Some arguments that led to the redefinition of marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 seemed to be common-sense, practical arguments. Supporters argued that legal recognition of marriage by same-sex couples would provide greater stability for same-sex couples, encourage marriage over cohabitation, and improve the well-being of sexual minorities. Many Americans found those arguments persuasive, even some of those who had reservations hoped that granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples would strengthen relationships and improve lives.
But now, 11 years later, we are no longer limited to predictions. We now have data. And the results raise an uncomfortable question: Did same-sex marriage achieve the outcomes its supporters promised?
The answer is far more complicated than one might expect.
OBERGEFELL AT 11: THE CONFLICT MOVED TO THE CLASSROOM
Consider marriage itself. There has been no dramatic “rush to the altar” among same-sex couples. Recent Gallup data show that only 8% of Americans who identify as LGBT are married to a same-sex spouse, while 6.4% are living with a same-sex partner. By comparison, 11% of those who identify as LGBT are married to an opposite-sex spouse, and another 11% are living with an opposite-sex partner.
These figures suggest that much of the increase in marriages among LGBT-identified individuals has been driven by bisexual or nonbinary people in opposite-sex relationships. Presumably, many of these individuals could have been married, even under pre-Obergefell law.
Nor has marriage fully displaced cohabitation among the LGBT population. The Gallup data show that roughly 45% of same-sex couples continue to cohabit rather than marry. While marriage initially became more common following Obergefell, the long-term trend has fallen short of the expectation that legal recognition alone would fundamentally reshape relationship patterns.
Whatever else one concludes, these data do not support the notion that redefining marriage produced a widespread transformation in relationship behavior among same-sex attracted individuals and others who are not entirely heterosexual.
Mental health outcomes present an even more difficult challenge for supporters of Obergefell.
One of the most common arguments for same-sex marriage was that greater social acceptance would reduce psychological distress among sexual minorities. The theory was straightforward: Stigma and discrimination were driving elevated rates of depression, anxiety, and other mental-health challenges. Reduce the stigma, and the disparities would narrow. Yet more than a decade after Obergefell, and after extraordinary gains in legal recognition and cultural acceptance, the evidence is difficult to reconcile with that expectation.
Researchers have long observed that sexual minorities report higher rates of psychological distress than exclusively heterosexual populations. What remains contested is the explanation for those differences.
A 2022 Australian study examining sexual orientation fluidity among women found no universal relationship between changes in sexual identity and improved mental health. In fact, the researchers reported that psychological distress tended to increase when women moved away from a heterosexual identity and decrease when they moved toward one.
Other findings are similarly challenging for the view that increased social acceptance alone resolves these disparities. One study using data from UCLA’s Williams Institute compared different generations of sexual minorities, ranging from those shaped by the Stonewall era to those who came of age during the push for marriage equality. The expectation was that younger cohorts, who experienced significantly greater social acceptance, would demonstrate substantially better mental health outcomes.
Instead, the researchers found little evidence of meaningful improvement. Indeed, they acknowledged, “Our findings are clearly inconsistent with the (minority stress) hypothesis,” that declining social stigma would produce corresponding declines in mental health problems.
A 2025 systematic review of 123 studies from 31 countries reached a similar conclusion. The review found substantially higher rates of depression, anxiety disorders, and bipolar disorders among LGBT individuals than among the general population. The disparities were not small — the rates of distress among LGBT individuals were between 8 and 11 times greater than the general population.
This study also examined whether higher levels of social acceptance were associated with lower rates of mood and anxiety disorders. In the few instances where a statistically significant relationship emerged, the correlation ran in the opposite direction from what many would have predicted. In most cases, though, there was no statistically significant relationship at all, meaning individuals in highly accepting societies fare no better in these dimensions of mental health.
None of this proves that discrimination plays no role in mental health outcomes. But surely, if “minority stress” or discrimination were the primary explanation for the high rates of psychological distress, we would have seen some positive movement in these numbers. That is exactly what we do not see.
These issues matter because Obergefell was never merely about marriage licenses. Redefining marriage required changes throughout family law, including birth certificates, parentage statutes, custody arrangements, reproductive technologies, and the legal understanding of motherhood and fatherhood. Eleven years later, it is entirely appropriate to ask whether the decision achieved its stated objectives. The evidence suggests that the answer is, at best, mixed.
DON’T BLAME KATHY HOCHUL FOR ERASING MOTHERS AND FATHERS. BLAME GAY MARRIAGE
Marriage rates among same-sex couples have not dramatically transformed relationship behavior. Significant mental health disparities remain. Some of the most prominent explanations for those disparities appear less persuasive than they once did.
Reasonable people should not ignore these facts. Rather, it is time to have a more honest national conversation about marriage, family, children, and the long-term consequences of one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions of the modern era.
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse is founder and president of the Ruth Institute and a former economics professor at Yale and George Mason University.