Obergefell v. Hodges (Supreme Court)

Brief Filed: 3/6/15
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Year of Decision: 2015

Read full-text amicus briefopens in new window (PDF, 167KB)

At issue is a challenge to the laws against same-sex marriage in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.

Sexual Orientation (discrimination; same sex-marriage)

APA previously filed a brief in this matter in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in which it was joined by the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, Ohio Psychological Association and the Kentucky Psychological Association. Oral arguments were heard by the Sixth Circuit on Aug. 6, 2014. On Nov. 6, 2014, the court issued an opinion upholding the challenged laws in a 2-1 decision.  In doing so, it created a circuit split and became the first federal court of appeals to rule against marriage equality in the post-Windsor case. 

The Sixth Circuit's majority opinion did not address the APA's arguments. Judge Daughtrey's dissent, however, focused on the negative effects of marriage bans on same-sex couples and their children. See e.g., Docket No. 130-2 at 45 (responding to “responsible procreation” arguments and stating “[h]ow ironic that irresponsible, unmarried, opposite-sex couples in the Sixth Circuit who produce unwanted offspring must be ‘channeled' into marriage and thus rewarded with its many psychological and financial benefits, while same-sex couples who become model parents are punished for their responsible behavior by being denied the right to marry”). Like the Ohio district court below, Judge Daughtry found that the studies of Mark Regnerus, Douglas Allen, and Loren Marks were “not credible” in contrast to other more reputable studies on the effects of LGBT parenting. Id. At 59-60. APA's amicus briefs filed in the Sixth Circuit urged this conclusion.

Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. On Jan. 16, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in all four cases on the following questions:

• Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same-sex?
• Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

On March 6, 2015, APA filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court, which was joined by the Kentucky Psychological Association, Ohio Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, Michigan Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, National Association of Social Workers, National Association of Social Workers Tennessee Chapter, National Association of Social Workers Michigan Chapter, National Association of Social Workers Kentucky Chapter, National Association of Social Workers Ohio Chapter, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Medical Association.

The brief advised the Supreme Court that scientific evidence strongly supports the conclusion that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality; that gay men and lesbians form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects; that same-sex couples are no less fit than heterosexual parents to raise children, and their children are no less psychologically healthy and well-adjusted; and that denying same-sex couples access to marriage is both an instance of institutional stigma and a contributor to the negative treatment of lesbian, gay and bisexual people. In short, the claim that allowing same-sex couples to marry undermines the institution of marriage and harms children is inconsistent with the scientific evidence. The body of research presented contravenes the stereotype-based rationales that the Equal Protection Clause was designed to prohibit and that some opponents of same-sex marriage use to justify laws against same-sex marriage. The research also demonstrates that the Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky marriage laws unfairly stigmatize same-sex couples by discriminating between them and married heterosexual couples.

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court decided Obergefell in favor of marriage equality. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment (1) requires states to license marriages between people of the same sex, and (2) requires states to recognize lawful marriage out-of-state same-sex marriages.

Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion cited APA’s amicus brief in discussing the evolution of the institution of marriage and the rights of gays and lesbians over time. Finding that new insights about marriage and relationships “have strengthened, not weakened, the institution of marriage,” the opinion states that:

For much of the 20th century, moreover, homosexuality was treated as an illness. When the American Psychiatric Association published the first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1952, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder, a position adhered to until 1973. See Position Statement on Homosexuality and Civil Rights, 1973, in Am. J. Psychiatry 497 (1974). Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and other recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as Amici Curiae 7-17.

No. 14-556 (Jun. 26, 2015) at 7-8.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell resolved the outstanding cases that were then-pending in U.S. Courts of Appeals throughout the country. As discussed in previous reports, APA also filed amicus briefs in cases in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 11th Circuits prior to the Obergefell decision. Because the Supreme Court resolved both the questions of marriage equality and recognition of out-of-state marriages, the Obergefell decision effectively ends this wave of litigation.