A decade ago, the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges affirmed marriage as a fundamental right, equally extended to same-sex couples. At WKL, we celebrate this historical triumph for its advancements in marriage equality and transformations to family law.
Obergefell v. Hodges stemmed from legal challenges brought by 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners had passed away. The petitioners, from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee—States that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman—asserted that State officials violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have out-of-state marriages fully recognized. This meant that these petitioners were denied marriage benefits and recognition by States that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, simply because they were in same-sex partnerships.
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment mandates States to license marriages between two people of the same sex and to recognize such marriages lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state.
This landmark Supreme Court case addressed two key issues:
- It established marriage for same-sex couples, thereby invalidating State laws that denied marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on an unjust definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
- It invalidated States that refused to recognize and provide benefits for same-sex couples lawfully married in other States.
According to Denise Moorhouse, a Firm Manager and Senior Paralegal specializing in Family Law, the most significant transformation brought about by Obergefell is the advancement of fairness within the legal system. Moorhouse noted that The U.S. Constitution and existing laws have traditionally been structured to favor married individuals. It was both appropriate and necessary to guarantee the same fundamental rights to same-sex couples. Moorhouse emphasized that the Obergefell decision not only recognized marriage equality but also had far-reaching implications in various areas of family law. These include critical matters such as healthcare rights, medical decision-making authority, inheritance, adoption, and even divorce proceedings.
Similarly to Moorhouse’s statement, the Supreme Court writes, “this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order.” Further noting that States have contributed marriage as a fundamental character placed at the center of many facets of legal and social order. Therefore marriage laws that exclude same-sex couples are in essence unequal because “same-sex couples are denied benefits afforded opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right.”
The landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case exemplifies the denial of marital benefits unequally afforded to same-sex couples. Petitioner James Obergefell, a plaintiff in the Ohio case, was unjustly prohibited by state laws from being listed on his deceased husband's death certificate. James and his partner, Arthur, shared a loving life for over 20 years. When Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, they decided to marry before Arthur's passing. The couple traveled to Maryland for their lawful marriage, exchanging vows inside a medical transport plane upon landing in Baltimore due to Arthur's limited mobility. Three months later, Arthur passed away. The State of Ohio refused to recognize their lawful marriage, presumed in Maryland, thereby denying James's name on Arthur's death certificate.
This tragic case inflicted unequal emotional pain and societal ostracism upon James during his mourning. In response to the broader legal context of this case, the Court definitively stated that "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."
Prior to this national ruling, states that did not acknowledge same-sex marriages similarly did not acknowledge same-sex divorces. Just as same-sex couples from states prohibiting their legal marriages had to travel to states where such unions were recognized, they faced similar hurdles—perhaps even more so—to obtain a divorce. Couples could relocate to another state where their marriages were considered lawful to get a divorce. However, complicating matters further, a certain period of residency in a state is typically required before a divorce can be granted. This created difficulties for out-of-state same-sex spouses seeking a divorce. Now, all states are mandated to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and must grant divorces to same-sex couples under the same conditions as they do for opposite-sex couples. Notably, each state has distinct residency requirements for divorce, which must be met irrespective of sexual orientation.
Historically, family law concerning parental rights has been shaped by the traditional definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This was evident in Michigan law, which restricted adoption to opposite-sex married couples or single individuals. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, co-plaintiffs from Michigan, experienced the impact of this law firsthand. As a same-sex couple, they were raising three adopted children, but Michigan's regulations allowed only one woman to be listed as the child's mother. This effectively denied the other parent any legal rights over the children. Such a situation presented a significant risk; in the event of a tragedy like a death or separation, the children could be completely removed from the parent who was not legally recognized as an adoptive parent.
The Court ultimately ruled that protecting the right of same-sex couples to marry equally is crucial for safeguarding children and families. Laws that deny same-sex parents recognition of a lawful marriage inflict harm and humiliation upon their children. These children endure economic, emotional, and social suffering. Without legal recognition, their families lack stability and predictability, and they bear the stigma of feeling that their families are somehow inferior. Being raised by parents who are denied marriage presents unique challenges that make children's lives more difficult and uncertain. Consequently, exclusive marriage laws inflict harm not only on spouses but also on children and families.
Family law serves to protect, support and strengthen families of all forms. We recognize that the concept of “family” varies from person to person, and we fully embrace his diversity. Our firm stands behind single and unmarried parents, affirming their legal rights and their ability to raise children. At the core of these rights is the essential freedom to choose. Before this pivotal case, same-sex couples in certain states were denied that freedom, facing significant harm to themselves and their families. Even in states where same-sex marriage was legal, there remained persistent fear that laws might shift, stripping away recognition and rights. This kind of instability, rooted in inequality, is undeniably unjust.
The constitutional protection of the right to marry has been consistently affirmed by the Court. In Obergefell v. Hodges, critical legal questions regarding same-sex partnership rights were addressed. The Court acknowledges that society's and the law's understanding of marriage is dynamic, reflecting both continuity and change over time. While limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples may have once seemed natural and just, the Court states that excluding same-sex couples from a central societal institution is incompatible with the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution. As the Court notes, the Constitution promises liberty and individual autonomy to all within its reach, enabling them to define and express their identity. This fundamental right to liberty includes the right to marry.