Invalidating mother in law
Confucius taught that marriage lies at the foundation of government. But that is neither their purpose nor their submission.
To the contrary, it is the enduring importance of marriage that underlies the petitioners’ contentions. Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities.
I These cases come from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, States that define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Since the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together. Were their intent to demean the revered idea and reality of marriage, the petitioners’ claims would be of a different order.
Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. This wisdom was echoed centuries later and half a world away by Cicero, who wrote, “The first bond of society is marriage; next, children; and then the family.” See De Officiis 57 (W. It is fair and necessary to say these references were based on the understanding that marriage is a union between two persons of the opposite sex. Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman.
A week later, De Koe began his deployment, which lasted for almost a year. A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.
When he returned, the two settled in Tennessee, where De Koe works full-time for the Army Reserve. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. S., at 12; see also Zablocki, supra, at 384 (observing Loving held “the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals”).
Petitioners filed these suits in United States District Courts in their home States. It consolidated the cases and reversed the judgments of the District Courts. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life.
It was difficult for Arthur to move, and so the couple were wed inside a medical transport plane as it remained on the tarmac in Baltimore. Ohio law does not permit Obergefell to be listed as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate. April De Boer and Jayne Rowse are co-plaintiffs in the case from Michigan.
By statute, they must remain strangers even in death, a stateimposed separation Obergefell deems “hurtful for the rest of time.” App. They celebrated a commitment ceremony to honor their permanent relation in 2007.
Two years ago, Obergefell and Arthur decided to commit to one another, resolving to marry before Arthur died.
To fulfill their mutual promise, they traveled from Ohio to Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal. He brought suit to be shown as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate.