Jonah Patel
The topic of same-sex marriage has been a contentious issue in the United States for decades, with legal challenges and public opinion shifting rapidly. In 2015, the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges established same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, requiring all states to perform and recognize these marriages. This decision was a significant victory for LGBTQ+ rights, but it also exposed partisan divides, with some Republicans now seeking to overturn it. The Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage was a pivotal moment in the fight for marriage equality, but it remains a politically divisive issue, highlighting the potential vulnerabilities of LGBTQ+ rights.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date of ruling | June 26, 2015 |
| Case name | Obergefell v. Hodges |
| Supreme Court decision | Same-sex marriage is a constitutional right |
| Supreme Court vote | 5-4 |
| Public opinion | 68% support |
| Public opinion by political affiliation | 88% Democrats, 76% Independents, 41% Republicans |
| Status in U.S. states prior to ruling | Recognized in 36 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam |
| Status in U.S. states after ruling | Recognized in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Insular Areas |
| Impact | States must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages |
| Subsequent developments | Legal challenges to LGBTQ+ rights and protections |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. This landmark 5-4 decision established same-sex marriage as a constitutional right in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas, requiring these jurisdictions to perform and recognize same-sex marriages on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex marriages, with equal rights and responsibilities.
The road to nationwide marriage equality was a long one, spanning decades of legal and political battles. Efforts to legalize same-sex marriage began in the 1990s, with civil unions for same-sex couples being established in many states, but these unions created a separate but equal standard, denying couples access to federal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage. In 2003, the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws and invalidated an amendment to Colorado's Constitution that sought to prevent protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation. This shift in legal discourse, along with changing public opinion, set the stage for the battle for marriage equality.
In the years leading up to the Obergefell decision, several states, including Massachusetts, California, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia, took steps toward marriage equality by legalizing same-sex marriage or enacting laws that revised the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. However, these advances were met with resistance, as demonstrated by California's Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and efforts by President Bush and the House to introduce constitutional amendments that opposed same-sex marriage.
The Obergefell v. Hodges case arose from a series of district court rulings in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, which culminated in appeals to the Sixth Circuit. In 2014, the Sixth Circuit ruled that state-level bans on same-sex marriage were constitutional, creating a split between circuits and leading to a Supreme Court review. The Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell overturned previous rulings, such as Baker v. Nelson, and established that states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize validly performed same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.
Despite strong and steady national support for same-sex marriage, with 68% of Americans backing it a decade after the Obergefell ruling, partisan divides have deepened. While Democrats' and independents' support has risen or held steady, Republicans' support has fallen in recent years. Additionally, certain groups, such as frequent churchgoers, are less supportive of same-sex marriage. These political shifts suggest potential vulnerabilities in the durability of LGBTQ+ rights, and there have been calls by Republican lawmakers and Supreme Court justices to reconsider or overturn the Obergefell decision. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges remains a pivotal moment in the fight for marriage equality, ensuring that same-sex couples across the United States are recognized equally under the law.
Constitutional Constraints: Competition and Inclusion
You may want to see also
The public's reaction to the ruling
The public reaction to the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage was mixed, with some celebrating the decision as a victory for equal rights and justice, while others expressing disappointment and concern over what they saw as a departure from traditional and religious values.
Support for the Ruling
Many individuals and organizations welcomed the ruling as a historic triumph for gay rights and equality. The decision was applauded for ending an era of state-sanctioned discrimination and for affirming equal justice and dignity for LGBT Americans and their families. Bernie Sanders, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for U.S. President, praised the ruling, stating that it fulfilled the words engraved on the Supreme Court building: "Equal justice under law." Mark McLane, Head of Global Diversity and Inclusion at Barclays, also expressed support, stating that the ruling affirmed the civil right to marriage equality for all Americans, regardless of where they live.
