1. Which of the opinions did you find most persuasive? Why?

2. Historically, the states of determined the eligibility and requirements for marriage? Why would that have been true? Does this opinion violate federalism principles?

3. In addition to the federalism question, the dissenting opinions emphasize separation-of-powers concerns. Should this issue have been resolved by five, elite, unelected lawyers or the democratic branches of government?

4. The case presents both federalism and separation-of-powers questions. The majority concludes that same-sex marriage is a matter of federal Constitutional law to be resolved by the United States Supreme Court. The dissenters believe it is a matter of state law to be resolved by state legislatures or voters. Which conclusion is correct?

6. What about stare decisis? What about the treatment of Baker v. Nelson described by the majority as "a one-line summary decision issued in 1972, holding the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage did not present a substantial federal question"?

7. How will this decision affect other questions about gay rights including issues of child custody, public accommodations, and employment? For example, presumably after Obergefell, employer must now cover all same-sex spouses if their benefit coverage includes "spouses" (for example family and medical leave time, bereavement, health insurance coverage, and survivorship benefits). But since employers are generally not required to offer these benefits, might they just eliminate them? Or if they continue them, are they required to be extended retroactively? See Tim Garrett, Workplace Impact from Same Sex Marriage Rule, NAT' L.J. 12 (Nov. 9, 2015)