Blame Straight People for the 50% Divorce Rate Since Same-Sex Marriage Wasn’t Legal Until 2015
In the fight for marriage equality, few moments stand as pivotal as the landmark Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges. Decided in 2015, this case was the culmination of six separate lawsuits filed between January 2012 and February 2014, representing dozens of couples across multiple states. At its core, the case was not just about marriage; it was about affirming the fundamental right to love and build a life with the person of one’s choosing, regardless of gender. This historic decision forever changed the legal landscape of the United States, ensuring that same-sex couples could no longer be denied the dignity and protections that marriage provides.
The Fight for Family: DeBoer v. Snyder and Michigan’s Marriage Ban
The journey toward marriage equality in Michigan began with DeBoer v. Snyder, the first of the cases that would later form Obergefell v. Hodges. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, a lesbian couple who held a commitment ceremony in February 2007, faced a legal roadblock when attempting to adopt children together. Under Michigan law at the time, adoption was only permitted for single individuals or married couples, effectively barring same-sex couples from joint adoptions since their marriages were not legally recognized.
Between 2009 and 2011, DeBoer and Rowse adopted three children individually—DeBoer adopting their daughter, and Rowse adopting their two sons—but they were unable to establish joint legal parentage for their family. This legal disparity prompted them to file a lawsuit on January 23, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Initially challenging Michigan’s adoption laws, the couple expanded their case to contest the state's ban on same-sex marriage, arguing that it violated their constitutional rights.
In March 2014, District Judge Bernard Friedman ruled that Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional, striking down the law and allowing hundreds of couples to marry. However, the ruling faced immediate opposition, leading to an appeal in the Sixth Circuit.
On November 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, upholding Michigan’s ban and creating a split among federal appellate courts on the issue of marriage equality—a pivotal moment that would propel the issue to the Supreme Court.
Fighting for Recognition: Obergefell v. Kasich and Ohio’s Marriage Ban
Ohio played a significant role in the journey to marriage equality, with two pivotal cases emerging from the state. The first, Obergefell v. Kasich, began in June 2013, shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor. Inspired by this ruling, Jim Obergefell and his partner, John Arthur, decided to marry and traveled to Maryland to do so on July 11, 2013. However, upon returning to Ohio, they learned that their home state refused to recognize their marriage. Determined to fight for their rights, the couple filed a lawsuit on July 19, naming Ohio Governor John Kasich as the lead defendant.
John Arthur was terminally ill, and the couple sought to ensure that Obergefell would be listed as Arthur’s surviving spouse on his death certificate. While the local Ohio registrar agreed that denying recognition to their marriage was unconstitutional, the Ohio attorney general’s office announced its intention to defend the state’s same-sex marriage ban. On July 22, District Judge Timothy S. Black issued a temporary restraining order requiring the Ohio registrar to list Obergefell as Arthur’s surviving spouse on his death certificate. This order was later extended until December, with oral arguments scheduled for December 18.
The case took on further significance when David Michener, another Ohio resident, joined as a plaintiff after his husband, William Herbert Ives, died unexpectedly in August 2013. The couple had married in Delaware and shared three adopted children, but Ohio law barred Michener from being listed as Ives’s surviving spouse on the death certificate. Michener’s addition to the lawsuit prompted a name change, restyling it as Obergefell v. Wymyslo to reflect Ohio Health Department Director Ted Wymyslo as the lead defendant.
Despite John Arthur’s death on October 22, 2013, the fight continued. Judge Black denied a state motion to dismiss the case and, on December 23, 2013, ruled that Ohio’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions was unconstitutional. His decision required the state to recognize same-sex marriages on death certificates, marking a significant step forward in the broader battle for marriage equality.
Fighting for Parenthood: Henry v. Himes and Ohio’s Adoption Laws
On February 10, 2014, four legally married same-sex couples in Ohio filed a pivotal lawsuit, Henry v. Wymyslo, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The case centered on adoption rights, with the plaintiffs seeking to have both parents listed on their children’s birth certificates—a right denied to same-sex couples under Ohio law.
As the case progressed, the plaintiffs expanded their argument to challenge Ohio’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, contending that the recognition ban was unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Ted Wymyslo, Ohio’s director of health and the original lead defendant, resigned from his position. His interim successor, Lance Himes, was named as the new defendant, and the case was restyled as Henry v. Himes.
On April 14, 2014, District Judge Timothy S. Black issued a ruling that Ohio must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. However, while the ruling broadly supported marriage recognition, state enforcement was temporarily limited, allowing the plaintiffs to secure accurate birth certificates but halting broader implementation of the decision. This case further highlighted the challenges faced by same-sex couples and their families in the fight for equal rights and recognition.
Challenging Kentucky’s Marriage Laws: Bourke v. Beshear
In Kentucky, the fight for marriage equality gained traction with Bourke v. Beshear, a case that addressed the state’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. On July 26, 2013, Gregory Bourke and Michael DeLeon, a legally married couple from Ontario, Canada, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Representing themselves and DeLeon’s two adopted children, the couple sought to overturn Kentucky’s laws barring recognition of their marriage.
