The Opinion of the Court, in Brief--Same sex Marriage

[Gregory Matthews]

Held: The Fourteenth Amendment 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 out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.

(a) Before turning to the governing principles and precedents, it is appropriate to note the history of the subject now before the Court. Pp. 3–10.

(1) The history of marriage as a union between two persons of the opposite sex marks the beginning of these cases. To the respondents, it would demean a timeless institution if marriage were extended to same-sex couples. But the petitioners, far from seeking to devalue marriage, seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities, as illustrated by the petititioners’ own experiences. Pp. 3–6.

(2) The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. Changes, such as the decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of the law of coverture, have worked deep transformations in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential. These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution. Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations.

This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experience with gay and lesbian rights. Well into the 20th century, many States condemned same-sex intimacy as immoral, and homosexuality was treated as an illness. Later in the century, cultural and political developments allowed same-sex couples to lead more open and public lives. Extensive public and private dialogue followed, along with shifts in public attitudes. Questions about the legal treatment of gays and lesbians soonreached the courts, where they could be discussed in the formal discourse of the law. In 2003, this Court overruled its 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186, which upheld a Georgia law that criminalized certain homosexual acts, concluding laws making same-sex intimacy a crime “demea[n] the lives of homosexual persons.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 575. In 2012, the federal Defense of Marriage Act was also struck down. United States v. Windsor, 570

U. S. ___. Numerous same-sex marriage cases reaching the federal courts and state supreme courts have added to the dialogue. Pp. 6–10.

(b)The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. Pp. 10–27.

(1)The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord the mits respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. For example, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12, invalidated bans on interracial unions, and Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95, held that prisoners could not be denied the right to marry. To be sure, these cases presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners, as did Baker v. Nelson, 409 U. S. 810, a one-line summary decision issued in 1972, holding that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage did not present a substantial federal question. But other, more instructive precedents have expressed broader principles. See, e.g., Lawrence, supra, at 574. In assessing whether the force and rationale of its cases apply to same-sex couples, the Court must respect the basic reasons why the right to marry has been long protected. See, e.g., Eisenstadt, supra, at 453–454. This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. Pp. 10–12.

(2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 U.S., at 12. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy acriminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567.

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___. This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

4 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES Syllabus

Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle, yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage.

The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest. Pp. 12–18.

(3) The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. This dynamic is reflected in Loving, where the Court invoked both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause; and in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, where the Court invalidated a law barring fathers delinquent on child-support payments from marrying. Indeed, recognizing that new insights and societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequality within fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged, this Court has nvoked equal protection principles to invalidate laws imposing sex-based inequality on marriage, see, e.g., Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U. S. 455, 460–461, and confirmed the relation between liberty and equality, see, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102, 120–121.

The Court has acknowledged the interlocking nature of these constitutional safeguards in the context of the legal treatment of gays and lesbians. See Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 575. This dynamic also applies to same-sex marriage. The challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and they abridge central precepts of equality. The marriage laws at issue are in essence unequal: Same-sex couple are denied benefits afforded opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial works a grave and continuing harm, serving to disrespect and subordinate gays and lesbians. Pp. 18–22.

(4)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. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23.

(5) There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. Bowers, in effect, upheld state action that denied gays and lesbians a fundamental right. Though it was eventually repudiated, men and women suffered pain and humiliation in the interim, and the effects of these injuries no doubt lingered long after Bowers was overruled. A ruling against same-sex couples would have the same effect and would be unjustified under the Fourteenth Amendment. The petitioners’ stories show the urgency of the issue they present to the Court, which has a duty to address these claims and answer these questions. Respondents’ argument that allowing same-sex couples to wed will harm marriage as an institution rests on a counterintuitive view of opposite-sex couples’ decisions about marriage and parenthood. Finally, the First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths. Pp. 23–27.

(c)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-sexmarriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.  P; 27 - 28.  772 F 3rd 388, reversed.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[Gregory Matthews]

NOTE:   The above post was taken from the published opinion of the Court.  Due to some reproduction issues, in a couple of instances citations made by the Court were not included in the above post.  You can read it in full on the Internet.  Otherwise, I believe that the above post is accurate, as far as it goes.  I am sorrly about the small size of the last few words.  Again a reproduction problem.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[GayatfootofCross]

Maybe we should hand out refreshments.

[Gregory Matthews]

No, don't hand out refreshment.  Just send me money for the legal services that I have provided here.  No, that would not violate the law.

However, if any of you wish to send me such money, I will pledge to make a contribution to Stan  for the expenses of running the website.