Opposition to the Ruling
However, there were also those who disagreed with the ruling and expressed concern over its implications. Some individuals, particularly those with religious beliefs, saw the ruling as a departure from traditional values and an assault on religious freedom. Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana and a candidate for the Republican nomination for U.S. President, stated that the decision trampled on states' rights and would pave the way for an assault on the religious freedom rights of Christians. Oklahoma State Senator Dusty Deevers, an evangelical pastor, argued that the ruling was not "settled law" and introduced the Covenant Marriage Act in Oklahoma, offering a more "meaningful form of marriage" with no-fault divorce clauses.
Impact on Religious Institutions
Additionally, there were concerns raised about the impact of the ruling on religious institutions. Some worried that religious organizations that refused to honor same-sex marriages could face legal and governmental actions, potentially losing their tax-exempt status. This concern was echoed by Justice Samuel Alito during oral arguments, who pointed out the precedent of the Supreme Court upholding the revocation of the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University in 1983 for prohibiting interracial marriage.
Political Implications
The ruling also had political implications, with some Republican lawmakers expressing disappointment and calling for the reversal of the decision. In 2025, Republican lawmakers in half a dozen states introduced resolutions urging the Supreme Court to overturn its 2015 ruling, arguing that it trampled on states' rights. However, it is important to note that public opinion polls leading up to the 2024 Republican National Convention showed a shift towards acceptance, with a majority of Republicans favoring legal recognition of same-sex marriages.
How the Mexican Constitution of 1824 Shaped Texas
You may want to see also
The political divide and its impact on LGBTQ+ rights
The United States Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) was a landmark decision that had a significant impact on LGBTQ+ rights. The court ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling required all states and territories to recognize and perform same-sex marriages, establishing equality in marriage across the nation. However, this decision also highlighted and exacerbated the political divide in the country regarding LGBTQ+ rights.
While the Supreme Court's ruling was a major victory for LGBTQ+ rights, it also sparked a backlash from conservative and religious groups. Some county clerks, like Kim Davis in Kentucky, refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing religious objections. This resistance illustrates the depth of the political divide, with some individuals and groups continuing to oppose LGBTQ+ equality even in the face of federal law.
The political divide over LGBTQ+ rights is not limited to the United States. In many countries, prejudice against LGBTQ+ individuals is widespread, and authoritarian governments have exploited this bias to consolidate power. Leaders may raise the specter of an LGBTQ+ threat to gain political support, as seen in the example of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan during his 2023 campaign. International right-wing leaders, such as Vladimir Putin in Russia and Viktor Orbán in Hungary, have also inspired backlash against LGBTQ+ rights, influencing politics in other countries.
The impact of this political divide is felt keenly by the LGBTQ+ community, affecting their mental and physical health. The visibility of LGBTQ+ individuals and communities, while protective in some ways, can also lead to backlash and violence. Additionally, the contest between LGBTQ+ rights and the rights of conservative religious groups often results in LGBTQ+ rights taking a back seat, as seen in the example of a Catholic charity refusing to facilitate adoption by same-sex couples despite legal recognition of their marriages.
The political divide over LGBTQ+ rights has also led to efforts to limit the rights and visibility of LGBTQ+ individuals in various aspects of life, including schools, medical offices, and even relationships between parents and their children. This divide has resulted in hundreds of measures nationwide seeking to restrict the rights of LGBTQ+ communities. Furthermore, the use of LGBTQ+ rights as a wedge issue by nondemocratic governments contributes to a global resistance to LGBTQ+ rights, impacting the advancement of equality worldwide.
Kenya's Constitution: Gender Equality and Equity
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The legal history of same-sex marriage in the US
The history of same-sex marriage in the US dates back to the early 1940s, when the first lawsuits seeking legal recognition of same-sex relationships brought the question of civil marriage rights to public attention. However, it was not until the Second National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights in 1987 that marriage became a request of the LGBTQ movement.
