The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed in another State.

The cases arose from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, states whose laws defined marriage solely as a union between one man and one woman, reflecting a long-standing historical definition but contrasting with evolving societal understandings and legal developments regarding the rights of gay and lesbian individuals and the nature of marriage itself. Petitioners sought marriage licenses within their home states or recognition of marriages performed legally in other states, facing denials based on these state laws. This legal challenge occurred against a backdrop of increasing public debate, legislative changes in some states, and numerous court decisions addressing same-sex marriage following landmark cases like Lawrence v. Texas and United States v. Windsor.

• Petitioners included 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners had died, residing in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.
• These states defined marriage exclusively as a union between one man and one woman through constitutional amendments or statutes (e.g., Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3101.01, Mich. Const., Art. I, §25).
• Petitioner James Obergefell married his terminally ill partner, John Arthur, in Maryland; Ohio law prevented Obergefell from being listed as the surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate.
• Petitioners April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, nurses raising three adopted special-needs children in Michigan, could not jointly adopt their children because Michigan law restricted joint adoption to opposite-sex married couples.
• Petitioners Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and Thomas Kostura married in New York before DeKoe's deployment to Afghanistan; their marriage was not recognized upon their return to Tennessee.
• Petitioners claimed the state officials responsible for enforcing these marriage laws violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying them the right to marry or refusing full recognition of their marriages legally performed elsewhere.

• The right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, encompassing personal choice, individual autonomy, and dignity.
• The reasons marriage is fundamental apply equally to same-sex couples, including the importance of a two-person union, safeguarding children and families, and marriage's role as a keystone of the social order.
• Denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it treats them unequally compared to opposite-sex couples without sufficient justification, imposing stigma and denying numerous governmental benefits and responsibilities linked to marriage.
• State laws refusing to recognize lawful same-sex marriages performed out-of-state inflict substantial harm and instability on couples and their families.
• Far from devaluing marriage, petitioners seek access to the institution because they respect its importance and need its associated privileges and responsibilities.
• Historical definitions of marriage have evolved (e.g., abandonment of coverture, invalidation of anti-miscegenation laws), and the Constitution's promise of liberty extends to new understandings of freedom.

• Marriage has historically and universally been defined as the union of one man and one woman, and extending it to same-sex couples would demean this timeless institution.
• The traditional definition of marriage is inherently linked to procreation and the raising of children in a stable environment ideally involving both biological parents.
• Allowing same-sex marriage could harm the institution of marriage, potentially leading to fewer opposite-sex marriages by severing the connection between marriage and natural procreation.
• The issue of same-sex marriage should be resolved through the democratic process (legislation, referenda) rather than judicial intervention, allowing for further public debate and legislative consideration.
• The fundamental right to marry, as established in precedent, historically presumed an opposite-sex relationship; petitioners seek recognition of a new right, "same-sex marriage," not merely access to the existing right.
• States have a legitimate interest in preserving the traditional definition of marriage.

• Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
• Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

• Yes to both issues; the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages.
• The Court reasoned that the fundamental right to marry is protected by the Due Process Clause, based on principles of individual autonomy, the unique importance of the marital union, safeguarding children and families, and marriage's status as a keystone of the social order; these principles apply with equal force to same-sex couples.
• The Court also found that the right of same-sex couples to marry is derived from the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, as denying them this right imposes inequality, denies benefits, and works a grave harm, particularly given the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians.
• The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are interconnected, and precedents involving marriage rights (like Loving and Zablocki) often invoked both principles, demonstrating that liberty and equality are mutually reinforcing in this context.
• Refusing to recognize lawful same-sex marriages performed in other states creates instability and imposes significant burdens, lacking a lawful basis now that the right to marry is extended to all couples.
• The Court overruled Baker v. Nelson, finding that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply equally to same-sex couples and that laws excluding them are inconsistent with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry.

• Substantive Due Process (Fourteenth Amendment): The principle that the Due Process Clause protects fundamental rights from government interference, extending beyond mere procedural fairness. The Court applied this by identifying the right to marry as a fundamental liberty interest inherent in individual autonomy and central to personal identity and beliefs, concluding that this right extends to same-sex couples.
• Equal Protection (Fourteenth Amendment): The principle that requires states to apply laws equally to all persons within their jurisdiction. The Court invoked this doctrine, finding that state laws denying same-sex couples the right to marry and its associated benefits created impermissible inequality, abridged central precepts of equality, and served to disrespect and subordinate gay and lesbian individuals.
• Fundamental Rights: Liberties considered "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," requiring heightened scrutiny when restricted by government. The Court affirmed the right to marry as fundamental and held that its core components apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples, thus extending this fundamental right to same-sex couples.
• Right to Marry: A specific fundamental right recognized under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The Court analyzed its precedents (Loving, Zablocki, Turner) to identify the essential attributes of this right (autonomy, commitment, family, social order) and concluded these attributes compel the inclusion of same-sex couples within its scope.
• Individual Autonomy: A component of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, involving personal choices central to dignity, identity, and beliefs. The Court emphasized that decisions about marriage are among the most intimate and autonomous choices an individual can make, regardless of sexual orientation.

• "No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family."
• "In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were."
• "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity."
• "The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times."
• "The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty."
• "They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

• Loving v. Virginia (1967): Cited as precedent establishing marriage as a fundamental right essential to the pursuit of happiness and invalidating interracial marriage bans under both Due Process and Equal Protection, demonstrating the interplay between liberty and equality.
• Zablocki v. Redhail (1978): Referenced for reaffirming the fundamental right to marry and applying Equal Protection analysis to strike down a law burdening that right (barring marriage by those behind on child support), showing that restrictions on marriage require significant justification.
• Turner v. Safley (1987): Cited for holding that the fundamental right to marry extends even to prison inmates, emphasizing the intimate association and commitment aspects of marriage.
• Lawrence v. Texas (2003): Referenced for overruling Bowers v. Hardwick, recognizing the liberty and dignity interests of homosexual persons in their private intimate conduct, and highlighting the connection between liberty and equality in the context of gay rights.
• United States v. Windsor (2013): Cited for invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), holding it impermissibly disparaged state-sanctioned same-sex marriages and denied federal benefits, thus harming couples and their children.
• Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): Cited as establishing a right to privacy in marriage (regarding contraception use) and emphasizing the deep, personal, and enduring nature of the marital association.
• Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972): Referenced for extending rights related to contraception to unmarried individuals and connecting the right to privacy with individual autonomy in personal decisions.
• Baker v. Nelson (1972): Explicitly overruled; previously held that excluding same-sex couples from marriage did not present a substantial federal question.
• Maynard v. Hill (1888): Cited for describing marriage as the foundation of family and society and a great public institution.
• Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson (1942): Cited as recognizing marriage and procreation as fundamental rights in the context of striking down a sterilization law under Equal Protection.
• M. L. B. v. S. L. J. (1996): Referenced to illustrate the connection between Due Process and Equal Protection principles in cases involving fundamental family rights.
• Kirchberg v. Feenstra (1981): Cited as an example where the Court invoked equal protection principles to invalidate sex-based inequality within marriage laws.

• U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process Clause: Primary basis for finding a fundamental right to marry grounded in liberty and individual autonomy.
• U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection Clause: Primary basis for finding that denying same-sex couples the right to marry constitutes impermissible discrimination.
• U.S. Constitution, First Amendment: Mentioned to assure protection for religious organizations and persons who continue to believe and teach that same-sex marriage should not be condoned, while affirming this does not permit the State to deny the right.
• Michigan Constitution, Art. I, §25: Cited as an example of state law defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
• Kentucky Constitution, §233A: Cited as an example of state law defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
• Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3101.01 (Lexis 2008): Cited as an example of state law defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
• Tennessee Constitution, Art. XI, §18: Cited as an example of state law defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
• Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. §7: Referenced as the federal law defining marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman, partially invalidated in Windsor.