Questions presented
SCOTUS records, cert granted 16 Jan 2015
- Whether Ohio's constitutional and statutory bans on recognition of marriages of same-sex couples validly entered in other jurisdictions violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
- Whether Ohio's refusal to recognize a judgment of adoption of an Ohio-born child issued to a same-sex couple by the courts of a sister state violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Opinion summary
Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion
The U.S. Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges in 2014 was a landmark decision that ruled same-sex marriage to be a fundamental right protected by the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. The case consolidated several lower court cases challenging state bans on same-sex marriage from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. The plaintiffs argued these bans violated their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. In a 5-4 decision led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court held that states cannot deny same-sex couples the right to marry or refuse recognition of lawful marriages performed out-of-state based on their sexual orientation.
Dissent summary
Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions
In the dissenting opinion for Obergefell v. Hodges, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, argued that while same-sex marriage might be a good idea decided by the democratic process, it is not a constitutional right. The Constitution does not define marriage and leaves such matters to state law. They contended that the majority's decision was an act of will rather than legal judgment as it bypassed public debate and legislative action on this deeply controversial issue. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential implications for religious liberty arising from this ruling which could lead to conflict between law and faith institutions who may disagree with same-sex marriages due to their beliefs. In conclusion, they maintained that people should decide through democratic processes what social policies are best for society instead of unelected judges imposing their own policy preferences.