OBERGEFELL vs.

HODGES
576 U.S. ____, June 26, 2015
Kennedy, J.

OVERVIEW
Obergefell vs. Hodges is the result of a
consolidation of six lower-court cases originally
representing sixteen same-sex couples, seven of
their children, a widower, an adoption agency, and
a funeral director. The original cases come from
the states of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and
Tennessee.
All six federal district courts ruled for the
claimants.

Michigan: DeBoer vs. Snyder

April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse held a commitment
ceremony in February 2007
A son was adopted by Rowse in 2009, a daughter in 2011; a
daughter was likewise adopted by DeBoer in 2011
Michigan law allowed adoption only by single people or
married couples
DeBoer and Rowse filed the instant case in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, arguing for the
unconstitutionality of Michigan's adoption law
In
2014, the court ruled for plaintiffs, concluding that
"without some overriding legitimate interest, the state
cannot use its domestic relations authority to legislate
families out of existence"

Ohio: Obergefell vs. Kasich

James Obergefell and John Arthur decided to get married to obtain

legal recognition of their relationship
The two married in Maryland on 2013
After learning that their state of residence, Ohio, would not recognize
their marriage, they filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, alleging that the state discriminates against
same-sex couples who have married independently out-of-state
Because Arthur was terminally ill and suffering from amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis (ALS), they wanted the Ohio Registrar to identify
Obergefell as his surviving spouse on his death certificate, based on
their marriage in Maryland
The local Ohio Registrar agreed that discriminating against the
couple was unconstitutional, but the state attorney general
announced plans to defend Ohio's same-sex marriage ban

Ohio: Obergefell vs. Kasich

The District Judge granted the couple's motion, writing that under
Ohio law, "a marriage solemnized outside of Ohio is valid in Ohio if it
is valid where solemnized"
Meantime, David Michener and William Herbert Ives married in
Delaware; they had three adopted children
Ives died unexpectedly in Cicinnati, Ohio
Ives' remains were being held at a Cicinnati funeral home pending the
issuance of a death certificate, required before cremation
As surviving spouse, Michener's name could not by Ohio law appear
on the death certificate, he sought legal remedy, being added as
plaintiff in the case
Funeral director Robert Grunn was added to the lawsuit so he could
obtain clarification of his legal obligations under Ohio law when
serving clients with same-sex spouses

Ohio: Obergefell vs. Kasich

Plaintiff Arthur died, and the state defendants moved

to dismiss the case as moot; this was denied
The Judge ruled that Ohio's refusal to recognize
same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions was
discriminatory and ordered Ohio to recognize samesex marriages from other jurisdictions on death
certificate
"When a state effectively terminates the marriage
of a same-sex couple married in another
jurisdiction, it intrudes into the realm of private
marital, family, and intimate relations specifically
protected by the Supreme Court"

Ohio: Henry vs. Wymyslo

This case involves four couples, a child, and an adoption agency

Georgia Nicole Yorksmith and Pamela Yorksmith married in California in 2008; they
had a son in 2010 and were expecting another child
Kelly Noe and Kelly McCraken married in Massachusetts; they were expecting a child
Joseph Vitale and Robert Tamas married in New York in 2011; in 2013, they sought
the services of the adoption agency, Adoption S.T.A.R., finally adopting a son in 2014
Brittani Henry and Brittni Rogers married in New York; they were expecting a son
The three female couples were living in Ohio, each anticipating the birth of a child
later in 2014
Vitale and Talmas were living in New York with their adopted son, born in Ohio in
2013
The four legally married couples filed a lawsuit, also in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, to force the state to lost both parents on their children's
birth certificates

Ohio: Henry vs. Wymyslo

As the case moved forward, plaintiffs amended

their complaint to ask the court to declare
Ohio's
ban
on
same-sex
marriage
unconstitutional
The Judge ruled that Ohio must recognize
same-sex
marriages
from
other
jurisdictions, and stayed enforcement of his
ruling, except for the birth certificates sought by
the plaintiffs

Kentucky: Bourke vs. Beshear

Gregory Bourke and Michael DeLeon married in Ontario, Canada in 2004; they had
two children
Randell Johnson and Paul Champion married in California in 2008; they had four
children

