Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

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

5 

Syllabus 

tion  Clauses  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  couples  of  the  same-sex 
may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.  Same-sex couples 
may  exercise  the  fundamental  right  to  marry.  Baker  v.  Nelson  is 
overruled.  The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cas-
es are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from 
civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex cou-
ples.  Pp. 22–23. 

(5) There  may  be  an  initial  inclination  to  await  further  legisla-
tion,  litigation,  and  debate,  but  referenda,  legislative  debates,  and
grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive liti-
gation  in  state  and  federal  courts  have  led  to  an  enhanced  under-
standing of the issue.  While the Constitution contemplates  that de-
mocracy  is  the  appropriate  process  for  change,  individuals  who  are 
harmed  need  not  await  legislative  action  before  asserting  a  funda-
mental right.  Bowers, in effect, upheld state action that denied gays 
and lesbians a fundamental right.  Though it was eventually repudi-
ated,  men  and  women  suffered  pain and  humiliation  in  the  interim, 
and  the  effects  of  these  injuries  no  doubt  lingered  long after  Bowers 
was  overruled.    A  ruling  against  same-sex  couples  would  have  the 
same  effect  and  would  be  unjustified  under  the  Fourteenth  Amend-
ment.  The  petitioners’  stories  show  the  urgency  of  the  issue  they 
present  to  the  Court,  which  has  a  duty  to  address  these  claims  and
answer these questions.  Respondents’ argument that allowing same-
sex  couples  to  wed  will  harm  marriage  as  an  institution  rests  on  a
counterintuitive  view  of  opposite-sex  couples’  decisions  about  mar-
riage  and  parenthood.  Finally,  the  First  Amendment  ensures  that
religions,  those  who  adhere  to  religious  doctrines,  and  others  have 
protection  as  they  seek  to  teach  the  principles  that  are  so  fulfilling
and so central to their lives and faiths.  Pp. 23–27.

(c) The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize same-
sex marriages validly performed out of State.  Since same-sex couples
may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, 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.  Pp. 27–28. 

772 F. 3d 388, reversed. 

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, 
BREYER,  SOTOMAYOR,  and  KAGAN,  JJ.,  joined.  ROBERTS,  C. J.,  filed  a 
dissenting  opinion,  in  which  SCALIA  and  THOMAS,  JJ.,  joined.  SCALIA, 
J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined.  THOMAS, J., 
filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.  ALITO, J., filed a 
dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined.