The material in this article is general legal information for educational use only. It should not be treated as legal, financial, or tax advice, and reading it does not form an attorney-client relationship. Legal rules vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Questions about a specific matter belong with a qualified professional. The author and publisher disclaim liability for actions taken in reliance on this content.
Key Facts
- Federal level: Obergefell held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.
- Federal level: Obergefell held that States must recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed out of State.
- Federal level: Obergefell states that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry and that Baker v. Nelson was overruled.
- Federal level: Windsor held that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment.
- National overview: Windsor described how marriage laws may vary from State to State but remain consistent within each State.
- Federal level: Current 1 U.S.C. § 7 defines marriage for federal-law purposes as between 2 individuals and valid in the State where entered.
- State level: ABA Journal reported that the ABA House of Delegates declared gays and lesbians should have the right to marry in civil ceremonies.
- State level: ABA Journal reported the measure passed on a voice vote and identified it as “Resolution 111 (PDF).”.
Last reviewed: May 2026. Legal rules, forms, deadlines, and procedures can change by jurisdiction, agency, and court system.
- Why a 2010 ABA marriage equality resolution shows up in legal history
- What the archive reported about the ABA House of Delegates in 2010
- The controlling constitutional rule is Obergefell v. Hodges
- How earlier federal litigation fed into the marriage equality landscape Windsor and DOMA
- Where federal statutory definitions still matter 1 U.S.C. § 7
- A quick comparison policy, constitutional duties, and federal definitions
- Common confusion when archive materials meet current law
- Related archive background at TheFirstFile
- Sources
Why a 2010 ABA marriage equality resolution shows up in legal history
A 2010 ABA House of Delegates resolution reported by ABA Journal can appear in modern research on marriage equality. The archive item matters because it documents how a professional organization framed marriage equality, while later Supreme Court holdings in Obergefell v. Hodges addressed what the Constitution requires of States, and 1 U.S.C. § 7 provides a federal-law definition of marital status for federal rules that use it.
What the archive reported about the ABA House of Delegates in 2010
ABA Journal reported that the ABA’s policy-making House of Delegates declared that “gays and lesbians should have the right to marry in civil ceremonies.” The same report stated that the measure passed on a voice vote and identified the measure as “Resolution 111 (PDF).”
The controlling constitutional rule is Obergefell v. Hodges
In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court held that “the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.” The Court also held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage “when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.”
Obergefell’s description of the right to marry
Obergefell explained that “same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry” and that “Baker v. Nelson is overruled.” This framing matters because it describes the constitutional right at issue, not just a dispute about a particular state licensing practice.
How earlier federal litigation fed into the marriage equality landscape Windsor and DOMA
Readers sometimes see older marriage-equality materials that discuss federal law, including the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court held that DOMA is unconstitutional “as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.” The Court also discussed DOMA’s rejection of the idea that “Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each State.”
Where federal statutory definitions still matter 1 U.S.C. § 7
Even when Obergefell addresses constitutional licensing and recognition requirements, federal law can still use marital status in other contexts. A key federal example is 1 U.S.C. § 7, which states that for the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, “an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is between 2 individuals and is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into.”
A quick comparison policy, constitutional duties, and federal definitions
The 2010 ABA resolution reported by ABA Journal helps document an archive policy narrative, but it does not supply the constitutional rule for State licensing and recognition. The following comparison separates roles based on what each source does:
| Source | What it is | What it says or requires |
|---|---|---|
| ABA Journal’s report of the 2010 ABA House of Delegates action | Policy-making reporting (archive record) | Reported that the House declared support for marriage equality in civil ceremonies, passed on a voice vote, and identified the measure as “Resolution 111 (PDF)” |
| Obergefell v. Hodges | Constitutional holding | Requires States to license same-sex marriages and to recognize lawful out-of-State same-sex marriages |
| 1 U.S.C. § 7 | Federal statutory definition | Defines “married” for federal-law purposes as marriages between 2 individuals valid where entered |
This separation reduces confusion when archive materials mix policy language with modern legal requirements.
Common confusion when archive materials meet current law
Archive items like a 2010 ABA resolution can get blended into discussions of today’s marriage rules because different sources use similar words like “marriage,” “equality,” and “right.” The key distinction is that Obergefell sets constitutional requirements for States, while 1 U.S.C. § 7 supplies federal-law definitions when federal rules depend on marital status.
Related archive background at TheFirstFile
For readers tracing the ABA-and-courts connection through the years, a related archive article is available: Justice Anthony Kennedy’s ABA annual meeting speech.