On February 12, 2014, District Court Judge John G. Heyburn ruled in their favor, declaring that Kentucky’s marriage laws violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. However, the victory was short-lived. While Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway declined to defend the state’s marriage laws on appeal, Governor Steve Beshear stepped in to pursue an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Judge Heyburn’s ruling was stayed during the appeals process, delaying the implementation of marriage recognition for same-sex couples in Kentucky.
Fighting for Marriage Equality: Love v. Beshear
On February 14, 2014, two days after Judge John G. Heyburn ruled against Kentucky’s refusal to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages in Bourke v. Beshear, another case emerged to challenge the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Two couples—Timothy Love and Lawrence Ysunza, and Maurice Blanchard and Dominique James—filed a motion to intervene in the Bourke case, arguing that their claims aligned with its core arguments.
Maurice Blanchard and Dominique James had been denied marriage licenses multiple times by Kentucky county clerks, despite holding a religious ceremony in June 2006. Meanwhile, Timothy Love and Lawrence Ysunza, who had been partners for 30 years, were refused a marriage license at the Jefferson County Clerk’s Office the day after the Bourke ruling. These couples sought to challenge Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage within the state.
As legal proceedings advanced, Judge Heyburn issued a stay in the Bourke case on February 28, 2014, which was extended on March 19, pending action by the Sixth Circuit. Meanwhile, Love v. Beshear took center stage. On July 1, 2014, Judge Heyburn ruled that Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, finding in favor of the plaintiffs.
However, like the Bourke case, this decision was appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court. By the time oral arguments for Bourke v. Beshear were scheduled, the ruling in Love v. Beshear had already been issued. The Sixth Circuit consolidated the two cases, and on November 6, 2014, it reversed both district court decisions, ruling that Kentucky’s same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Constitution. This controversial ruling ultimately helped create the judicial split that set the stage for the Supreme Court to resolve the issue in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Defending Marriage Rights: Tanco v. Haslam
In Tennessee, the fight for marriage equality took the form of Tanco v. Haslam. Filed on October 21, 2013, by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the lawsuit represented three legally married same-sex couples who challenged Tennessee’s refusal to recognize their marriages. The state’s discriminatory laws denied these couples the same legal rights and protections as opposite-sex married couples. The suit named Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam and three other state officials as defendants.
On March 14, 2014, District Court Judge Aleta A. Trauger ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring that Tennessee’s ban on recognizing same-sex marriages violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. The decision required the state to recognize the plaintiffs’ marriages, but Judge Trauger clarified that her order applied only to the three couples involved and did not permit widespread same-sex marriage in Tennessee.
Despite this limited scope, the state immediately sought a stay on the ruling. Judge Trauger denied the request on March 20, but the Tennessee Attorney General escalated the matter to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 25, 2014, the Sixth Circuit issued a temporary stay, halting enforcement of the district court’s order and fast-tracking the case for review.
On November 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision, ruling in favor of Tennessee’s ban on recognizing same-sex marriages. This decision, alongside similar rulings in Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan, created a conflict among federal courts, ultimately propelling the issue of marriage equality to the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges.
The Road to the Supreme Court: Obergefell v. Hodges
The fight for nationwide marriage equality took a pivotal turn in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, where several key cases were consolidated. After the Sixth Circuit's November 6, 2014, ruling in DeBoer v. Snyder, which upheld same-sex marriage bans as constitutional, claimants from six district court cases in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee chose to appeal the decision.
On January 16, 2015, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal, consolidating the four cases: DeBoer v. Snyder (Michigan), Obergefell v. Hodges (Ohio), Bourke v. Beshear (Kentucky), and Tanco v. Haslam (Tennessee).
The Court’s goal was to address two fundamental questions:
- Does the 14th Amendment require states to license marriages for same-sex couples?
- Does the 14th Amendment require states to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states?
The consolidated case retained the name Obergefell v. Hodges, and oral arguments were heard on April 28, 2015. Civil rights attorney Mary Bonauto and Washington, D.C., lawyer Douglas Hallward-Driemeier represented the plaintiffs, alongside U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who argued on behalf of the federal government in support of marriage equality. Representing the states were former Michigan Solicitor General John J. Bursch and Tennessee Associate Solicitor General Joseph R. Whalen.
This historic case set the stage for a defining moment in the battle for LGBTQ+ rights in the United States.
The Supreme Court's Landmark Marriage Equality Decision
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a historic 5-4 ruling that required all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize those marriages performed in other states. The decision was grounded in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection and due process.
Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito dissented.
The majority opinion outlined four key reasons for why the fundamental right to marry extends to same-sex couples, as summarized by Cornell’s Legal Information Institute:
- Personal Autonomy: The right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.
- Fundamental Union: The right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union that is unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. This principle applies equally to same-sex couples.
- Safeguarding Families: The fundamental right to marry protects children and families, drawing meaning from related rights such as childrearing, procreation, and education. While procreation is not a requirement for marriage, it is one of the factors that makes the right worth protecting.
