Since 2015, same-sex marriage has been the law of the land in the United States. In the decade since, hundreds of thousands of LGBTQ+ couples have legally wed, gay marriage has reached a point of wide cultural acceptance, and an entire generation has grown up barely remembering a time before same-sex couples couldn’t tie the knot.
But that could be changing.
Lawmakers in a dozen state legislatures are introducing scores of resolutions with the explicit goal of reaching the Supreme Court in the hopes of getting same-sex marriage overturned.
Will they succeed?
(Un)settled Law
Given widespread cultural acceptance and support for gay marriage, LGBTQ+ advocates once felt that Obergefell was a settled matter. In the wake of the Roe v. Wade reversal and amid shifting cultural sands, they fear that is no longer the case.
Michigan State Representative Josh Schriver recently introduced a resolution asking the Supreme Court to explicitly overturn Obergefell, alleging it “defaced the definition of marriage, undermined our God-given rights, increased persecution of Christians and confused the American family structure.”
Politicians in Idaho and North Dakota advanced similar bills.
Defenders of marriage equality are readying themselves.
“We have to prepare for the worst,” wrote President pro tempore of the Michigan Senate, Jeremy Moss, who is openly gay. “What would happen if Obergefell, like Roe, falls?”
Moss is proposing a ballot initiative to enshrine marriage equality in the Michigan Constitution, a defensive maneuver in anticipation of a conservative challenge to gay marriage on the national scale and in his state.
He also appeared at a press conference Schriver held a few months ago, leading to a photo that went viral:
Moss isn’t alone in this fight; In recent years, numerous politicians in other largely liberal-leaning states have introduced resolutions to ensure gay marriage remains state law should Obergefell be overturned, or to overturn old resolutions banning gay marriage which remained on the books following the adoption of Obergefell nationwide.
Sneaking Through the Courts
While some of the challenges to Obergefell are as explicit as State Rep. Schriver’s, others are using subterfuge to sneak their way into the Supreme Court.
In Oklahoma, State Senator David Bullard recently introduced a bill offering a $2,000 child tax credit – but only for married couples with biological children. The controversial bill would almost certainly be legally challenged by same-sex couples unable to conceive naturally – and that’s exactly what he wants. The explicit goal, he says, is to get the case in front of the nation’s highest court.
“Really what we want to do is challenge that concept and see if we can get to Obergefell,” Bullard stated. “And I think that’s kind of what we’re pushing at all the way around the board with a bill like this, is to actually go straight at Obergefell.”
Covenant Marriage
Another backdoor strategy lawmakers are employing to try to force the Supreme Court’s hand: “covenant marriage” laws.
A covenant marriage is a legally distinct form of marriage, exclusively between a man and a woman, which emphasizes the couple’s strong bond and limits the couple’s ability to divorce later. Covenant marriages are almost always based on the couple’s shared Christian values.
Covenant marriage is currently only legal in three states: Arizona, Arkansas, and Louisiana. However, lawmakers in at least four other states – Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas – have introduced laws which would legalize covenant marriages in their states.
Whether a form of marriage can be entirely exclusionary to same-sex couples is a question the Supreme Court may very well have to answer – and in the process, may have to rule on the legality of the institution of same-sex marriage itself.
Critics speculate that for lawmakers penning these bills, that is exactly what they want.
Is Obergefell in Trouble?
It takes the assent of four justices to hear a case, and Supreme Court scholars say there’s little appetite amongst either the court’s left-leaning or more moderate voices to hear any challenges to Obergefell. But the court’s most conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, have both shown their eagerness to revisit the legality of marriage equality.
Following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, Clarence Thomas openly suggested the court should reconsider Obergefell, arguing that “the court has created a problem that only it can fix.” And just last year, Alito indicated he believed the Obergefell verdict was a mistake, alleging that anti-gay Christians “will be ‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government.”
One thing’s for sure: the Court and the culture has shifted in the years since the Obergefell ruling. Legal challenges against same-sex marriage, overt and otherwise, are ramping up.
And while the Supreme Court currently isn’t considering any challenges, that doesn’t mean they won’t in the future. In the meantime, LGBTQ+ advocates are rushing to codify same-sex marriage in the constitutions of as many states as possible – while they still can.
What is your reaction? Is marriage equality settled law, or do you see a future where that changes?
31 comments
-
Shirley Jean Davis
Who are we to judge and tear away one person who has said their vows of fidelity to the other who just happens to be of the same sex? Jesus said to love one another, is demonizing people because they love someone of their sex? I say no.
-
Lionheart
I know members here hate me to keep repeating this mantra, but just as a food for thought, how do you know what Jesus ever really said? Could it have been an historian adding those words into their writings that made its way into the Bible, just like the news media of today puts a spin on what they want their readers to read when they add words, or phrases, from politicians?
Who fact checked those historians?
🦁❤️
-
-
James Riggle-Johnson
What’s the Problem?
A 2022 Gallup poll found that 71% of Americans support same-sex marriage—a record high. Same-sex marriages make up only 0.7% of all unions, and somehow that is destroying America?
Michigan State Rep. Josh Schriver claims that same-sex marriage has "defaced the definition of marriage" and "increased persecution of Christians." Really? Are Christians being jailed or denied the right to marry? The real persecution is aimed at same-sex couples who simply want to live their lives in peace.
Frankly, I’m fed up with a few politicians trying to control the lives of millions of Americans they don’t even know—Americans who are doing them no harm whatsoever. Here’s a simple idea: mind your own business.
If my marriage keeps you up at night, you're focusing on the wrong things. There are far bigger issues facing this country. Let God handle who you think are sinners. And while you’re at it, you might consider where you personally fall on that list.
Some people also seem to forget that not too long ago, certain marriages—like interracial ones—were condemned as "unnatural" and "against God's design." Justice Clarence Thomas himself might want to reflect on that. History shows that what some call "immoral" is often just fear of change—not the will of God.
-
Mrknowitall
Only simple minded people believe polls, they are not real
-
Michael Hunt
Birds aren't real, too.
-
-
-
Robert James Ruhnke
This is ridiculous. It’s always about power and control nothing more. Leave the LGBTQIA community alone already.
-
Rev. BH
I could care less who marries who. I'm more worried about those who want to deny such marriages. What is their fear? What is the outrage? Be and let be.
-
James Mounts
What you mean is, "you could NOT care less. If you COULD care less, then you must care some.If that is what you intended, never mind.
-
Rev. BH
James, thanks for the grammar lesson, but I figure most other folks here got the message,
-
-
-
Donald J Rothschild Jr
If the Supreme Court goes after same sex marriage their next target MUST be interracial marriages. How’s that Justice Thomas!! Go tell your wife your marriage is over because some far right wing a-whole filed a case against interracial marriage and you have to agree because the people who bought you lock, stock and barrel said so.
-
Douglas Robert Spindler
That is the plan. The Christians and their Project 2025
-
-
Colleen McAllister
In my opinion same sex marriage should be between the two people involved and their god or deity. Unless you intend to have sex with someone their sexual preference is none of your concern. One of the strongest marriages I know is two men whom I count as my dearest friends. Politicians need to stay out of our bedrooms.
-
Reverend Paula Copp
Why do people care what my wife and I do in our home? Why are christians so obsessed with other people’s bodies? Everything is about sex with them! Give it a rest already!!!
-
James Riggle-Johnson
They’re not happy unless they’re telling people what to do or how to live. They believe they have a moral obligation to judge the rest of us. If we aren’t like them it’s a sin. It’s too bad that these particular Christians are morally reprehensible.
-
-
Najah P Tamargo
Najah Tamargo-USA
Politics DO NOT belong in the bedroom! NOBODY, or any legal authority, has the right to tell us who or how we love. I will GLADLY marry any two people who LOVE each other!!!
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
Until the church starts defrocking and excommunicating pedophile priests, they need to STFU about any other form of sexuality.
-
Nicholas J Page
Here we go again discrimination against the gay community that's all it is and it's funny only the Americans want to ban it.
