This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Obergefell v. Hodges article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Obergefell v. Hodges. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Obergefell v. Hodges at the Reference desk.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Obergefell v. Hodges is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones Date Process Result April 11, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 24, 2022 Featured article candidate Not promoted A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on June 26, 2015. Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 26, 2018, and June 26, 2021. Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies United States High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Ohio Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.OhioWikipedia:WikiProject OhioTemplate:WikiProject OhioOhio Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 2010s Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Wiki Loves Pride This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2015.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride

This article follows The Chicago Manual of Style for citations. It uses that manual's Notes and Bibliography System for all citations that are not uniquely or primarily web-based, which includes using The Bluebook (see banner below) for uniquely legal sources. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Online information on this referencing style may be obtained at The Chicago Manual of Style Online.

This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style for legal citations only. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.

Other talk page banners

An editor's feedback has prompted me to raise a question. What should constitute the criteria that make a case relevant enough to Obergefell v. Hodges to be included in the section about related cases? Prior to my edit to include Davis v. Ermold et al.only one case was present, Pavan v. Smith. In both cases, Obergefell is apparently strengthened and in both cases Obergefell is explicitly mentioned. Are there other cases as of yet that should be added? Or, is the section itself relevant and needed? Thoughts?SeminarianJohn (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section is certainly unnecessary. However, given the high-profile nature of the subject, if people want the section, then have at it.

Only cases that directly affect the application of Obergefell, or that answer serious legal questions concerning it, should be included. At the time Pavan was decided, there was a serious legal question as to whether Obergefell required same- and different-sex marriages be treated the same. Pavan answered that question. The disputed case answers no such question and fails to change how Obergefell is applied. In fact, the action is merely an inconsequential (for our purposes) denial of writ. At this time, there is simply nothing to see here. That may change. If it does, we’ll see.

As for whether other cases should be added at this time, I doubt it. But what you got? Antinoos69 (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for following up. I am going to address and respond to what you have shared. It is clear we disagree on this particular matter, but at least this way we can have the discussion and see if others weigh in.SeminarianJohn (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SeminarianJohn, I agree that a brief mention of Davis v. Ermold is appropriate. The Alito/Thomas statement on the denial of cert invokes Obergefell directly, and was widely covered in both the general press (New York Times, etc.) as well as the legal trade press (ABA Journal, SCOTUSblog, etc.). The fact that the court denied the petition and the justices' statement has no legal impact does not mean that it is encyclopedically irrelevant. Neutrality^talk 03:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this article is not the place for legal gossip and speculation. Let’s stick to the facts. This is an encyclopedia, not journalism. Antinoos69 (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have no idea what you are talking about. Neutrality^talk 03:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Figures. Reread the first sentence. Got it now? Antinoos69 (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important that if we commit to a discussion with consensus, that we be willing to compromise. Can we think of a way to mention it without making it a major part? Maybe just a sentence?SeminarianJohn (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The majority opinion as stated here is based primarily on the personality rights of the people willing to marry and benefits of their union. It is in a way comparing homosexual and heterosexual unions, asking for the equal treatment of such unions. This is of course a quite "positive" ruling and I understand that supporters like to highlight this. Another legal argument is that of equal treatment from the viewpoint of the individual participants: If a woman is allowed to marry a male person, then it would constist of unequal legal treatment (prohibited by the 14th amendment) if a man is not entitled to the same right, i.e. to marry the same person (which in this occasion would lead to a homosexual union). Accordin to the (currently) source 111 https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-roberts-revives-an-old-argument-that-could-117640176486.html , judge Roberts brought forward that argument in oral hearing but did not support it in the end. But, was that also present in the written arguments? I also believe a person like Scalia would have had a hard time with his originalist argument, as the authors of the 14th amendment probably even did not think about such result of the 14th amendment: Probably no (homosexual) man would claimed equal rights with brides at that time, and thus, the authors might have insisted on a carveout (to prohibit such results) is they had cared to think about it (which they did not). So, has this argument played some further role in the ruling (and if not, why), maybe it is not referenced so much as the positive argument sounds more favorable? Meerwind7 (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Same-Sex Marriage Opponent Protests Before the Supreme Court Shortly Before its Decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

footnote 2 is not correct 74.98.1.85 (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about Reference 2, which is used to support the statement "Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam." If so, which part of that do you deem to be not rue? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]