Jimmy Meade and Luther Barlowe married in Iowa in 2009

Kimberly Franklin and Tamera Boyd married in Connecticut in 2010

All of them resided in Kentucky

Bourke and DeLeon, and their two children through them, filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, challenging Kentucky's bans on
same-sex marriage and the recognition of same-sex marriages from other
jurisdictions
Subsequently, the complaint was amended to bring the other couples into the case
The court ruled that "Kentucky's denial of recognition for valid same-sex
marriages violates the United States Constitution's guarantee of equal
protection under the law, even under the most deferential standard of review,"
and "accordingly, Kentucky's statutes and constitutional amendment that
mandate this denial are unconstitutional"

Kentucky: Love vs. Beshear

Maurice Blanchard and Dominique James held a religious marriage

ceremony in 2006
Kentucky county clerks repeatedly refused them marriage licenses
Timothy Love and Lawrence Ysunza had been living together as a
couple for 30 years when, in 2014, they were refused a marriage
license at the Jefferson County Clerk's office
The couples submitted a motion to join Bourke vs. Beshear,
challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriages
The court ruled that Kentucky's laws banning same-sex marriage
"violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, and they are void
and unenforceable"
In the course of assessing the state's arguments for the bans, the
court noted that "[these] arguments are not those of serious
people"

Tennessee: Tanco vs. Haslam

Joy "Johno" Espejo and Matthew Mansell married in California in 2008; they adopted
two foster children in 2009
After Mansell's job was transferred to Tennessee, they relocated in 2012
Kellie Miller and Vanessa DeVillez married in New York in 2011, later moving to
Tennessee
Army Reservist Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and Thomas Kostura married in New
York in 2011; after completing a tour of duty in Afghanistan, Sergeant DeKoe was
restationed in Tennessee, where the couple subsequently relocated
In 2013, the Department of Defense began recognizing Sergeant DeKoe's marriage,
but the state did not
Valeria Tanco and Sophia Jesty married in New York in 2011; they moved to
Tennessee, where they were university processors; they were expecting their first
child in 2014
The couples filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee

Tennessee: Tanco vs. Haslam

Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining the state from

applying its marriage recognition ban against them

Miller and DeVillez withdrew from the case

in 2014

The court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the state to

recognize the marriages of the three remaining plaintiff-couples,
ruling that "in the eyes of the United States Constitution, the
plaintiffs' marriages will be placed on equal footing with those of
heterosexual couples and that proscriptions against same-sex
marriage will soon become a footnote in the annals of American
history"
The state immediately filed a motion to stay the ruling, but the court
denied the request, reasoning that its order "does not open the
floodgates for same-sex couples to marry in Tennessee" and
applies pro hac vice only

Appeal to the U.S.C.A., 6th Circuit

The decisions of the six federal district courts were appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
The cases were consolidated, and the resulting case was retitled to Obergefell vs.
Hodges
The Sixth Circuit ruled 2-1 that Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage did not violate the
U.S. Constitution
Standing jurisprudence -- Baker vs. Nelson (1972), dismissing a same-sex couple's
marriage claim "for want of a substantial federal question"
"Not one of the plaintiffs' theories [...] makes the case for constitutionalizing
the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from the place it has been
since the founding: in the hands of state voters"
Judge Daughtrey, in his dissent, wrote: "[One] is tempted to speculate that the
majority has purposefully taken the contrary position [to] prompt a grant of
certiorari by the Supreme Court and an end to the uncertainty of status and the
interstate chaos that the current discrepancy in state laws threatens"

Issues before the Supreme Court

Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a

state to:

License a marriage between two people of the

same sex?

Recognize a marriage between two people of the

same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed
and performed out-of-state?

Ruling (Kennedy, J.)

State same-sex marriage bans are a violation of the

Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal
Protection Clauses
"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 liberty"
The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause
"[extends] to certain personal choices central to
individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate
choices that define personal identity and beliefs"

Ruling (Kennedy, J.)

