By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following Donald Trump’s 2024 election win, anxieties surrounding same-sex marriage rights have surged, prompting some couples to accelerate wedding plans. While Trump didn’t directly target same-sex marriage during his campaign, concerns stem from his past anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and the Supreme Court’s conservative shift. Current protections include the *Obergefell* ruling and the Respect for Marriage Act, but the possibility of the Court overturning *Obergefell* and subsequent state-level bans remains a significant worry for LGBTQ advocates. Although eliminating same-sex marriage doesn’t appear to be a top priority for the new administration, the potential for future legislative or judicial challenges persists.
Read the original article here
A second Trump administration would likely usher in a period of significant uncertainty regarding the future of same-sex marriage in the United States. The Supreme Court’s decision in *Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization* effectively weakened the legal foundation of *Obergefell v. Hodges*, the landmark case that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. This leaves the institution vulnerable to challenges.
The potential for a state-by-state patchwork of laws regarding same-sex marriage is a very real concern. A return to pre-*Obergefell* conditions, where the legality of same-sex marriage varied widely across states, is a distinct possibility. This would create significant legal and practical difficulties for same-sex couples, especially concerning matters like inheritance, medical decision-making, and child custody. The inconsistencies would be deeply unfair and disruptive to the lives of countless Americans.
It’s crucial to remember that the consequences extend far beyond the simple right to marry. Legal protections related to healthcare, finances, and property rights are directly tied to marital status. The loss of these protections in some states could have devastating effects on same-sex couples and their families, particularly in situations involving illness or death. Suddenly, surviving spouses might find themselves stripped of the legal authority to make medical decisions for their partners or to inherit property.
The argument that a second Trump administration wouldn’t actively target same-sex marriage overlooks the impact of the judicial appointments made during his first term. The current Supreme Court’s conservative majority has already demonstrated a willingness to overturn precedents, and there’s reason to believe they might be inclined to revisit *Obergefell*. It’s not necessarily about a direct order from Trump himself; it’s about the legal landscape he helped create.
The existence of the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified the right to same-sex marriage into federal law, offers some measure of protection. However, its long-term security is uncertain. The same judicial philosophies that led to the overturning of *Roe v. Wade* could be applied to challenge the Respect for Marriage Act. This Act’s survival is uncertain, and many believe this is merely a delaying tactic in the eyes of those who wish to see same-sex marriage overturned.
The potential rollback of same-sex marriage is not an isolated issue. Concerns exist that other rights previously protected by the Supreme Court, such as interracial marriage and the right to contraception, could also face challenges under a similar legal framework. The conservative justices on the Supreme Court have indicated that they are reexamining fundamental rights, and many observers believe that this is a serious threat. A second Trump administration, with its continued influence on the courts, only increases the chance of this.
The impact on LGBTQ+ individuals and families could be profound and deeply damaging. The resulting instability and uncertainty would negatively affect not only legal rights, but also social standing and emotional well-being. The fear of a return to discrimination and persecution is understandably prevalent among many.
While some argue that a return to state-level control over marriage would be preferable to a federal ban, that perspective overlooks the inherent inequalities in such a system. Some states would offer full legal recognition, while others would not, creating an unfair and discriminatory situation. The reality of this system is a patchwork of disparate and unequal treatment. This patchwork creates deep division and is a return to the discriminatory practices of the past.
There are also concerns beyond the legal aspects. The rhetoric surrounding the issue has often been fueled by prejudice and misunderstanding. The lack of a clear and consistent message of acceptance and respect from those in power could exacerbate existing social divisions and potentially lead to an increase in harassment and violence towards LGBTQ+ individuals.
In short, a second Trump administration poses a significant threat to the future of same-sex marriage. The current legal landscape, combined with the composition of the Supreme Court, suggests that the institution is far from secure, and the possibility of a state-by-state reversal of rights remains a substantial concern. The fight for equality is far from over, and the coming years will be critical.