When Was Gay Marriage Legal in the United States

Short answer

• Same-sex marriage became legal in every state in the United States on June 26, 2015. On that date, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Obergefell v. Hodges by a 5 to 4 vote and held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires every state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a same-sex marriage lawfully licensed and performed in another state. That is the nationwide answer. Before 2015, whether a same-sex couple could marry depended on where they lived. After 2015, it no longer did. A note on language: this article uses "same-sex marriage" as the current standard term. The banked search phrase uses the older phrase "gay marriage," and this article answers that phrase directly.

Why There Is More Than One Date in This Story

People often give different dates for the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States, and each usually answers a different question. Massachusetts was the first state where same-sex couples could marry, in 2004. The federal government began to recognize same-sex marriages that were valid under state law after a 2013 Supreme Court decision. Same-sex marriage became legal in all 50 states only in 2015. Congress then added a federal statute in 2022 that repealed the Defense of Marriage Act and set out federal and interstate recognition rules.

Keeping those layers separate matters. A state decision could make marriage lawful inside one state while leaving federal and interstate recognition unresolved. Only Obergefell settled both the licensing question and the recognition question for every state at the same time.

A Short Timeline

The dates below anchor what follows.

Year and date	Event
1993	The Hawaii Supreme Court decision in Baehr v. Lewin opened a new round of litigation over whether a state could limit marriage to opposite sex couples.
September 21, 1996	President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law.
November 18, 2003	The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.
May 17, 2004	Same-sex marriages began in Massachusetts, the first state to license them.
July 24, 2011	Same-sex marriage took effect in New York under the Marriage Equality Act.
June 26, 2013	The Supreme Court decided United States v. Windsor and struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.
June 26, 2015	The Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges and made same-sex marriage legal nationwide.
December 13, 2022	President Joe Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law.

The Early Litigation: Hawaii and the Reaction It Provoked

The modern legal dispute over same-sex marriage in the United States did not begin with a single national case. It began with state constitutional claims, and the first noted turning point came from Hawaii.

In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in Baehr v. Lewin that the state’s denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples raised a serious question under the Hawaii Constitution. The court did not itself order same-sex marriages to begin at once. It sent the case back for further proceedings under a demanding legal standard. Even so, the ruling changed the national debate, because it raised the realistic prospect that a state court might require a state to license same-sex marriages.

The reaction was swift. In Hawaii and in many other states, opponents of same-sex marriage pressed for state laws and state constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. At the federal level, Congress addressed whether other states and the federal government would have to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in a state that allowed it. Congress answered both questions in 1996 with the Defense of Marriage Act, discussed below.

The Hawaii case itself did not produce lasting same-sex marriage in Hawaii at that time. Its importance is that it set off the state by state contest, in courts, legislatures, and at the ballot box, that defined the next two decades.

The First State: Massachusetts and Goodridge

The first state in which same-sex marriage actually became lawful was Massachusetts, and the decision that brought it about was Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the highest court in Massachusetts, held that barring same-sex couples from civil marriage violated the Massachusetts Constitution. The court reasoned in terms of liberty and equality guarantees in that state constitution. The decision was by a 4 to 3 vote. The court stayed its judgment for 180 days to give the state legislature time to respond.

When that period ended without legislative action displacing the ruling, same-sex couples began to marry in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004. Massachusetts thus became the first state in the country to license same-sex marriages.

That first step was geographically limited. Many states did not recognize a Massachusetts marriage, and the federal government did not recognize it either, because the Defense of Marriage Act remained in force. For couples, the practical question was not only “Can we marry here?” but also “Will our marriage be recognized there, and by the federal government?”

The Defense of Marriage Act: What It Did

Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, commonly called DOMA, in 1996, and President Bill Clinton signed it on September 21, 1996. Understanding DOMA is essential, because Section 3 shaped federal treatment of state marriages for 17 years, from 1996 until Windsor in 2013, while Section 2’s interstate nonrecognition rule remained on the statute book until the Respect for Marriage Act repealed it in 2022.

DOMA had two main provisions, and they did different work.

Section 2 provided that no state, territory, possession, or tribe would be required to give effect to a public act, record, or judicial proceeding of another state respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that was treated as a marriage under the laws of that other state. A state that did not allow same-sex marriage could refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in a state that did allow it. Section 2 did not itself ban same-sex marriage in any state, and it did not require any state to ban it. It addressed recognition across state lines.