 

 

 

 

[GayatfootofCross]

 

[JoeMo]

I have conflicting feelings about this ruling.  On the positive side, I am happy to see that same-sex couples will have the same rights to choice and happiness as male-female couples.  On the negative side, it appears to restrict the rights of individuals and institutions to follow the tenets of their faith; closing the doors for these people/groups to carry out the tenets of their faith without harassment and litigation by gay activists (and now possibly the government).  A happy day for gays and lesbians; a sad day for religious freedom.  The end of discrimination against gays could possibly be the beginning of legalized discrimination against Christians in this country who refuse to compromise their convictions.  The next step will be the religious moralization of government mandated environmental policy.  Can anyone besides me see the potential advent of government enforced state religion?

[GayatfootofCross]

I have conflicting feelings about this ruling.  On the positive side, I am happy to see that same-sex couples will have the same rights to choice and happiness as male-female couples.  On the negative side, it appears to restrict the rights of individuals and institutions to follow the tenets of their faith; closing the doors for these people/groups to carry out the tenets of their faith without harassment and litigation by gay activists (and now possibly the government).

 

Hi JoeMo!

GBU

Yes, we are not to compel the conscience.

[Ron Lambert]

I have long believed we should be tolerant of homosexuals, just as we extend tolerance to people who use tobacco or alcohol and adulterers (all these can be forgiven--even the polygamy of Biblical patriarchs). We must still, of course, point homosexuals to the Scriptures which plainly show their behavior to be judged by God as sinful, and urge them to receive therapy for what is in fact an aberrant behavior. But what God cannot be tolerant of is a direct challenge to His authority, when people presume to redefine what marriage is, defying God's definition. If same-sex unions were called unions, or partnerships, or anything other than marriage, there would be no problem. But daring to defy God's authority in one of the two divine institutions God established in Eden, before the Fall of Mankind, can only lead to the significant removal of divine protection from our nation and from our world. Today's Supreme Court 5-4 split decision is the real and true beginning of the end for America. The troubles that will now come on America in the form of natural disasters and man-made disasters, will eventually lead people to be willing to enforce a Sunday Law, where everyone is required to go to church for "moral instruction" on Sunday. If you have ever wondered what would lead to America accepting a national Sunday Law, this is it. The End of Time has begun.

And just watch--the gay community is going to be thrown under the bus, when it becomes convenient to blame them for the disasters that are about to befall America. The very people who now think it is so "righteous" to uphold the "human rights" to perversion, will turn on homosexuals and claim they are to blame for all the troubles, when really it is the fault of those who used the gay community in this way, to defy God's authority openly and directly and officially, which is all that Satan needed to claim the right to operate with much greater freedom to bring about his evil purposes.

 

[CoAspen]

If you have ever wondered what would lead to America accepting a national Sunday Law, this is it. The End of Time has begun.

 I have been an SDA my whole life. Were I to count all the pronouncements of "The End of Time has begun"......well, Peter and the Wolf comes to mind!

People, the time of the end began at the first apple eating party and finger pointing. Our focus should be about what Christ has done and what can be done to enjoy eternal life. Out focus is in the wrong place.

[Gregory Matthews]

In the United States "marriage" has both a civil and a religious function.  [NOTE: This is not true in some countries where marriage may have only a civil function and not a religious function.]  In this country government has always exercised the right to define the boundaries of marriage.  It has established the age at which people can marry.  It has defined the relationships of people who could not marry--brothers and sisters commonly could not marry.  It has limited the number of people one could be married to at one time.    These were not always related to Biblical doctrine.  Those laws did not generally affect Biblical teachings which remained the same, regardless of what the Bible taught.

The decision of the U. S. Supreme court only deals with civil law.  It does not affect Biblical teachings.

 

 

But what God cannot be tolerant of is a direct challenge to His authority, when people presume to redefine what marriage is, defying God's definition.

 

Edited June 27, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[GayatfootofCross]

I have conflicting feelings about this ruling.  On the positive side, I am happy to see that same-sex couples will have the same rights to choice and happiness as male-female couples.  On the negative side, it appears to restrict the rights of individuals and institutions to follow the tenets of their faith; closing the doors for these people/groups to carry out the tenets of their faith without harassment and litigation by gay activists (and now possibly the government).  A happy day for gays and lesbians; a sad day for religious freedom.  The end of discrimination against gays could possibly be the beginning of legalized discrimination against Christians in this country who refuse to compromise their convictions.  The next step will be the religious moralization of government mandated environmental policy.  Can anyone besides me see the potential advent of government enforced state religion?

In the United States "marriage" has both a civil and a religious function.  [NOTE: This is not true in some countries where marriage may have only a civil function and not a religious function.]  In this country government has always exercised the right to define the boundaries of marriage.  It has established the age at which people can marry.  It has defined the relationships of people who could not marry--brothers and sisters commonly could not marry.  It has limited the number of people one could be married to at one time.    These were not always related to Biblical doctrine.  Those laws did not generally affect Biblical teachings which remained the same, regardless of what the Bible taught.

