Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the swing vote between the liberal and conservative blocs on the Court, wrote the majority decision in Obergfell v. Hodges that made marriage equality the law of the land in the United States.

Months of waiting and discussion of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, a case where the Court was debating whether or not same-sex couples were entitled to marry each other across the country, and also whether or not states where marriage equality was not on the books were required to recognize same-sex unions performed in states where the practice was legal.

In today’s 5-4 ruling, a divided Supreme Court answered yes to both questions. The decision, written by swing justice Anthony Kennedy prohibits states from banning same-sex marriages and requires them to recognize marriages performed legally in other states.

“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right,” Kennedy wrote in the majority decision. 

Kennedy was joined by the so-called liberal bloc of four justices (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomajor and Elena Kagan), while the four members of the so-called conservative wing of the court (Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) each wrote separate dissents.

“Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration,” Roberts wrote. “But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening.”

More bothersome than this attempt at a scholarly approach to dissent was Roberts’s assertion that same-sex marriage isn’t part of the Constitution, as he included in what otherwise read as an attempt at an olive branch to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

“If you are among the many Americans – of whatever sexual orientation – who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision,” he wrote. “Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.” 

A simple reading of the Fourteenth Amendment demonstrates how wrong Roberts is with that assertion. That amendment is often referred to as “the second Bill of Rights” because it extends many of the protections of the people against Washington to protect people against overreach by state governments.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” Section 1 reads in part. “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.”

In making the argument on behalf of President Barack Obama's administration back in April, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. powerfully argued that preventing same-sex couples from being able to marry the people they love is discrimination.

“In a world in which gay and lesbian couples live openly as our neighbors, they raise their children side by side with the rest of us, they contribute fully as members of the community,” he said, “it is simply untenable – untenable – to suggest that they can be denied the right of equal participation in an institution of marriage, or that they can be required to wait until the majority decides that it is ready to treat gay and lesbian people as equals,” he said.

Kennedy said it best in the closing paragraph of his majority decision.

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family,” he wrote. “In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

The struggle for full equality isn’t over yet. A simple look at the ongoing struggles against racism and misogyny proves it. But we’re finally one step closer to living up to our nation’s ideals as outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

For millions of Americans, their ability to pursue happiness with the life partner of their choice just became a little easier.