Section 3 defined the words “marriage” and “spouse” for purposes of federal law. Under Section 3, “marriage” meant only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and “spouse” referred only to a person of the opposite sex who was a husband or a wife. The practical effect was that, for federal purposes, a same-sex couple lawfully married under state law was treated as unmarried. That affected a wide range of federal matters tied to marital status, including federal tax filing, Social Security survivor benefits, immigration sponsorship, federal employee benefits, and other programs and rules that turned on whether a person counted as a spouse.

DOMA created a split that lasted for years. A couple could be married for state purposes in Massachusetts, and later in other states, while remaining unmarried for federal purposes. That split is the reason the Supreme Court case about DOMA, United States v. Windsor, mattered so much even though it did not itself legalize same-sex marriage in any state.

DOMA did not set a national definition of marriage that states had to follow for their own state law. It governed federal recognition and interstate recognition, not the internal marriage law of a state that chose a different rule.

The State by State Path Before 2015

Between Massachusetts in 2004 and Obergefell in 2015, same-sex marriage spread state by state, but it did not spread evenly, and it did not spread by one method alone. Three routes produced most of the change: state court decisions under state constitutions, state legislation, and votes by the people of a state.

After Massachusetts, other state high courts reached similar conclusions under their own state constitutions, and legislatures in several states enacted marriage equality laws. The District of Columbia also authorized same-sex marriage by legislation, with marriages beginning in 2010. In some states, voters approved marriage equality at the ballot box. In other states, voters adopted constitutional amendments that barred same-sex marriage. In still other states, legislatures enacted statutes with the same effect.

California illustrates how uneven the path could be within a single state. Same-sex couples married there briefly in 2008 after the California Supreme Court held that the state constitution protected their right to marry. Later in 2008, California voters adopted Proposition 8, providing that only marriage between a man and a woman was valid or recognized in California. In Hollingsworth v. Perry in 2013, the United States Supreme Court resolved that litigation on standing grounds, holding that the proponents of Proposition 8 lacked standing to appeal, rather than ruling directly on whether state bans violated the federal Constitution. The lower court ruling against Proposition 8 therefore stood, and same-sex marriages resumed in California.

New York provides a clear example of the legislative route. The New York legislature passed the Marriage Equality Act, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed it on June 24, 2011, and the law took effect on July 24, 2011. New York was then the largest state to authorize same-sex marriage by legislation, and its action was widely noted because it showed that marriage equality could advance through an elected legislature, not only through courts.

By the early 2010s, the map had become a patchwork: a couple could marry in a growing number of states and in the District of Columbia, could not marry in many others, and faced uncertainty about recognition when moving between the two groups. Federal recognition remained blocked by DOMA until 2013. That patchwork is the background to both Supreme Court decisions that followed: Windsor addressed the federal layer, and Obergefell addressed the state licensing and recognition layers together.

United States v. Windsor (2013): What It Did and Did Not Decide

On June 26, 2013, exactly two years before Obergefell, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Windsor by a 5 to 4 vote. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.

The case arose from an estate tax dispute. Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a same-sex couple who lived in New York, had married in Canada in 2007, and New York recognized their marriage. When Spyer died in 2009 and left her estate to Windsor, Windsor sought the federal estate tax exemption available to a surviving spouse. Section 3 of DOMA barred that treatment, because for federal purposes Windsor did not count as a spouse. Windsor paid the tax and sued for a refund.

The Court held that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional. The majority reasoned that the provision violated liberty and equality principles protected by the Fifth Amendment, which applies to the federal government. In the majority’s account, DOMA imposed a disadvantage on a class of persons that their own states had sought to protect through marriage, and it did so without a legitimate purpose sufficient to justify that injury. The result was that the federal government had to recognize same-sex marriages that were valid under state law for federal purposes, including federal tax treatment.

Windsor was deliberately limited in scope, and that limit is often misunderstood. The decision struck down Section 3, the federal definition provision. It did not strike down Section 2, the provision allowing states to decline to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. It did not hold that every state had to license same-sex marriages. A same-sex couple in a state that still banned same-sex marriage could not marry in that state as a result of Windsor alone, although a couple married in a state that allowed it could now expect federal recognition.

