The information below explains general legal concepts for educational purposes. It is not legal, financial, or tax advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws and procedures vary by jurisdiction and may change. The author and publisher disclaim liability for actions taken based on this content.
Key Facts
- Federal level: The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996 defined marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman and allowed states to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages from other states.
- Federal level: In United States v. Windsor (2013), the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of DOMA, requiring federal recognition of valid same-sex marriages.
- National overview: The Respect for Marriage Act (2022) repealed DOMA and requires states to recognize out-of-state marriages regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.
- State level: By the end of 2013, 17 states and the District of Columbia permitted same-sex marriage.
- National overview: The Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges held that states must license and recognize same-sex marriages under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- National overview: The ACLU, Lambda Legal, and Freedom to Marry pursued coordinated legal and public education strategies to advance marriage equality.
- State level: Hawaii’s Baehr v. Lewin (1993) was the first court ruling to suggest that limiting marriage to opposite‑sex couples could constitute sex discrimination.
- Federal level: The ABA filed an amicus brief in Obergefell supporting a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Last reviewed: May 2026. Legal rules, forms, deadlines, and procedures can change by jurisdiction, agency, and court system.
- The Defense of Marriage Act set the federal stage
- United States v. Windsor struck down DOMA’s core
- A state‑by‑state patchwork grew
- Advocacy organizations drove a coordinated strategy
- Mary Bonauto and GLAD shaped the legal landscape
- The unlikely alliance in Hollingsworth v. Perry
- Public opinion and the court of public opinion shifted
- The ABA’s institutional support grew
- Obergefell v. Hodges and the end of state bans
- The 19‑year journey from Baehr to Obergefell
- Sources
The early 2010s were a watershed period for marriage equality in the United States. Legal advocacy organizations, state court litigation, and shifting public opinion converged to dismantle longstanding barriers. This article examines the legal strategies and key players that defined the marriage movement, with a focus on the landscape as it stood in August 2013.
The Defense of Marriage Act set the federal stage
Enacted in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) contained two operative sections. Section 3 defined marriage for all federal purposes as a union between one man and one woman, affecting over 1,000 federal laws. Section 2 permitted states to refuse recognition of same‑sex marriages performed in other states. These provisions created a dual system that denied federal benefits to legally married same‑sex couples and allowed states to ignore marriages from jurisdictions that recognized them.
United States v. Windsor struck down DOMA’s core
Edie Windsor married her spouse in Canada in 2007; when her spouse died, Windsor was required to pay over $363,000 in federal estate taxes because the federal government did not recognize the marriage. Windsor sued, and in June 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Windsor that Section 3 of DOMA violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Court held that DOMA “seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect” and “is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment.” The ruling immediately required federal agencies to recognize valid same‑sex marriages, though it left Section 2 untouched.
A state‑by‑state patchwork grew
Before Windsor, a series of state court decisions and legislative actions had already started to reshape marriage law. In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that barring same‑sex couples from marriage violated the state constitution. The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously reached a similar conclusion in Varnum v. Brien (2009). By the end of 2013, according to the ABA Journal’s year‑in‑review, 17 states plus the District of Columbia allowed same‑sex marriage, a number that would grow to 37 by June 2015. These victories were often secured in state courts that exercised state judicial independence to interpret their own constitutions.
Advocacy organizations drove a coordinated strategy
Several organizations anchored the legal and public education efforts. The ACLU, which brought the first federal freedom‑to‑marry lawsuit in Minnesota in 1970, was co‑counsel in Windsor’s challenge to DOMA. Lambda Legal partnered with the ACLU and the National Center for Lesbian Rights in California, co‑authoring a timeline of key marriage cases beginning with Baehr v. Lewin in Hawaii in 1993. Freedom to Marry, founded by Evan Wolfson, operated as a central campaign with a “Roadmap to Victory” that pursued three tracks: win more states, build majority public support, and end federal marriage discrimination through DOMA repeal. This long‑term, multi‑tiered strategy deliberately mirrored the approach of earlier civil rights movements.
Mary Bonauto and GLAD shaped the legal landscape
Lawyer Mary Bonauto of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) is widely credited with strategic achievements that advanced marriage equality. According to a March 2013 ABA Journal profile, Bonauto spurred Vermont to create civil unions in 2000, won the Massachusetts marriage case in 2003, and achieved a First Circuit appellate victory against DOMA in 2012. Her work was likened to that of Thurgood Marshall in the civil rights era, and fellow attorneys noted that “no gay person in this country would be married without Mary Bonauto.”
The unlikely alliance in Hollingsworth v. Perry
One of the most visible battles was the challenge to California’s Proposition 8, which had stripped same‑sex couples of the right to marry in 2008. The case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, featured an unusual bipartisan legal team: liberal David Boies and conservative Ted Olson. They argued that Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution. While the case ultimately reached the Supreme Court on procedural grounds, the Boies‑Olson partnership captured national attention and underscored that marriage equality was not a partisan issue but a constitutional question.
Public opinion and the court of public opinion shifted
Legal victories were reinforced by a dramatic shift in public attitudes. By early 2013, a majority of Americans supported same‑sex marriage. The ACLU noted that the movement’s success came not just from courtrooms but from “the court of public opinion,” as more gay people came out and shared their lives with families, friends, and co‑workers. This cultural shift made it politically safer for elected officials, judges, and organizations to endorse marriage equality.
The ABA’s institutional support grew
The American Bar Association, which had opposed sexual orientation discrimination since 1973, filed an amicus brief in the Obergefell cases in 2015, urging the Supreme Court to rule that the Fourteenth Amendment required states to grant marriage licenses to same‑sex couples. The brief built on decades of ABA policy, including a 2010 resolution calling for the elimination of all legal barriers to civil marriage for same‑sex couples.
Obergefell v. Hodges and the end of state bans
On June 26, 2015, exactly two years after Windsor, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. The Court held that “the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person” and that states may not deny same‑sex couples that right under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the Court overruled Baker v. Nelson, a 1972 precedent that had been used to dismiss marriage claims. Obergefell required all states to license and recognize same‑sex marriages, and the decision referenced the long arc of litigation from Baehr in 1993 onward.
The 19‑year journey from Baehr to Obergefell
The marriage movement’s legal campaign spanned 19 years, a timeframe advocates often compared to the 19 years between the first state court ruling striking down race restrictions on marriage in 1948 and the national ruling in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. In 2013, as Windsor was decided and state victories accumulated, the movement still faced significant obstacles, but the strategies deployed by advocates ultimately achieved their goal. Congress later reinforced the right with the Respect for Marriage Act (2022), which repealed DOMA entirely and codified federal recognition of same‑sex and interracial marriages. That legislative step, while important, was a capstone on advocacy work that had already transformed the legal landscape.