In the 1990s, the debate around same-sex marriage intensified. In 1993, Bruce Bawer, in his book *A Place at the Table*, argued that same-sex relationships merited legal and religious recognition as marriages. That same year, about 1,500 same-sex couples staged a mass wedding ceremony during the gay rights march in Washington, D.C., calling for marriage rights. Also in 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision in *Baehr v. Miike* suggested that the state's prohibition of same-sex marriage might be unconstitutional, prompting efforts at both the federal and state level to restrict marriage to male-female couples. This included the enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, allowing states to deny marriage equality.
In 2003, the Supreme Court decision in *Lawrence v. Texas* struck down sodomy laws, and Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage via a court ruling. In 2012, voters in Maine, Maryland, and Washington approved the legalization of same-sex marriage by popular vote for the first time. However, the same year, North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
In 2013, the Supreme Court advanced marriage equality through key decisions in *Hollingsworth v. Perry* and *United States v. Windsor*, which deemed Proposition 8 and DOMA, respectively, unconstitutional. Finally, in 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in *Obergefell v. Hodges* that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision established same-sex marriage throughout the US and its territories, requiring all states to perform and recognize same-sex marriages on the same terms as opposite-sex marriages.
Since the *Obergefell* ruling, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed marriage equality in cases such as *Pavan v. Smith* (2016) and *Department of State v. Muñoz* (2024). Despite this, some individuals and organizations, including religious groups, continue to oppose same-sex marriage.
Who's the Most Powerful Person in Congress?
You may want to see also
The impact of the ruling on federal and state laws
The Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) had a significant impact on both federal and state laws regarding same-sex marriage. The ruling established that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling required all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize same-sex marriages on the same terms as opposite-sex marriages, granting equal rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples across the country.
Prior to the Obergefell ruling, same-sex marriage had already been legalized in several states through various means, including statute, court rulings, or voter initiatives. However, there was still opposition to same-sex marriage at both the federal and state levels. President Bush, for example, announced his opposition to same-sex marriage, and the House introduced a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Additionally, some states enacted constitutional amendments or statutes prohibiting same-sex marriage.
The Obergefell ruling invalidated state laws that excluded same-sex couples from civil marriage, requiring states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages. This had a significant impact on state laws, as states could no longer deny marriage rights to same-sex couples based on their sexual orientation. However, it is important to note that federally recognized American Indian tribes have the legal right to form their own marriage laws and can set limits on same-sex marriage within their jurisdictions.
The ruling also had implications for federal benefits and rights associated with marriage. In United States v. Windsor (2013), the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. After this ruling, the federal government could not deny federal benefits to married same-sex couples, ensuring that they had access to the same benefits as opposite-sex married couples.
The impact of the Obergefell ruling extended beyond marriage laws, influencing public opinion and legal challenges. By recognizing the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry, the Supreme Court contributed to a shift in public sentiment toward acceptance of same-sex marriage. Additionally, the ruling set a precedent for legal challenges related to equality and non-discrimination, with potential implications for other areas of law.
While the Obergefell v. Hodges decision established same-sex marriage as a national right, some states have since introduced resolutions urging the Supreme Court to overturn its ruling. Despite these efforts, same-sex marriage remains the law of the land, and any reconsideration of the decision does not appear imminent. The ruling's impact on federal and state laws has been significant, shaping the legal landscape and ensuring equal marriage rights for same-sex couples across the United States.
Clinton's Sexual Conduct: Congress' Definition Requested?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of gay marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, deciding that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
The ruling requires all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognise marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples, with equal rights and responsibilities.
The ruling was met with strong support from the public, with a steady 68% of Americans backing the decision. This support has remained stable over the years, with Democrats' and Independents' support rising or holding steady, while Republicans' support has fallen in the last three years.
The ruling was a landmark decision, establishing same-sex marriage as a constitutional right and guaranteeing equal recognition under the law for LGBTQ+ individuals. This marked a significant shift in public sentiment and represented a victory for LGBTQ+ rights and equality.
While the ruling has faced opposition, including from Republican lawmakers and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who suggested reconsidering past rulings on same-sex marriage, it remains in place. Efforts to overturn the decision have been made, but as of now, the ruling stands, and same-sex marriage is recognised as a legal right in the US.
