Issue: Whether or not the 14th Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two

people of the same sex?

Ruling: YES, the 14th Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of
the same sex.

Four reasons:
(1) The right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of
individual autonomy. The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons
together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for
all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.
(2) A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is
fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the
committed individuals.
(3) Protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families. Without the
recognition, stability, and predictability same-sex marriage offers, their children suffer the
stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. An ability, desire, or promise to procreate
is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State.
(4) One cannot deny same-sex couples the right to marry as this violates their liberty as
persons and puts them in an unfair state where they cannot enjoy the same rights being
accorded to heterosexual married couples.

Issue: Whether or not the 14th Amendment requires states to recognize same-sex marriages
validly licensed and performed in a state which does grant that right?

Ruling: YES, the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to recognize same-sex marriages validly
licensed and performed in a state which grants it.
The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right
to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that
there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed
in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
Application to Natural Law

1. Uses of Natural Law:

a. Justificatory Use – the petitioners, through strong personal conviction, rallied
together in order to support the claim of their inherent right to marry under 14th
Amendment regardless of one’s sexual orientation.
b. Opposite Use – disobedience to the application of the 14th Amendment which
excludes same-sex couples from marrying.
c. Regulatory Use – lex iniusta non est lex or ‘unjust law is not law’ can be seen in the
condemnation of excluding same-sex couples from marrying under the 14th
Amendment.
d. Interpretative Use – within the spirit or purpose of the 14th Amendment is the right
to marry being a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person regardless
of one’s sexual orientation.

2. Self-evident Precepts of Natural Law:

a. Justice - under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th
Amendment, couples of the same-sex are entitled to that right and that liberty. 

b. Equality – choosing to marry someone from the same gender does not deem a
person less human than those who choose to marry from the opposite gender.
c. Fairness – there must be no partiality, prejudice or favoritism in applying the 14th
Amendment.

Dissenting application of Natural Law:

1. 3rd Basic Inclination of Man: “to preserve the species, that is, to unite sexually.”
- although not applicable in this case of one’s right to marry, the incapability to
procreate is still a long-time argument against the legalizing of same-sex unions.