A Republican representative has petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. This action is framed by the representative as a matter of restoring states’ rights in determining marriage laws, arguing that the Obergefell decision infringed upon traditional state authority in this area.
The assertion that this is solely about states’ rights is met with significant skepticism. Critics contend that this move is not a genuine effort to decentralize power but rather a thinly veiled attempt to further a conservative social agenda. This perspective highlights a pattern of utilizing “states’ rights” rhetoric to advance specific, often discriminatory, policy goals.… Continue reading
Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, concerns have arisen regarding the potential reversal of Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage. While some justices have previously expressed dissent towards Obergefell, legal experts maintain that marriage equality remains secure, at least in the foreseeable future. However, the Respect for Marriage Act, along with state-level protections, has been enacted to safeguard same-sex marriage should the Supreme Court act to overturn Obergefell. Despite these measures, anxiety persists among some same-sex couples.
Read More
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 More
California voters have officially enshrined the right to marriage for same-sex couples in the state constitution by passing Proposition 3, repealing Proposition 8 which had defined marriage as between a man and a woman. This update removes outdated language from the constitution despite the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, ensuring the right to marriage for same-sex couples in California is solidified in the state’s foundational document. While opponents argued the initiative was unnecessary and could pave the way for other marriage changes, proponents emphasized its importance in aligning California’s constitution with current legal realities and ensuring equal rights for all couples.
Read More
Colorado voters decisively passed Amendment J, removing language from the state constitution that defined marriage as solely between one man and one woman. This amendment was passed in response to the Supreme Court’s recognition of same-sex marriage in 2015 and Congress’s subsequent repeal of federal law banning such unions. Supporters of Amendment J, including the advocacy organization One Colorado, argue it safeguards same-sex marriage in the face of potential Supreme Court reversals, echoing concerns raised about the Roe v. Wade decision. Opponents, including Focus on the Family and the Colorado Catholic Conference, maintain that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman based on their religious and moral beliefs.
Read More
Kim Davis’ legal team pushing to overturn Obergefell, citing the Dobbs decision, is a grotesque example of how some individuals will go to great lengths to deny happiness and basic rights to others. Despite the landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, Davis, known for her staunch opposition to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, is attempting to dismantle this fundamental right. The audacity of her legal team to cite the recent Dobbs decision as a precedent to challenge marriage equality is not only disturbing but also highly concerning.
The Respect for Marriage Act was put in place to safeguard same-sex marriage, regardless of Obergefell being overturned.… Continue reading
It is truly distressing to witness the recent developments surrounding the Supreme Court’s stance on marriage equality. The dissent penned by Justice Sotomayor serves as a stark reminder of the alarming direction in which the Court is heading. The 6-3 ruling in the Department of State v. Muñoz case, denying a couple’s plea based on the lack of a “fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country,” is indicative of a troubling agenda.
The implications of this ruling are deeply concerning, especially in light of the broader context of the Court’s conservative leanings. It is evident that Obergefell, Griswold, Lawrence, Brown, and other landmark decisions are now at risk.… Continue reading
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker