Obergefell v. Hodges cannot reverse the ill effects of centuries’ worth of anti-LGBTQ sentiment, but it is nevertheless transformative in that it allows same-sex couples to be legally recognized in the same ways that heterosexual couples are.

Most of the reactions to the Supreme Court’s ruling that I have seen have been positive. I would like to think that this is because I surround myself with people who support human rights and want others to have a better quality of life regardless of sexual orientation. There are, expectedly, some who disagree with the court’s decision. Their reasons vary, but many of them share one defense: “It’s unconstitutional.”

I’m a sucker for the Constitution, so of course, I was intrigued by these arguments. Most of them were centered on the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States.” Since the Constitution does not make explicit mention of marriage, some have taken this to mean that the right to marry is not legally protected. I disagree.

The 14th Amendment is crucial in defending the legality of same-sex marriage. It says that a state cannot “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It denies states the power to discriminate. Marriage in the United States is a legal institution, so the right to it is covered under the 14th Amendment.

Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. In the 1960s, the case Loving v. Virginia ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, and cannot be denied to a person based on race, which, much like sexual orientation, is an arbitrary factor. Denying two people the right to marry would be stripping them of their basic, human rights. Because of this, the right to marry a person of any gender should have been granted decades ago. The ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges was transformative, but on the other hand it was a decades-late affirmation of 14th Amendment rights.