Windsor mattered for three reasons. First, it removed the federal barrier for couples already married under state law. Second, its reasoning about dignity and equality was later central to Obergefell. Third, it clarified the remaining dispute: after Windsor, the open question was whether states themselves could continue to refuse to license same-sex marriages or to recognize marriages performed elsewhere.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): The Nationwide Decision

Obergefell v. Hodges consolidated cases from four states: Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The petitioners included same-sex couples who sought to marry in their home states and couples and surviving spouses who sought recognition in their home states of marriages lawfully performed elsewhere. Lower federal courts had ruled in the petitioners’ favor, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, upholding the state provisions. The Supreme Court agreed to decide two questions: whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex, and whether it requires a state to recognize a same-sex marriage lawfully licensed and performed in another state.

On June 26, 2015, the Court answered both questions yes, by a 5 to 4 vote. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito Jr. dissented, each writing a dissenting opinion.

The majority held that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and that under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, same-sex couples may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The opinion gave four reasons why marriage is fundamental and why those reasons apply with equal force to same-sex couples: individual autonomy in choices about marriage; the support marriage gives to a two person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals; the safeguards marriage provides for children and families; and marriage as a keystone of social order, with a long history as a foundation of family life. The majority concluded that the state laws challenged in the cases were invalid to the extent they excluded same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples.

The holding therefore had two parts, and both mattered. First, every state had to license marriages between same-sex couples on the same terms as marriages between opposite sex couples. Second, every state had to recognize a same-sex marriage lawfully licensed and performed in another state. The second part closed the recognition gap that had defined the pre-2015 patchwork. A marriage valid in one state could no longer be treated as void on crossing a state line.

The dissenting justices disagreed. In neutral summary, the dissents argued that the Constitution does not contain a right to same-sex marriage in those terms, that the definition of marriage had traditionally been left to the democratic process in each state, and that the Court had overstepped its role by settling through constitutional interpretation a question being debated and decided state by state. Readers wanting the full reasoning should read the majority and dissenting opinions themselves.

For this article’s question, the operative facts are straightforward. Obergefell was decided on June 26, 2015. It was a 5 to 4 decision. It required every state both to license same-sex marriages and to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. From that date, same-sex marriage was legal in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia.

What Changed in Practice After June 26, 2015

The immediate practical change was at the county clerk’s office. States that had previously barred same-sex marriage had to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the same terms as to opposite sex couples. State constitutional amendments and statutes that had prohibited same-sex marriage became unenforceable to the extent they conflicted with Obergefell. Couples no longer needed to travel to another state to marry, and a marriage performed in one state had to be recognized in every other state.

The change also unified the federal picture Windsor had begun to unify. After Windsor, federal recognition followed state validity. After Obergefell, state validity itself was nationwide, so federal recognition followed as well. For married couples, that meant the same treatment for federal tax filing, Social Security, immigration, federal employee benefits, hospital visitation rules that turn on spousal status, and other federal and state matters tied to marriage, subject to the specific rules of each program.

Marriage also carried obligations as well as rights, and Obergefell applied those equally, including the same state rules on property, support, divorce, and parental rights. Two limits prevent common misunderstandings. First, Obergefell addressed civil marriage licensed by the state; it did not require any religious organization to perform a religious marriage ceremony. Second, it did not settle every question within a marriage, such as detailed divorce, custody, or property rules, which remain largely matters of state law.

The Range of Public and Legal Positions, in Neutral Terms

Same-sex marriage has been the subject of sustained public disagreement, and a factual history should record the main positions without adopting one side’s language as its own.

Supporters of marriage equality argued that marriage is a fundamental personal choice and a source of legal protection for couples and families, that excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage denied them equal dignity and equal legal treatment, and that the Constitution’s guarantees of liberty and equality required states to open civil marriage on equal terms. Many supporters also pointed to the practical harms of nonrecognition, including the loss of benefits, the uncertainty for children, and the difficulty of planning a shared life across state lines.

Critics of the Obergefell decision, and of same-sex marriage as a legal policy, argued from different premises. Some argued that marriage, as a social and legal institution, had traditionally been defined as a union between one man and one woman, and that changing that definition should be a decision for voters and legislatures rather than for courts. Others argued on religious grounds that marriage has a religious meaning that civil law should respect, and raised concerns about religious liberty, including whether individuals and organizations with religious objections to same-sex marriage would face pressure to participate in or affirm ceremonies they opposed. Still others argued that the democratic process was already moving state by state and should have been allowed to continue, so that each state’s people could decide the question for themselves.

These positions have continued to be debated after 2015, including in later litigation about the boundaries between marriage equality and religious liberty protections. The Respect for Marriage Act, discussed next, combined marriage recognition rules with express provisions on religious liberty.

