality.    Each  concept—liberty  and  equal
protection—leads to a stronger understanding of the other.
Indeed, in interpreting the Equal Protection Clause, the 
Court  has  recognized  that  new  insights  and  societal  un-
derstandings  can  reveal  unjustified  inequality  within  our 
most fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed 
and  unchallenged.  To  take  but  one  period,  this  occurred
with  respect  to  marriage  in  the  1970’s  and  1980’s.    Not-
withstanding the gradual erosion of the doctrine of cover-