Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 20

Cite as:  576 U. S. ____ (2015) 

15 

Opinion of the Court 

(quoting  Meyer,  supra,  at  399).    Under  the  laws  of  the 
several States, some of marriage’s protections for children 
and families are material.  But marriage also confers more 
profound  benefits.    By  giving  recognition  and  legal  struc-
ture  to  their  parents’  relationship,  marriage  allows  chil-
dren  “to  understand  the  integrity  and  closeness  of  their
own  family  and  its  concord  with  other  families  in  their 
community  and  in  their  daily  lives.”    Windsor,  supra,  at 
___ (slip op., at 23).  Marriage also affords the permanency 
and  stability  important  to  children’s  best  interests.    See 
Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children 
as Amici Curiae 22–27. 

As  all  parties  agree,  many  same-sex  couples  provide
loving  and  nurturing  homes  to  their  children,  whether 
biological or adopted.  And hundreds of thousands of chil-
dren are presently being raised by such couples.  See Brief 
for  Gary  J.  Gates  as  Amicus  Curiae  4.    Most  States  have 
allowed  gays  and  lesbians  to  adopt,  either  as  individuals 
or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have 
same-sex  parents,  see  id.,  at  5.    This  provides  powerful
confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can 
create loving, supportive families. 

Excluding  same-sex  couples  from  marriage  thus  con-
flicts with a central premise of the right to marry.  With-
out  the  recognition,  stability,  and  predictability  marriage 
offers,  their  children  suffer  the  stigma  of  knowing  their
families are somehow lesser.  They also suffer the signifi-
cant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents,
relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult 
and uncertain family life.  The marriage laws at issue here
thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. 
See Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23). 

That is not to say the right to marry is less meaningful 
for those who do not or cannot have children.  An ability,
desire,  or  promise  to  procreate  is  not  and  has  not  been  a 
prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State.  In light of