"Marriage has historically been in the domain of the States to regulate"

For much of U.S. history, the framework of marriage has been set by state governments exercising their general police powers. States decide who can marry, setting age thresholds, prohibiting close relatives, and defining capacity and consent, how a marriage is formed, licensing, waiting periods, and authorized officiants, and how it dissolves, grounds for divorce, residency requirements, and rules for property division and support. They also define related institutions, such as common-law marriage in a few jurisdictions, and set rules for recognizing marriages celebrated elsewhere, sometimes invoking public-policy exceptions. This patchwork reflects local norms and allows experimentation, producing variation across state lines in details while maintaining marriage’s core social and legal functions.

Federal involvement has typically been indirect, hinging on whether a marriage is valid under state law before federal benefits, tax filing status, immigration preferences, and Social Security spousal rights attach. At times, however, constitutional guarantees reshape state authority. Courts have struck down state rules that violate fundamental rights or equal protection, as in Loving v. Virginia’s invalidation of bans on interracial marriage and Obergefell v. Hodges’s recognition of a nationwide right to marry for same-sex couples. The federal government’s attempt to define marriage independently through the Defense of Marriage Act was curtailed in United States v. Windsor, reaffirming that federal recognition ordinarily follows state determinations, subject to constitutional limits.

The statement underscores federalism’s balance: day-to-day regulation and administration of marriage remain primarily state functions, but state discretion is bounded by national constitutional commitments. It highlights both the virtues and tensions of decentralization, space for local governance and diversity, tempered by the need for uniform protection of fundamental rights. As social understandings of family evolve, that balance continues to be tested, with states managing practical rules and procedures while federal constitutional principles ensure that access to the institution cannot be restricted in ways that deny equality or dignity.