The Respect for Marriage Act (2022): A Statutory Layer

On December 13, 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law as Public Law 117-228. The Act repealed the remaining Defense of Marriage Act provisions and added new federal rules for marriage recognition. It is important to describe it precisely, because it did some things Obergefell had already done and left other things to Obergefell.

First, the Act repealed Section 1738C of Title 28 of the United States Code, the provision added by Section 2 of DOMA. In its place, the Act inserted a new Section 1738C providing that no person acting under color of state law may deny full faith and credit to a public act, record, or judicial proceeding of another state pertaining to a marriage between two individuals on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals, or deny a right or claim arising from such a marriage on that basis. The Act gave the Attorney General authority to bring a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief against a violator, and gave a harmed person a private right of action for the same relief.

Second, the Act amended Section 7 of Title 1 of the United States Code, the federal definition provision that DOMA’s Section 3 had supplied. Under the new Section 7, for purposes of any federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual is considered married if the individual’s marriage is between two individuals and is valid in the state where the marriage was entered into, or, for a marriage entered into outside any state, if it is valid in the place where entered into and could have been entered into in a state.

Third, the Act included express religious liberty and conscience provisions. Section 6 provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution or federal law. It also provides that, consistent with the First Amendment, nonprofit religious organizations shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage, and that a refusal under that subsection does not create a civil claim or cause of action. The Act also states that nothing in it shall be construed to require or authorize federal recognition of marriages between more than two individuals.

The distinction that matters most is this: the Respect for Marriage Act is primarily a recognition statute. It requires the federal government and the states to recognize marriages valid where entered into, on the bases listed in the Act. It does not, by itself, replace Obergefell’s licensing rule. If Obergefell were ever reconsidered, the statute would still provide a recognition backstop for marriages valid where performed, but it would not by itself require a state to issue a new same-sex marriage license.

FAQ

When exactly did same-sex marriage become legal in the United States?

June 26, 2015, when the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges. From that date, same-sex marriage was legal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

What was the vote in Obergefell v. Hodges?

5 to 4. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

Which state legalized same-sex marriage first?

Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided Goodridge v. Department of Public Health on November 18, 2003, and same-sex marriages began in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004.

What did the Defense of Marriage Act do?

DOMA, signed on September 21, 1996, had two main parts. Section 2 allowed states to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Section 3 defined marriage and spouse for federal purposes as opposite sex only, so the federal government did not recognize state same-sex marriages.

What did United States v. Windsor decide in 2013?

Windsor struck down Section 3 of DOMA. After Windsor, the federal government had to recognize same-sex marriages valid under state law. Windsor did not require states to license same-sex marriages; Obergefell did that in 2015.

What did the Respect for Marriage Act do in 2022?

Signed on December 13, 2022, the Act repealed the remaining DOMA provisions, required federal recognition of a marriage valid where entered into, required states to give full faith and credit to out of state marriages without regard to the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of the spouses, and included express religious liberty and conscience provisions. It is a recognition statute and a backstop to Obergefell, not a replacement for Obergefell’s licensing rule.

Is same-sex marriage legal in every state today?

Yes, under Obergefell, every state must license same-sex marriages on the same terms as opposite sex marriages and must recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in other states. The Respect for Marriage Act adds statutory recognition rules alongside that constitutional rule.

Why do some sources give 2004, 2013, or 2022 as the answer?

Because each date answers a different question: 2004 is the first state, Massachusetts; 2013 is federal recognition after Windsor; 2022 is the federal recognition statute. The nationwide licensing date, the date on which a same-sex couple could marry in any state, is June 26, 2015.

Sources & references

• Supreme Court of the United States, Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), syllabus and opinion, via Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556
• Defense of Marriage Act, Public Law 104-199, September 21, 1996 (110 Stat. 2419), via govinfo.
• Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law 117-228, approved December 13, 2022, via govinfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-117publ228/html/PLAW-117publ228.htm
• Supreme Court of the United States, United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013): Section 3 of DOMA held unconstitutional under Fifth Amendment liberty and equality principles.
• Congress.gov, Library of Congress, Text of H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Engrossed Amendment Senate, November 29, 2022: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text/eas?format=txt
• Congress.gov, Library of Congress, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law 117-228, signed December 13, 2022, as recorded in the legislative history of H.R. 8404.
• GLAD Law, Marriage in Massachusetts: https://www.gladlaw.org/issues/marriage-massachusetts/
• Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003), as summarized by GLAD Law: decision November 18, 2003; marriages began May 17, 2004.