Do you remember where you were and what you were doing on June 26, 2015? No? Neither do I [1]. But I do vividly remember a specific Sunday in June of that same year. My sisters and I got home from church with my mom while my dad went to deposit the tithing money. We slipped easily into our usual Sunday routine: talking about what we’d learned in our classes, changing out of our church clothes, and making lunch together.
Though I had only just turned eleven, my political progressiveness was already beginning to take shape. Whether it was the influence of my college-aged, Grateful Dead T-shirt wearing older brother or the fact that Obama was the only president I knew anything about (I wish this still were the case), I was a Democrat. A small-town, Latter-day Saint, Tennessean Democrat.
That afternoon, my mom shared that the Supreme Court was considering federally legalizing same-sex marriage, and that our congregation had gathered to pray that the decision would not pass. Confused, I asked my mom why. She asked me, “Ella, you don’t support same-sex marriage, do you?” I responded, “I believe we should love everyone and allow them to love whoever they wish.” She paused for a moment and then said, “Yes, you’re absolutely right. We should love everyone.”
While that was the end of our conversation, it was not the end of my considerations on Obergefell v. Hodges. Though I still morally agree with my eleven-year-old self, a decade of maturing has taught me that same-sex marriage is not only morally justifiable but a constitutional right granted under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Now, you may be asking yourself, “Why am I reading about a Supreme Court case decided a decade ago?” While you probably do have more pressing matters than reading the words of a college junior, I believe everyone should be constitutionally literate. And more pressing than your to-do list is the fact that Obergefell v. Hodges now faces a possible risk of being overturned, despite its constitutionality [2].
Before the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision, only twelve states legally allowed same-sex marriage. It was a matter left to each state, not the federal government [3]. Same-sex couples in four states (Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee) challenged their state statutes, claiming that bans on these marriages, or failures to recognize them, violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and even the Civil Rights Act in one instance [4].
Justice Kennedy, in a 5–4 opinion, wrote that the “Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples” (Obergefell v. Hodges) [4].
I recognize the fact that this issue is not as black and white as I have painted it to be. LGBTQ+ issues rarely are. As a Southerner, a person of faith, and the granddaughter of someone who gets upset that the Hallmark channel now portrays gay people (though I love my Papa, even if we are from different generations and have very diverse pet peeves), I understand how deeply ingrained beliefs and traditions can inform one’s perspective. I respect these beliefs and support an individual’s right to uphold them. However, I also believe that a personal conviction should never outweigh a person’s constitutional rights. America values agency, and agency means respecting another’s right to choose, even when their choice differs from our own.
At its core, the U.S. Constitution safeguards inalienable liberties, including the right to marry, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and granted to all Americans regardless of their partner’s gender [5][6]. This is crucial to society’s well-being.
The Fourteenth Amendment states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (National Archives) [7]. In the United States, marriage has been recognized as a fundamental liberty [8]. It is regarded as an essential aspect of American life, one that provides significant personal and societal benefits [9].
Leaving the decision of who can benefit from this right to state legislatures is unconstitutional and has caused irrefutable harm throughout America’s history. While the Tenth Amendment grants states broad powers, it does not allow them to violate other parts of the Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether it was before Loving v. Virginia (1967), when bans prohibited interracial marriages [10], or during the 249 years in which only heterosexual unions were legal, restricting marriage has repeatedly denied citizens their constitutional liberties. Equality under the law cannot depend on tradition or majority preference.
Additionally, the Equal Protection Clause makes same-sex marriage a constitutional right. It declares that states cannot “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” [11]. Allowing heterosexual couples to marry while denying that right to same-sex couples is discrimination.
Now, a decade later, this decision is at risk of being overturned, placing the fundamental right to marry and the equality it represents in jeopardy once again [12]. Similar to Roe v. Wade, opponents of same-sex marriage have spent the last decade fighting to reverse this ruling [13]. With the current makeup of the Supreme Court, the possibility that it could be reconsidered in 2026 is more real than ever. It is crucial that the Court reaffirms the constitutional right decided ten years ago, back when I was a middle schooler making lunch after church with my mom.
To quote Justice Kennedy: “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right” (Obergefell v. Hodges) [14]. That equal dignity must remain protected.
