It happened on a Friday. June 26, 2015. Most people remember the rainbow lights on the White House, but the actual legal mechanics of the US Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage were a lot more technical—and honestly, more fragile—than the celebrations suggested. We call it Obergefell v. Hodges. It wasn't just one case; it was a cluster of lawsuits from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee that collided at the highest court in the land.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. He focused on the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. He argued that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty. It’s "inherent in the liberty of the person."
The vote was 5-4. Tight.
If one person had looked at the law differently that morning, the map of the United States would still be a patchwork of "yes" and "no" states for same-sex couples. You might have been married in New York but legally a stranger to your partner the moment you drove across the border into a state that didn't recognize your union. That's a mess. A massive, bureaucratic, heartbreaking mess.
Why the US Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage was more than just a piece of paper
Before Obergefell, the legal landscape was chaotic. Imagine trying to file taxes, or inherit a house, or even visit a dying spouse in the hospital while wondering if the local sheriff cared about your marriage license. The US Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage ended that particular flavor of uncertainty.
Justice Scalia hated the ruling. He didn't just disagree; he was scathing. In his dissent, he called the majority's reasoning "pretentious" and "profoundly anti-democratic." He believed that the definition of marriage should be left to the states—to the voters—rather than five "unelected lawyers." This tension between judicial "activism" and "originalism" is still the primary fault line in American law today.
Scalia's ghost still haunts the court. We see it in the way the current conservative supermajority talks about "deeply rooted" traditions.
James Obergefell, the lead plaintiff, wasn't looking to lead a revolution. He just wanted his name on his husband John Arthur’s death certificate. John had ALS. They had flown to Maryland to get married on a medical transport plane because Ohio wouldn't let them do it. When John died, Ohio's registrar refused to list James as the surviving spouse. That’s the reality. It wasn't just a political debate; it was about whether a man could be officially recognized as the person who loved his husband until his final breath.
✨ Don't miss: Ukraine War Map May 2025: Why the Frontlines Aren't Moving Like You Think
The four main arguments Kennedy used
Kennedy didn't just say "it's fair." He laid out a specific legal framework.
First, he argued that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. Second, he noted that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a "two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals." Third, it safeguards children and families. This was a big one. He argued that denying marriage rights "stigmatized" the children of same-sex couples. Finally, he stated that marriage is a "keystone of our social order" and there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples in this respect.
Some legal scholars, even those who support gay marriage, found the "dignity" argument a bit mushy. They would have preferred a stricter focus on gender discrimination. If a man can marry a woman, but a woman can't marry a woman, isn't that just sex-based discrimination? The court eventually moved closer to that logic in the 2020 Bostock decision, but in 2015, it was all about the "dignity" of the bond.
The 2022 pivot and the Respect for Marriage Act
Fast forward a few years. The world changed. Roe v. Wade was overturned in the Dobbs decision. Suddenly, everyone started looking at the US Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage with a lot of anxiety.
Justice Clarence Thomas didn't help the nerves. In his concurring opinion in Dobbs, he explicitly said the court should "reconsider" all of its substantive due process precedents. He named Obergefell by name. Basically, he invited a challenge to it.
Congress got spooked. They passed the Respect for Marriage Act in late 2022.
Here is what most people get wrong about that law: It doesn't actually codify Obergefell. It’s a safety net. If the Supreme Court ever strikes down the 2015 ruling, the Respect for Marriage Act ensures that the federal government will still recognize any marriage that was valid in the state where it was performed. It also requires states to recognize valid out-of-state marriages. But—and this is a big "but"—it wouldn't force a state like Alabama to issue new licenses to same-sex couples if the Court reversed its 2015 stance.
🔗 Read more: Percentage of Women That Voted for Trump: What Really Happened
It's a compromise. It protects the status of existing marriages while leaving a door open for states to stop issuing new ones if the legal winds change.
What's actually happening on the ground?
It's not all rainbows and courtrooms. We still see massive friction in the "religious liberty" space. You’ve probably heard about the cake bakers and the web designers.
The US Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage didn't settle the conflict between civil rights and the First Amendment. In cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative, the Court has been carving out space for business owners who have religious objections to participating in same-sex ceremonies. The law says you have a right to get married. It doesn't necessarily say every private business has to help you celebrate it.
This is the new frontier. We are seeing a slow-motion collision between two sets of rights.
- Public accommodations laws (which say you can't discriminate against customers).
- Free speech/Free exercise rights (which say the government can't force you to say things you don't believe).
For a couple in a big city, this might just mean finding a different florist. For a couple in a small rural town, it can feel like a "Keep Out" sign is being hung on the local economy.
Real talk: Is your marriage safe?
If you are currently married, the answer is almost certainly yes. Even the most conservative legal minds generally shy away from the "administrative nightmare" of un-marrying hundreds of thousands of people. The legal doctrine of stare decisis (respecting precedent) is shaky lately, but the logistical chaos of reversing marriage rights is a high bar to clear.
However, the legal justification for that marriage is under more scrutiny than it has been in a decade. We are in a period of "constitutional unsettledness."
💡 You might also like: What Category Was Harvey? The Surprising Truth Behind the Number
The US Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage relied on a specific interpretation of the 14th Amendment that is currently out of favor with the majority of the sitting justices. They prefer "history and tradition." And since gay marriage doesn't have a multi-century history in American law, it's vulnerable under that specific lens.
Actionable steps for protecting your legal interests
You shouldn't just rely on the 2015 ruling. Law is a living thing. It changes. If you’re in a same-sex relationship, there are practical things you should do to "double-wrap" your legal protections regardless of what happens in D.C.
- Get a Durable Power of Attorney. Even with a marriage license, having a specific document that grants your partner the right to make medical decisions is a smart backup. It prevents "clerical errors" from becoming tragedies in emergency rooms.
- Update your will. Don't assume everything will automatically go to your spouse. Laws vary by state. A clear, notarized will is much harder to challenge than a marriage certificate if the legal landscape shifts.
- Second-parent adoption. If you have kids, make sure both parents have a legal decree of adoption or a court-ordered parentage judgment. A marriage license is often not enough to prove parentage in every jurisdiction, especially if you travel abroad.
- Keep a physical copy of your marriage license. Digital is fine, but keep a certified paper copy in a fireproof safe. You'd be surprised how often "the system is down" when you need to prove a legal status.
The US Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage was a landmark. It changed the lives of millions. But it wasn't the final word. The conversation has just moved from "Can they get married?" to "How does that marriage interact with everyone else's rights?" It’s more complicated now. Less of a soundbite, more of a long-term legal grind.
Keep your eyes on the lower courts. That's where the next big shift will start. Cases involving parental rights for same-sex couples are currently working their way through state supreme courts in places like Idaho and Indiana. Those rulings will eventually force the US Supreme Court to step back into the fray.
For now, the law of the land remains clear. Everyone has the right to the "constellation of benefits" that marriage provides. But in the legal world, "settled" is a relative term.
Next Steps for You:
Check your state's specific laws regarding "Confirmatory Adoption" or "Second-Parent Adoption." Even with the federal ruling, these state-level protections provide an extra layer of security for your family structure that a Supreme Court reversal cannot easily touch. If you haven't reviewed your estate plan in the last three years, schedule a consultation with an attorney who specializes in LGBTQ+ family law to ensure your assets are protected under the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act guidelines.