Supreme Court is Asked to Overturn Gay Marriage
![]() |
Supreme Court Same-sex marriage supporter Vin Testa waves a LGBTQIA pride flag in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to celebrate the anniversary of the United States v. Windsor and the Obergefell v. Hodges decisions... |
[Newsweek]
Lawmakers in Idaho on Monday called for the Supreme Court to undo Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 ruling that declared the nationwide right to same-sex marriage.
Why It Matters
The Supreme Court's decision in 2022 that overturned Roe v. Wade, allowing states to ban abortion, raised concerns that other rights criticized by conservatives could be in jeopardy.
Obergefell was decided by a 5-4 vote. But since then, President Donald Trump's three appointees have cemented a 6-3 conservative majority on the nation's highest court. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two conservative justices who dissented from the 2015 decision in Obergefell, have previously suggested the decision establishing a right to same-sex marriage should be reconsidered.
Polling by Gallup shows that a majority of Americans continue to believe marriage between same-sex couples should be legal (69 percent), though support has declined slightly from the record high of 71 percent recorded in 2022 and 2023. The polling found a wide partisan gap in support of same-sex marriage, with 83 percent of Democrats in support compared to just 46 percent of Republicans.
What To Know
The Idaho House of Representatives voted to pass the resolution—House Joint Memorial 1—that calls on the Supreme Court to strike down Obergefell on Monday. All 9 House Democrats and 15 Republicans opposed the resolution, but it passed in a 46-24 vote.
"Since court rulings are not laws and only legislatures elected by the people may pass laws, Obergefell is an illegitimate overreach," the resolution says.
"The Idaho Legislature calls upon the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse Obergefell and restore the natural definition of marriage, a union of one man and one woman.''
What People Are Saying
"So what if the federal government redefined property rights or nationalized water rights? What does that look like if they came up with some new fair use policy or came up with different ways to define property rights? That is not a decision for the judges, it is a decision for the states."
House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, a Democrat, told Newsweek: "The Supreme Court wisely recognized in the Obergefell decision that our Constitution guarantees the freedom to marry the person you love, and that fundamental right should not be subject to the anti-LGBTQ biases of a state legislature. The partner you choose is not the government's choice nor should it be. GOP politicians must get out of the business of persecuting their own citizens."
During Monday's hearing, Rubel said one of her sons, who is gay, spoke to her about the resolution. "He was really concerned about whether he is ever going to be blocked from marrying his long-term boyfriend and being able to live in this state.
"Not everybody in Idaho understands that this doesn't have legal impact. It's deeply upsetting to some of those folks, and it makes them not want to live here and these are good people. These are good, law-abiding people who are feeling like their Legislature doesn't want them here and doesn't want them to be able to live the full rights that everybody else can."
What Justices Have Said About Gay Marriage
In a concurring opinion to the court's decision overturning Roe, Thomas called on the court to review other precedents, including rulings protecting same-sex marriage, gay sex and the use of contraceptives.
"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," he wrote.
"Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous,' we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."
Thomas, joined by Alito, also urged the court to reconsider Obergefell when the court said in 2020 that it would not hear a case from a Kentucky county clerk who was sued for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
"Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws," Thomas said in a statement at the time.
"It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law. But it is quite another when the Court forces that choice upon society though its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, leading those with religious objections in the lurch."
"Moreover, Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss."
What's Next
The resolution stills need approval by the Idaho Senate, which is also controlled by Republicans, before any request could be sent to the Supreme Court.
If the Senate approves it, it does not require the governor's signature as a new law would, according to the Idaho Capital Sun.
Comments