-
James Riggle-Johnson
That’s the problem. The majority of Americans don’t care and don’t have a problem with same-sex marriage. It’s only these rigid Christians who have more skeletons in their closets than there are gay people in the closet. Society hasn’t fallen apart because of marriage equality. Nor has anybody tried to marry a goat as they predicted.
-
-
Rev. Klaire ThD, MA
Lol! I think the Canadians showed us yesterday how elections are going to go from here forward! To so-called conservatives: Bye, Felicia.
-
Mrknowitall
America is nothing like Canada, as they fall deep into the abyss of destructive liberalism we are moving further away from it. 4 years of Harris/Biden opened America's eye's to the unmitigated disaster that unchecked liberalism brings......Canada just hit 5th gear straight to hell.
-
David Douglas Winters
Canadians just about always get it wrong. It must have something do with “squishy” being a national personality characteristic? In any case, the one thing Canadian elections do NOT do is tell us “how elections are going to go from here forward.” They simply are not sufficiently significant.
-
David Douglas Winters
Canadians just about always get it wrong. It must have something do with “squishy” being a national personality characteristic? In any case, the one thing Canadian elections do NOT do is tell us “how elections are going to go from here forward.” They simply are not sufficiently significant.
-
-
Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox
I have a trans adult child who is married. They had not come out at that time. Since the 🍊🤡 and his minions think there are only two sexes I guess they are OK since they would now be considered a non-same-sex couple. Whew! Dodged that bullet!
-
Patricia Ann Gross
The whole answer to this question is today what it was 15 years ago when the Obergfell decision was made: If your faith does not allow for same-sex marriage or you are personally opposed to it, then find you someone of the opposite sex to marry and show some respect for those who believe differently. This isn't rocket science. Fifteen years of legal same-sex marriages preceeded by decades of "closeted" same-sex couples in committed relationships, and I have not heard of one heterosexual marriage that has been impacted by it. On top of that, if it is overturned, I don't expect a single hetero marriage to be improved or be "more blessed" than before, or any impact whatsoever on the "institution" of a heterosexual marriage. The only change that will happen is the same-sex couples wanting to marry will be forced back into the lawyer's offices (at great expense) to come up with civil agreements that give each other the same rights they would have if married (powers of attorney, custody, medical decisions, etc.) and their relationships go back in the closet. You stay out of my bedroom and I'll stay out of yours. What goes on there is nobody else's business, as long as everybody is a consenting adult.
-
Blake Andrew Tallman
first off marraige is between people who love each other it doesnt matter what sex or how many it only matters that the individuals love each other and thats that and the ignorant heteroes need to stop thier ignorance cause one day it will come back to bite them and when the other beings of the universe come down upon the ignorant well the ignorant dont need to come crying to everyone else all because thier creators r disciplining them so good luck explaining to ur creators ignorant people as to why u hated and harmed others and why u think thats ok
-
Ealdormon Piparskeggr Robinson
Personally, I view marriage as a religious ceremony, which the government at all levels should leave alone. I am in favor of government sponsored civil unions or domestic partnerships for consenting adults, regardless of sexuality.
-
Kevin Sharp
Like I said before God said I've one another. . I dint think they should be allowed to overturn any judgement on same sex marriage..once in law should be left..to Top that off The only Time the Word Gay is used in schools. By Students who rather bully someone and n are Fun of them on who they Love. It's the Parents who need to put stop to it..
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
This would be clearly infringing on religious freedom. People in a same sex marriage who were married in a religious ceremony are having their religious beliefs effectively banned. So that's the sort of country that unhinged religious extremists are trying to create.
-
Cyril R. VanKeirsbelk
We should return to the original meaning of a marriage. A legal binding of two men to establish inheritance rights to the survivor. You may not like it, but that's what it was created for. At the time women and children were considered property, so marriage was not necessary between a man and a woman.
Marriage was needed once women could inherit property as opposed to being property. So they adapted the original marriage to opposite sex couples.
To call for an end to same-sex marriage is ignorant of history. If you want to return to the original meaning of marriage, you are demanding to end marriage between men and women. Does this mean you want to return to women being property too?
The Christian Taliban strikes again. Evangelicals are as bad as any terrorists.
They are worse.