Case brief summary
The Fourteenth Amendment's promises of liberty (due process) and equal treatment under the law (equal protection) protect a fundamental right to marry that applies equally to same sex couples.
Facts
Same sex couples and two widowers from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee sued because those states would not let them marry or would not recognize their marriages performed legally in other states.
Procedural history
Federal trial courts ruled for the couples, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and upheld the state marriage bans, leading the Supreme Court to take the case.
Issue
Does the Constitution require states to let same sex couples marry and to recognize same sex marriages validly performed in other states?
Holding
Yes, the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license marriages between same sex couples and to recognize same sex marriages lawfully performed elsewhere.
Reasoning
The right to marry is a basic personal liberty tied to autonomy, intimate bonding, child rearing, and social stability, and excluding same sex couples denies them equal dignity and benefits for no sufficient reason.
Opinions
Majority (Kennedy): The right to marry is fundamental under liberty and equality protections, so states must allow and recognize same sex marriages.
Dissent (Roberts): The majority substituted its own policy views for law, since marriage's definition should be left to voters and legislatures, not judges.
Dissent (Scalia): The decision is an illegitimate power grab by unelected judges that strips Americans of their right to self government on this issue.
Dissent (Thomas): True liberty means freedom from government restraint, not a right to government recognition, and the majority wrongly treats marriage benefits as a liberty interest.
Dissent (Alito): The right to same sex marriage has no basis in history or tradition, and the ruling will be used to brand traditional marriage supporters as bigots.