- Social Order: Marriage is a keystone of social order, and there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry goes against the social principles that form the foundation of society.
The Respect for Marriage Act: A Landmark Step for LGBTQ+ Rights
On December 13, 2022, President Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law, marking a historic moment in the ongoing fight for LGBTQ+ rights. This legislation, initially introduced by three Democratic members of Congress on September 15, 2009, was designed to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had been signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
DOMA had prohibited federal recognition of same-sex marriages by defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. It also allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The Respect for Marriage Act sought to correct this injustice, ensuring that same-sex and interracial marriages are recognized under federal law.
While the bill initially struggled to gain traction in Congress, a renewed sense of urgency emerged following the Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Justice Clarence Thomas's remarks in the aftermath, urging the Court to revisit its rulings on contraception, same-sex marriage, and intimate relationships, sparked further momentum for the bill.
The Respect for Marriage Act was reintroduced in July 2022, passing the House of Representatives on a large bipartisan vote of 267 to 157, with 47 House Republicans voting in favor of the legislation. This marked the most pro-LGBTQ+ vote in congressional history at that time. The bill then moved to the Senate, where it was amended and passed on November 29, 2022, by a vote of 61 to 36, with 12 Republicans supporting it.
The final version of the Respect for Marriage Act was passed in the House on December 8, 2022, before being signed into law by President Biden.
What the Respect for Marriage Act Does
The Respect for Marriage Act enshrines statutory protections for same-sex and interracial marriages by replacing previous provisions that defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman. The new law recognizes any marriage between two individuals that is valid under state law, in line with the 2013 United States v. Windsor decision, which ruled the former federal definition of marriage unconstitutional.
Additionally, the Act prohibits states from denying full faith and credit to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin, in line with the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) and Loving v. Virginia (1967) decisions, which declared bans on same-sex and interracial marriages unconstitutional.
The Act also grants the Department of Justice the authority to bring civil actions and establishes a private right of action for violations.
Protections and Limitations
While the Respect for Marriage Act strengthens marriage equality, it includes provisions to protect religious freedoms and conscience protections. Specifically, it does not:
- Impact religious liberties or protections guaranteed by the Constitution or federal law.
- Require religious organizations to provide goods or services to formally recognize or celebrate a marriage.
- Alter benefits or rights that do not arise from a marriage.
- Recognize under federal law any marriage involving more than two individuals.
Could Marriage Equality Be Overturned?
While the Respect for Marriage Act was a historic step in protecting same-sex and interracial marriages, it does not fully codify the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which established nationwide marriage equality in 2015. Instead, the Act primarily mandates that states without marriage equality must recognize LGBTQ+ marriages performed in other states.
This means that, in the unfortunate event that Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned, the Respect for Marriage Act would not prevent states from once again refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Act does not guarantee the right to marry nationwide, but only ensures that same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal will be recognized in states that do not have marriage equality.
Since states, not Congress, have the authority to legislate marriage rights, many legal experts believe Congress cannot pass a bill that forces states to issue marriage licenses to LGBTQ+ couples. Therefore, some advocates suggest that an amended version of the Equality Act, a comprehensive anti-discrimination bill, could provide a route to secure marriage rights. However, the Equality Act has faced significant challenges in Congress for nearly 50 years, and its passage is far from guaranteed.
The Path Forward: Take Action for Full Equality
While the Respect for Marriage Act is an important step, it is not enough to protect us from ongoing discrimination—especially in the era of the new Trump administration. To safeguard true equality for LGBTQ+ people, we need to push for the passage of the Equality Act—a crucial piece of legislation that would provide comprehensive protection from discrimination in areas like employment, housing, education, and healthcare. This law would ensure that LGBTQ+ individuals are treated with the same rights and dignity as anyone else.
If you're concerned about marriage equality and want to help move the Equality Act forward, the ACLU has made it easy for you to get involved. They’ve set up a tool that allows you to send an email directly to your state senators, urging them to pass the Equality Act. It only takes a minute—just fill out your information, and the email goes straight to your senator.
It might feel like one voice can’t make a difference, but change starts with action, no matter how small it seems. Alone, we may not be able to write or pass legislation, but together, we can amplify our voices using the ACLU’s tool, which makes it simple for us to begin making a difference.
We also need to share this message with others—family, friends, and anyone who might not realize the ongoing threats to marriage equality, since many initially believed that the Respect for Marriage Act was the final step in securing equality. However, it has become clear that more is needed to ensure full protection and equality.
When we face setbacks like this, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed or like we can’t do anything to change the situation. It's tempting to give in to frustration, but we can't afford to be complacent. We must act if we want full equality.
The more voices we have advocating for this change, the closer we get to passing an amended version of the Equality Act, and ensuring that all LGBTQ+ individuals are fully protected by the law. It’s time for us to take a stand—together. Let’s keep pushing for true equality.
And remember. Every day is all we have, so you've got to make your own happiness.
For more information on this topic, listen to Episode 46. Obergefell v. Hodges and the Ongoing Fight for Marriage Equality.
Tune into your favorite podcast player every Tuesday for new episodes of A Jaded Gay.
