Marriage Equality's Legal History: A Timeline Of Triumphs

The fight for marriage equality in the United States was a long and arduous journey that spanned decades. The first lawsuits seeking legal recognition of same-sex relationships were filed in the early 1970s, but it wasn't until June 26, 2015, that the Supreme Court legalised same-sex marriage nationwide with its landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. This ruling granted same-sex couples in all 50 states the right to full, equal recognition under the law. The road to marriage equality was filled with setbacks and victories, with efforts to legalise same-sex marriage gaining momentum in the 1990s and states like Massachusetts leading the way with the first court ruling in favour of same-sex marriage in 2003. The Defence of Marriage Act, signed into law in 1996, defined marriage as between a man and a woman, creating barriers for same-sex couples. However, public opinion gradually shifted towards support for marriage equality, and by 2015, a majority of Americans favoured it. The legalisation of same-sex marriage in the US was a significant milestone in the country's history, ensuring that every person, regardless of whom they love, is recognised equally under the law.

The US Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges

The case was brought by several groups of same-sex couples who sued their respective states (Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee) for their bans on same-sex marriage and refusal to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere. The plaintiffs, led by Jim Obergefell, argued that these laws violated their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. The denial of marriage impeded many legal rights and privileges in areas such as adoptions, parental rights, and property transfer.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that the fundamental right to marry could not be limited to heterosexual couples. The Court's ruling affirmed that the Constitution guarantees the liberty of all persons to enjoy equal freedom and protection under the law, regardless of sexual orientation. This decision built upon previous rulings, such as the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, which struck down state bans on interracial marriage.

The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was the culmination of decades of struggles, setbacks, and victories in the fight for marriage equality in the United States. It legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, making the US the seventeenth country in the world to allow same-sex couples to marry. This ruling had a significant impact on the lives of same-sex couples and their families, granting them full and equal recognition under the law.

The Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges was a pivotal moment in the advancement of LGBTQ+ rights and equality, ensuring that same-sex couples across America could enjoy the same freedoms and protections afforded by marriage as their heterosexual counterparts.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

DOMA specifically defined marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife". This allowed individual states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states and denied same-sex couples more than 1,000 federal protections and privileges enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, including access to a spouse's employment benefits, recognition of the marriage itself, rights of inheritance, joint tax returns and exemptions, and the right to cohabit in college or military housing.

DOMA also had significant implications for families with same-sex parents. For example, a non-biological parent could not have a legal relationship with a child of the biological parent in a same-sex couple, and same-sex couples could not take medical leave to care for their partners or non-biological children. They were also unable to adopt children and could not petition the court for custody, visitation rights, or child support during divorce proceedings.

In 2013, in the case of United States v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that DOMA's definition of marriage was unconstitutional, and in 2015, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court struck down the section of DOMA that allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. This granted same-sex couples the constitutional right to marry. However, in 2022, the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson opened up the possibility for the Court to re-examine its ruling in Obergefell in the future.

The Hawaii court ruling in Baehr v. Lewin

The Hawaii Supreme Court's ruling in Baehr v. Lewin (1993) was a landmark decision in the fight for marriage equality. The case was brought by three same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses by the Hawaii Department of Health, despite meeting all the eligibility requirements except being of the same sex. The couples, represented by attorney Dan Foley, argued that Hawaii's prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the state constitution.

The Hawaii Supreme Court's ruling was split 2-1-2, with the plurality opinion written by Justice Levinson, joined by Chief Justice Moon. The Court held that while the right to privacy in the Hawaii Constitution did not include a fundamental right to same-sex marriage, the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples constituted discrimination based on sex. This triggered the strict scrutiny standard, which required the state to justify its discrimination by demonstrating compelling state interests and that the law was narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary abridgments of constitutional rights. The Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine if the state could meet this standard.

The ruling in Baehr v. Lewin was significant as it was the first time a state high court ruled that excluding same-sex couples from marriage was unconstitutional discrimination. The decision sent the case back to the trial court, where Judge Kevin S.C. Chang ruled in favour of the plaintiffs in 1996, instructing the state to issue marriage licenses to otherwise-qualified same-sex couples. However, this decision was stayed, and in 1998, Hawaii voters approved an amendment to the state constitution that allowed the state to reserve marriage for opposite-sex couples. The case was ultimately dismissed in 1999 when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional amendment removed the plaintiffs' legal objections.

The Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor

The case was brought by Edith Windsor, a resident of New York, who had married her partner, Thea Spyer, in Canada in 2007. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire estate to Windsor, who was denied the benefit of the spousal deduction for federal estate taxes under 26 U.S.C. 2056(A) because of Section 3 of DOMA.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that DOMA violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection and due process. The Court found that DOMA's purpose was to impose "restrictions and disabilities" on same-sex couples who were legally married in states that recognize same-sex marriage, by denying them "the benefits and responsibilities that come with federal recognition of their marriages."

