On Nov. 10, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) overturned the appeal to Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that granted LGBTQ+ couples the legal right to get married in the U.S. The case has a long history, and the appeal is the result of the built-up tensions in the U.S. surrounding Obergefell v. Hodges.
United States v. Windsor
June 26, 2015, was a major milestone for LGBTQ+ citizens in the U.S.: it was the day that Obergefell v. Hodges’ landmark decision on LGBTQ+ rights was officially voted on and announced. The case won “by one vote,” and the court ruled that “same-sex marriage cannot be banned in the United States and that all same-sex marriages must be recognized nationwide.”
Obergefell v. Hodges started with another case, United States v. Windsor. The case was brought to the courts by Edie Windsor after her spouse, Thea Spyer, passed away. Windsor and Spyer were engaged for 40 years, and got married in Canada in May 2007. Two years after their engagement, and after 44 years of being together, Spyer passed away.
When Spyer passed away, the federal government refused to recognize their marriage, and they taxed Windsor as though they were strangers and not legally married. New York recognized their marriage, but the federal government didn’t under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
DOMA was originally signed “into law in 1996 and defined marriage by the federal government as between a man and woman, thereby allowing states to deny marriage equality.”
United States v. Windsor was eventually brought to the Supreme Court, and on June 26, 2013, it was ruled that “section three of the so-called ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ is unconstitutional and that the federal government cannot discriminate against married lesbian and gay couples for the purposes of determining federal benefits and protections.”
This case also held further significance: it was “the first federal appeals court to decide that a higher standard of review applies to sexual orientation discrimination.” United States v. Windsor didn’t legalize gay marriage, but it was still a milestone for the LGBTQ+ community, as it paved the way for the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling.
There were still discrepancies between United States v. Windsor and the full legalization of gay marriage. The initial case only “forced the federal government to treat same-sex marriages equally under the law,” but this didn’t apply on a state-by-state basis; individual states didn’t have to recognize same-sex marriages. This is where Obergefell v. Hodges’ case enters the legal realm: it patched over the discrepancy created by United States v. Windsor.
Obergefell v. Hodges
Before Obergefell v. Hodges, several states had legalized same-sex marriage, but Obergefell v. Hodges recognized LGBTQ+ marriages at the federal level. In 2003, Massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marriage, but full marriage equality wouldn’t happen until 2016 with Obergefell v. Hodges’ ruling.
The case was brought to the courts by James Obergefell and his husband, John Arthur. In the case, “James Obergefell and his husband, John Arthur, sued Ohio Governor John Kasich for discrimination against same-sex couples who married lawfully out of state and, later, to force the state of Ohio to recognize same-sex unions on death certificates.”
The ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges took place on the second anniversary of United States v. Windsor, and ruled that “the right to marry is a fundamental liberty and is protected under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.”
After the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, states were required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize same-sex marriages of couples from any state. This decision was also important because it required states to recognize marriages on the death certificates of same-sex couples.
When Obergefell and Arthur originally brought their case before the courts, Arthur was dying due to ALS, or Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. Arthur passed away on Oct. 22, 2013, before the decision of Obergefell v. Hodges was reached.
In an interview after the landmark decision, Obergefell spoke about the importance of the decision to him and his husband.
In the interview, he says, “John and I started our fight for a simple reason: we wanted the State of Ohio to recognize our lawful Maryland marriage on John’s impending death certificate. We wanted respect and dignity for our 20-year relationship, and as he lay dying of ALS, John had the right to know his last official record as a person would be accurate. We wanted to live up to the promises we made to love, honor, and protect each other as a committed and lawfully married couple.”
He then continues, “Couples across America may now wed and have their marriage recognized and respected, no matter what state they call home. No other person will learn at the most painful moment of married life, the death of a spouse, that their lawful marriage will be disregarded by the state.”
Obergefell’s interview highlights the importance of this decision for the LGBTQ+ community, and recently, after almost 10 years, the case was once again brought under scrutiny in the United States.
The LGBTQ+ MARRiaGE EQUALITY Appeal
On Nov. 10, the SCOTUS “turned away a long-shot attempt to overturn the landmark 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.” The appeal was brought to the court by Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who was sued for refusing marriage licenses to LGBTQ+ couples.
After refusing, Davis was jailed and was ordered to pay a fine to the couple she refused to marry. Davis tried to appeal to the court on the basis of religious freedom and the First Amendment, but she was denied without comment.
LGBTQ+ activists have been concerned for Obergefell v. Hodges for years, since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. Roe v. Wade’s overturn was historic, as the “decision to overrule Roe is one of the few times the Supreme Court has ever invalidated an earlier decision that declared a constitutional right.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the conservative justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, explicitly called on the court “to overrule the watershed civil rights rulings in Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges.”
SCOTUS’s decision to deny Davis’s appeal comes as a relief to many LGBTQ+ activists, as many have been worried that Obergefell v. Hodges may receive the same treatment as Roe v. Wade. Both cases were founded on substantive due process, which “is a term in constitutional law that essentially allows courts to protect certain rights, even if those rights are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.”
For now, however, LGBTQ+ activists are relieved with the decision of the court to deny Davis’ appeal. Mary Bonauto, who represented the Obergefell v. Hodges case in court, “praised the court’s action,” stating, “Today, millions of Americans can breathe a sigh of relief for their families, current or hoped for, because all families deserve equal rights under the law.”
Obergefell v. Hodges has a long history in the U.S., as the court’s decision in the case was the result of years of other legal precedent and activism by LGBTQ+ community members in the U.S.
Want to see more HCFSU? Be sure to follow us on Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, and Pinterest!