Four distinct reasons why the fundamental right to marry apples to same-sex
couples:

The right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the

concept of individual autonomy

The right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person

union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals, a
principle applying equally to same-sex couples

The fundamental right to marry safeguards children and families and

thus draws meaning from related rights of child-rearing, procreation, and
education; as same-sex couples have children and families, they are
deserving of this safeguard (though the right to marry in the U.S. has
never been conditioned on procreation)

Marriage is a keystone of social order, and there is no difference

between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle;
thus preventing same-sex couples from marrying puts them at odds with
society, denies them countless benefits of marriage, and introduces
instability into their relationships for no justifiable reason

Ruling (Kennedy, J.)

Due to the substantial and continuing harm and the instability and
uncertainty caused by state marriage laws differing with regard to
same-sex couples, and because respondent states had conceded
that a ruling requiring them to marry same-sex couples would
undermine their refusal to hold valid same-sex marriages performed
in other states, same-sex marriages legally performed in other states
must be recognized by all others
While the democratic process may be an appropriate means for
deciding issues such as same-sex marriage, no individual has to rely
solely on the democratic process to exercise a fundamental right; an
individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he/she
is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the
legislature refuses to act, for fundamental rights may not be
submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections

Ruling (Kennedy, J.)

The notion that allowing same-sex marriages to

marry harms the institution of marriage, leading
to fewer opposite-sex marriages through a
severing of the link between procreation and
marriage is counter-intuitive and unrealistic;
married same-sex couples would pose no risk
of harm to themselves or third parties
Given this, the First Amendment does protec
those who disagree with same-sex marriage

Ruling (Kennedy, J.)

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 they once were. As some of the
petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage
embodies a love that may endure even [...] death. It would
misunderstand these mena nd women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage. Their please is that they
do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek its
fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be
condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of
civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity
in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that
right.
(joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, J.)

Dissent (Roberts, C.J.)

Substantive due process, by which fundamental rights are protected

through the Due Process Clause, has been misused over time to
expand perceived fundamental rights
No prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that
it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex
marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause
Same-sex marriage bans do not violate a right to privacy because
they involve no government intrusion or subsequent punishment
Same-sex marriage bans do not violate the Equal Protection Clause
because they were rationally related to a governmental interest:
preserving the traditional definition of marriage
The history of marriage shows a universal definition of "the union of a
man and a woman" with the intended purpose of successful childrearing

Dissent (Roberts, C.J.)

The majority opinion relies on moral convictions rather than

constitutional basis, and expands fundamental rights without
caution or regard for history
The majority opinion could be used to expand marriage to
include legalized polygamy
The majority has overridden the democratic process, using the
judiciary in a way not originally intended
Supporters of same-sex marriage cannot win "true acceptance"
for their side because the debate has now been closed
The majority opinion will ultimately lead to consequences for
religious liberty, and the Court's language unfairly attacks
opponents of same-sex marriage

Dissent (Scalia, J.)

The Court's decision effectively robs the people of the liberty to

govern themselves; a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had
been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the
democratic process had been unduly halted
Because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered
unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption,
such bans are not unconstitutional today
There was no basis for the Court's decision striking down legislation
that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid
The majority opinion was "lacking even a thin veneer of law"
The actual writing in the opinion "[diminished the] Court's reputation
for clear thinking and sober analysis" and "[descended] from the
disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the
mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie"

Dissent (Thomas, J.)

The principle of substantive due process as applied here invites

judges roam at large in the constitutional field guided only by their
personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by the
Constitution; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the COnstitution's
text, subverts the democratic process, and exalts judges at the
expense of the Pople from whom they derive their authority
The only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is
freedom from physical restraint; liberty has long been understood as
individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a
particular governmental entitlement, such as to a marriage license
The majority's holding undermines the political process and threatens
religious liberty
Government is not capable of bestowing dignity; rather, dignity is a
natural right that is innate within every person, a right that cannot be
taken away even through slavery and internment camps

Dissent (Alito, J.)

The Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are deeply
rooted in the United States' history and tradition
Any right to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition
The justices in the majority have gone against judicial precedent and longheld tradition
Same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal
child-rearing environment
The majority's opinion might be used to attack the beliefs of those who
disagree with same-sex marriage, who will risk being labeled as bigots and
treated as such by governments, employers, and schools, leading to bitter
and lasting wounds
Most Americans -- understandably -- will cheer or lament the decision
because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage, but all Americans,
whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority's
claim of power portends

Thanks for listening!

(and to Wikipedia for saving my hide today)