{"id":351914,"date":"2016-04-04T11:02:42","date_gmt":"2016-04-04T16:02:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-law\/family\/marriage\/same-sex-marriage-and-the-supreme-court.html"},"modified":"2023-07-22T12:10:38","modified_gmt":"2023-07-22T17:10:38","slug":"same-sex-marriage-and-the-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.findlaw.com\/family\/marriage\/same-sex-marriage-and-the-supreme-court.html","title":{"rendered":"Same-Sex Marriage and the Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n

Same-Sex Marriage and the Supreme Court<\/h1>\n
\n
\n By Melissa McCall, J.D.<\/a> | Legally reviewed by Melissa Bender, Esq.<\/a>\n | Last updated\n
\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n

In 2013, the Court overturned essential Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provisions. Two years later, the Court determined that the U.S. Constitution guarantees marriage rights to gay couples.<\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Although Obergefell v. Hodges<\/a> <\/i>is a well-known U.S. Supreme Court case, the Court’s history with same-sex marriage goes back to 1972. In 1972, the Court dismissed an appeal in Baker v. Nelson<\/i> because it did not present "a substantial federal question<\/a>." In Baker<\/i>, the plaintiffs, a gay Minnesotan couple, appealed a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that denied them a marriage license.<\/p>\r\n

It took 41 years for the Court to address same-sex marriage rights again. In the interim, the fight for gay rights continued across America. Some states considered or passed constitutional amendments limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. In other states, same-sex couples could enter civil unions or domestic partnerships. Yet, neither of these options offered the protections or benefits of marriage.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

Marriage equality became the law of the land with the Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell<\/i>. In this decision, which protected same-sex marriage rights, the Court determined that the 14th Amendment guaranteed a fundamental right to marry.<\/p>\r\n

This article explores the history of same-sex marriage and the U.S. Supreme Court, from Baker <\/i>to Obergefell<\/i>.<\/p>\r\n

Baker v. Nelson<\/h2>\r\n

In Baker<\/i>, a Minnesotan couple, James McConnell and Richard Baker, appealed a Minnesota Supreme Court decision denying them a marriage license. The clerk of the local district court denied their marriage license application because of their sexual orientation. The couple sued the clerk in the trial court to force him to issue a marriage license. The trial court dismissed their case.<\/p>\r\n

The couple appealed that decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and that Court also dismissed their appeal. The Court dismissed their final appeal on procedural grounds, finding their case lacked "substantial federal question."<\/p>\r\n

United States v. Windsor<\/h2>\r\n

The Court next addressed gay marriage in United States v. Windsor<\/a>.<\/i> In Windsor,<\/i> the plaintiff, Edith Windsor’s wife, died and inherited her spouse’s estate. Windsor and her wife married in Canada, and their marriage was valid in New York.<\/p>\r\n

Windsor tried to use a federal inheritance tax exemption as a surviving spouse. She could not use this exemption because of Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Section 3 prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages permitted under state law. Since DOMA applied to federal law, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) denied Ms. Windsor’s claim because she was not a surviving spouse.<\/p>\r\n

The high court ruled in favor of Windsor, finding that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional "as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons" under the Fifth Amendment. It also found that the law sought to injure gay Americans as a class, violating due process<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

Post-Windsor<\/h2>\r\n

After Windsor<\/i>, many court cases successfully challenged state bans on same-sex marriage. Courts found these bans violated the equal rights and due process of LGBTQ Americans. Over sixty state and federal court decisions have ruled that states must allow same-sex marriage or recognize marriages from other states.<\/p>\r\n

One goal of the Supreme Court, based in Washington, D.C., is an even application of constitutional laws nationwide. A jurisdictional split occurs when different Courts of Appeal have different approaches to the same issue. When that happens, the legal question goes to the Supreme Court for resolution.<\/p>\r\n

The Sixth Circuit<\/h2>\r\n

In November 2014, the Sixth Circuit Court became the first and only federal Court of Appeal to uphold state bans<\/a> on same-sex marriage. It’s this decision that the Supreme Court addressed in its Obergefell<\/i> decision. The Sixth Circuit refused to apply the Windsor <\/i>reasoning to state bans. Instead, this Court reasoned they had to follow the Supreme Court’s precedent from Baker<\/i>.<\/p>\r\n

The Sixth Circuit’s decision conflicted with the decisions of four other circuit courts. These courts each struck down bans against gay marriage. The Ninth Circuit, for example, found that Idaho and Nevada’s same-sex marriage bans violated the Equal Protection Clause<\/a>. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that these states discriminated based on sexuality and gender.<\/p>\r\n

Obergefell v. Hodges<\/h3>\r\n

Obergefell<\/i> is a consolidated case. Since different federal appellate courts reached different conclusions about same-sex marriage, the Court consolidated four of these cases. These cases included:<\/p>\r\n