The decision of the U. S. Supreme court only deals with civil law.  It does not affect Biblical teachings.

 

 

Gregory Matthews!

I am glad you are here to help guide us in this.

I have gotten interesting comments behind the scenes here and in other places.

Someone said it can eventually take away Tax status of SDA Church.

And I know some feel they as Christians have to duck and cover over this.

The Church is not forced to marry gays.

Can you feel this in a bit when you are free?

I know some scared Christians of other faiths and fears.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The fears that people have come from a mixed bag.  Some are without foundation.  Some are not likely.  Other are in a grey area and it is uncertain what will happen.  It is clear that there is foundation for some issues.

At the two extremes:

1)  Commercial enterprises:   My read on this is that commercial enterprises may continue to have problems.  There is simply no basis in law for giving a business a religious exemption.  However, The U.S. Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case seemed to say differently.  So, even this in not locked in concrete.

2) The provision of sacramental services by clergy, who are not engaged in a business:  The 1st Amendment to the Federal Constitution, with considerable case law to back up what I am saying, leads me to believe that clergy are never going to be forced into performing marriages that they do not want to perform.   

Possible, but not probable at this time.

1) Tax exemption for churches:  In all honesty, I cannot rule this out.  It is not probable, in the immediate future.  But, I cannot say that it would never happen.  However, so what?   With our understanding of "end-time" events, we must expect that prior to the 2nd Advent, we as a denomination would lose any tax exemption and our members gifts would not receive an IRS charitable exemption. Do we as a denomination exist only as the government gives us a tax exemption?:  Will such a loss put us out of business?    I hope not.

Forced to chose between employment of homosexuals and loss of tax exemptions:

1) Hospitals:  SDA hospitals, in the U.S. do not now generally make adherence to SDA standards a criteria for employment.  I do not see this as being a problem for our hospitals.  However, some SDA hospitals do have employment in a very few positions as requiring adherence to SDA standards.  This is not in every hospital.  Perhaps this will need to change?  In any case, I see JCAHO standards as being more important than any government rules related to tax exemption.  At least now that is the case.

2) Educational Institutions:  I see this as a mixed bag, with deciding factors being how the school is organized, run and the clients that it serves.  Our schools already face some of this which is related to discrimination issues.  There is a legal reason why every approved SDA school in the United States, publishes every year a statement as to its policy on discrimination.  That already occurs.

 

My comments are probably not what many would expect from me.  But, the above is where I am.  It is a mixed bag.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[JoeMo]

Thanks for your insight, Gregory.

I was thinking about the worst scenario - where this situation would precipitate the beginning of widespread persecution of Christians and faith-based organizations (personally and corporately).  Is my worst-case scenario God's best case scenario?  A prophetic 19th century writer once said something like persecution is a great motivator for revival.  In my personal worst-case scenario, Christians will be forced to make a decision between being faithful to the standards of God (at least their perceptions of those standards) or caving in to the pressures of legally enforced morality (state religion?).

[8thdaypriest]

I'm just considering what to call these "marriages".  The LGBT "community" want to change our language, so that we will simply call two gays "married".  But I don't see Bible Christians or Jews or Muslims doing that - EVER!  They will add another word to label these "marriages".  They may say Joe  is SCOTUS marred to Ben.  Or Jane is SCOTUS married to Emily.  This to indicate a civil or legal union, rather than a "natural" marriage, or "Biblical marriage". 

The LGBT certainly like to use the word "love".  "There's nothing wrong with love," they say.  "We SHOULD all simply love each other."  If a Bible believer does not accept unconditionally, their SCOTUS "marriage", then the Believer is being hateful.  "Jesus loved everyone, and would have accepted us,"  they repeat and repeat and repeat.  

What is the BEST way to express our belief that Jesus loves the sinner, but NOT the SIN.  Jesus condemned sin. 

I'm just asking HOW we, as Bible believers, can best express our position - in a very brief manner.    Maybe, "You have your religion.  And I have mine.  I will leave you to YOUR religion, and ask that you leave me to mine." 

[8thdaypriest]

Do you think this issue may lead to move to amend the Constitution?  That could really open a Pandora's Box. 

God's Law - as held by those who accept the Torah, and the First Century Apostolic Writings, IS ABOVE ANY COURT OF MAN.  The US Supreme Court once upheld slavery.  The Court legalized abortion on demand.  The Court banned the teaching of creation as science in the public schools.  This latest judgment upholding the legality of "gay marriage"  is not the first judgment which goes directly against the Law of God, and it won't be the last. 

What most troubles me, is the teaching in the "public" schools.  A push will be made to teach all children these new "standards", and to teach intolerance for anyone who does not accept these standards.  Tolerance is the new intolerance!!!  Political correctness is the new discrimination.  Children educated only in public schools (without input from believing parents) simply CANNOT learn ANYTHING of God, or His ways.  These children will grow to adults - to be used of Satan, to persecute the people of God. 

