Same Sex Marriage 3

I wanted to add that another interesting aspect is the question of whether the ban on same sex marriages by the states could have been considered to be a violation of the Commerce Clause in that the states that banned same sex marriages and or refused to abide by the Full Faith and Credit Clause hindered the ability for same sex couples to engage in interstate commerce when to do so would require marriage as a prerequisite. [1]

For instance, same sex couples who either relocated to Ohio, or considered relocating prior to the ruling in Obergefell surely found that the idea that their valid marriage would not be recognized in Ohio was problematic because certain industries where information or benefits which are reserved only for married couples could not be offered in Ohio to same sex couples. [2]

This means that same sex married couples in sister states may have been precluded from effectively engaging in commerce in Ohio and the other states that observed the ban on same sex marriage.

Yet, in considering the questions presented at bar, which were

(1) whether Ohio’s constitutional and statutory bans on recognition of marriages of same-sex couples validly entered in other jurisdictions violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? And

(2) whether Ohio’s refusal to recognize a judgment of adoption of an Ohio-born child issued to a same-sex couple by the courts of a sister state violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, it is clear that in both instances, there was a clear violation of the constitution.



[1] The Dormant Commerce Clause, The Dormant Commerce Clause, (last visited Jul 16, 2017).

[2] Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2071, 576 U.S., 191 L. Ed. 2d 953 (2015).

Scroll to Top