Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules, 5-4
By Adam Liptak of The New York Times
June 26, 2015
WASHINGTON ‚ÄĒ In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 decision. He was joined by the court‚Äôs four more liberal justices.
The decision, the culmination of decades of litigation and activism, came against the backdrop of fast-moving changes in public opinion, with polls indicating that most Americans now approve of same-sex marriage. Justice Kennedy said gay and lesbian couples had a fundamental right to marry. ‚ÄúNo union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family,‚ÄĚ he wrote. ‚ÄúIn forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.‚ÄĚ
‚ÄúIt would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage,‚ÄĚ Justice Kennedy said of the couples challenging state bans on same-sex marriage. ‚ÄúTheir plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization‚Äôs oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.‚ÄĚ Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in a dissent joined by Justice Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said the Constitution had nothing to say on the subject.
‚ÄúIf you are among the many Americans ‚ÄĒ of whatever sexual orientation ‚ÄĒ who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today‚Äôs decision,‚ÄĚ Chief Justice Roberts wrote. ‚ÄúCelebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.‚ÄĚ
In a second dissent, Justice Scalia mocked Justice Kennedy‚Äôs soaring language. ‚ÄúThe opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic,‚ÄĚ Justice Scalia wrote of his colleague‚Äôs work. ‚ÄúOf course the opinion‚Äôs showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent.‚ÄĚ As Justice Kennedy finished announcing his opinion, several attendees seated in the bar section of the court‚Äôs gallery wiped away tears, while others grinned and exchanged embraces. Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired in 2010, was on hand for the decision and many of the justices‚Äô clerks took seats in the chamber, which was nearly full as the ruling was announced.
As in earlier civil rights cases, the Supreme Court had moved cautiously and methodically, laying careful judicial groundwork for a transformative decision. As late as October, the justices ducked the issue, refusing to hear appeals from rulings allowing same-sex marriage in five states. That decision delivered a tacit victory for gay rights, immediately expanding the number of states with same-sex marriage to 24, along with the District of Columbia, up from 19.
Largely as a consequence of the Supreme Court‚Äôs decision not to act, the number of states allowing same-sex marriage has since grown to 36, and more than 70 percent of Americans live in places where gay couples can marry. The court did not agree to resolve the issue for the rest of the nation until January, in cases filed by gay and lesbian couples in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The court heard extended arguments in April, and the justices seemed sharply divided over what the Constitution has to say about same-sex marriage.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs said their clients had a fundamental right to marry and to equal protection, adding that the bans they challenged demeaned their dignity, imposed countless practical difficulties and inflicted particular harm on their children. The Obama administration, which had gradually come to embrace the cause of same-sex marriage, was unequivocal in urging the justices to rule for the plaintiffs. ‚ÄúGay and lesbian people are equal,‚ÄĚ Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said. ‚ÄúThey deserve equal protection of the laws, and they deserve it now.‚ÄĚ
Lawyers for the four states said their bans were justified by tradition and the distinctive characteristics of opposite-sex unions. They said the question should be resolved democratically, at the polls and in state legislatures, rather than by judges. The Supreme Court had once before agreed to hear a case arising from a constitutional challenge to a same-sex marriage ban, California‚Äôs Proposition 8, in 2012 in Hollingsworth v. Perry. At the time, nine states and the District of Columbia allowed same-sex couples to marry. But when the court‚Äôs ruling arrived in June 2013, the justices ducked, with a majority saying the case was not properly before them, and none of them expressing a view on the ultimate question of whether the Constitution requires states to allow same-sex marriage.
A second decision the same day, in United States v. Windsor, provided the movement for same-sex marriage with what turned out to be a powerful tailwind. The decision struck down the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that barred federal benefits for same-sex couples married in states that allowed such unions. The Windsor decision was based partly on federalism grounds, with Justice Kennedy‚Äôs majority opinion stressing that state decisions on how to treat marriages deserved respect. But lower courts focused on other parts of his opinion, ones that emphasized the dignity of gay relationships and the harm that families of gay couples suffered from bans on same-sex marriage.
In a remarkable and largely unbroken line of more than 40 decisions, state and federal courts relied on the Windsor decision to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.