The Court's opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, emphasized the traditional authority of states to define and regulate marriage and concluded that DOMA sought to "injure" and "demean" a group of persons whom the states had sought to protect and dignify through recognition of their marriages.

The Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor had significant implications for the advancement of marriage equality in the United States, paving the way for the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

The Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry

Hollingsworth v. Perry was a series of federal court cases that re-legalized same-sex marriage in California. The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law. This decision overturned California ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage.

The case was litigated during the governorships of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown and was known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown, respectively. As Hollingsworth v. Perry, it eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that, in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so.

The case was docketed with the Supreme Court at 570 U.S. 693 (2013) (Docket No. 12-144). The Supreme Court ruled that the backers of Proposition 8 lacked standing to appeal and that "Petitioners' arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive". The Court's action left the original district court ruling (overturning Proposition 8) as the final ruling in the case.

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court held in the case In re Marriage Cases that state statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex applicants violated the California Constitution. The following month, same-sex couples became able to marry in California. In November 2008, California's voters approved Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution that sought to restore a prior opposite-sex-couple limitation on marriage; however, following its adoption, several lawsuits were filed that challenged the validity of the amendment, under various state constitutional provisions.

On May 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court held that (while Proposition 8 was a lawful enactment), all same-sex marriages that had been contracted before the proposition's passage remained valid. The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the American Civil Liberties Union had originally obtained the right to same-sex marriage in California and defended it in Strauss v. Horton.

Three days before the Strauss decision occurred, the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge the validity of Proposition 8 on behalf of two same-sex couples. The couples' legal team was led by David Boies and former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson. Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposed the filing because they felt a federal challenge at this time might do more harm than good. Olson and AFER rebuffed this argument and defended the timing of the lawsuit.

During a pre-trial hearing on July 2, 2009, the three legal groups moved to intervene in the lawsuit, as did the City of San Francisco in a separate filing. The plaintiffs opposed allowing the groups or the city to intervene. On August 19, Judge Walker denied the legal groups' motions to intervene but granted the City's, albeit in a limited capacity. Despite the other groups' failed attempt to intervene in the lawsuit, they offered support to the legal team litigating the case.

In May 2009, the Alameda County Clerk-Registrar, Patrick O'Connell, denied Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier a marriage license because they are a same-sex couple. For the same reason, Dean Logan, the Los Angeles County Clerk, denied Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo a marriage license. The couples sued the two county clerks and several state officials: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Jerry Brown, and two officials in the Department of Public Health.

Several groups sought to intervene as plaintiffs, including the groups who had prosecuted the actions entitled In re Marriage Cases and Strauss v. Horton. San Francisco also filed a motion to intervene in the case. The City cited its work in the earlier cases that had provided "extensive evidence and proposed findings on strict scrutiny factors and factual rebuttals to long-claimed justifications for marriage discrimination". City Attorney Dennis Herrera said that his office is "singularly well-prepared" to help "put anti-gay discrimination on trial based on the facts". Walker permitted only San Francisco to intervene, as it could speak to the impact of Proposition 8 on local governments. He also ordered the attorney general to assist San Francisco in analyzing Proposition 8's impact.

On August 4, 2010, Walker announced his ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning Proposition 8 based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Walker concluded that California had no rational basis or vested interest in denying gays and lesbians marriage licenses. He further noted that Proposition 8 was based on traditional notions of opposite-sex marriage and on moral disapproval of homosexuality, neither of which is a legal basis for discrimination. He noted that gays and lesbians are exactly the type of minority that strict scrutiny was designed to protect.

Over 50 pages of the opinion were devoted to documenting Walker's summary of 80 findings of fact and related testimony and evidence, which had been heard during the hearing. Examples included:

• Marriage is a civil, not religious, matter.
• How the State defines civil marriage.
• Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of sexual, affectional or romantic desires for and attractions to men, women, or both sexes. An individual's sexual orientation can be expressed through self-identification, behavior, or attraction.
• Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. An individual does not, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention, or any other method, change sexual orientation.
• The State has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California.
• Marriage has benefits that the State and individuals gain from, which apply to same and opposite-sex marriage alike.
• Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in terms of characteristics relevant to successful marriage and union.
• Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gays and lesbians.
• Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage.
• Marriage of other groups, controversial on comparable grounds at the time, such as race or ethnicity, has not reduced the "vibrancy" or importance of marriage as a social institution, although many people raised concerns of its degradation at the time.
• The costs and harm (to the State and to lesbians and gays) resulting from the denial of marriage to same-sex couples.

Frequently asked questions