It would not surprise me, to see a move to outlaw home schooling, BECAUSE - they will say that parents or religious schools are teaching discrimination.  They may try to FORCE the home schoolers, or the church schools to TEACH the new "standards".   At the very least, home schoolers, or church schools will be despised - for teaching discrimination. 

[hch]

Does God have a standard to which we should strive to attain or not?

I have always thought of the Church as a hospital for sinners (so they could get well),

but has the Church become a convalescent center for the incurably ill?

[bonnie]

Do you think this issue may lead to move to amend the Constitution?  That could really open a Pandora's Box. 

God's Law - as held by those who accept the Torah, and the First Century Apostolic Writings, IS ABOVE ANY COURT OF MAN.  The US Supreme Court once upheld slavery.  The Court legalized abortion on demand.  The Court banned the teaching of creation as science in the public schools.  This latest judgment upholding the legality of "gay marriage"  is not the first judgment which goes directly against the Law of God, and it won't be the last. 

What most troubles me, is the teaching in the "public" schools.  A push will be made to teach all children these new "standards", and to teach intolerance for anyone who does not accept these standards.  Tolerance is the new intolerance!!!  Political correctness is the new discrimination.  Children educated only in public schools (without input from believing parents) simply CANNOT learn ANYTHING of God, or His ways.  These children will grow to adults - to be used of Satan, to persecute the people of God. 

It would not surprise me, to see a move to outlaw home schooling, BECAUSE - they will say that parents or religious schools are teaching discrimination.  Thnew godey may try to FORCE the home schoolers, or the church schools to TEACH the new "standards".   At the very least, home schoolers, or church schools will be despised - for teaching discrimination. 

It isn't just the teaching in the public schools. More and more I see more wisdom in my dad's caution. There will come a time when your concern should not be for what those outside the church are doing and teaching. Those sitting next to you in the pew that "preach and teach" the new gospel will give you more problems. If you have concerns over intolerance for a different belief or opinion you don't have to go any further than right here. I have never commented until now on WO but who is it that refers to the opinions of others as desperation or wanting to hang on to male dominance. Disagreement with those that are for can only be seen in that light by several. Disagreeing with gay marriage as a right cannot be anything other than hatred or fear that somehow it is catchy. Following scripture is seen as fanatic or as a self righteous hypocrite. After all it is no worse than other sins. That of course is true but so far this is the one sin we are asked to celebrate as a good,fair and just thing as long as the word "love" is inserted.

The train of thought that God made gays the way they are and it is just another acceptable christian lifestyle is not a foreign concept in our schools now.

[Gregory Matthews]

 D you  have any friends who were married in a civil ceremony but not a religious one?  What do you call their marriages?  Prbably some of those do not meet God's ideal.

[Stan]

Some have suggested, lawyer type, that the Church not do civil marriages only religious marriages.

 

I have encouraged those who have a long wait before the wedding to go out  and get married after the engagement is settled, often about a month. They do not tell anyone, it is reported as such a stress reducer. Plus, if he dies, she gets widows pension here in Canada. So he is looking after her.

[Stan]

I might add, that all have reported that was a great thing.

[bonnie]

 D you  have any friends who were married in a civil ceremony but not a religious one?  What do you call their marriages?  Prbably some of those do not meet God's ideal.

My husband and I were married by a Justice of the Peace at the courthouse more than 53 years ago. Yes we are legally married in the eyes of the state and God. Neither a pastor or J.P know in advance if the marriage will meet God's ideal.That is up to the husband and wife. Two men or two women can never have anything except a perverted relationship

A pastor that believes what the bible says knows that a civil or religious marriage ceremony will never reach Gods ideal 100 % of the time.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

 D you  have any friends who were married in a civil ceremony but not a religious one?  What do you call their marriages?  Prbably some of those do not meet God's ideal.

my folks got married in Las Vegas by a JP... a number of years ago it was determined that Clark County, Nevada, was never officially recognized, and that all of the marriages and divorces were technically void.  But due to the enormous number of marriages and divorces there, it was decided to make the "official-ness" retroactive..

(I know, my thread contribution has nothing to do with the topic, but I thought it was interesting..)

[Gregory Matthews]

I  have personally seen the same happen with clergy who were not properly authorized to perform marriages.  No, it was not me.

[Naomi]

Off subject, but I don't want to start another thread on this subject, so here goes:  If John Jones & James Smith get married will they become John & James Smith ... or John and James Jones?  Or, perhaps hyphenated.

This may appear trite but if they are married, in this country the majority do the normal thing and take the husband's last name. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

There are more and more women who keep their maiden name.  However, a few men are taking on the name of their wife.

In a homosexual marriage on person is considered to be the husband and the other the wife.

Yes, you do raise an interesting issue.  We can only wait and see how it develops.