First Roe v. Wade, now Obergefell: How gay marriage is next on the Supreme Court’s chopping block, thanks to Trump

This isn’t the first time that lawmakers in the red states have felt emboldened to go after minority rights following Trump’s inauguration. Merely a day after Jan. 21, Republican state senator Dusty Deevers introduced the Promote Child Thriving Act, establishing a $500 tax credit per child for different-sex parents filing together, which can be increased to $1000 if the child is born in wedlock. A little while later, Oklahoma introduced a similar bill with a $2000 tax benefit for married couples with biological children, excluding adopted children and many other instances of unconventional unions across the state. Oklahoma Rep. David Bullard explained the bill as a way to combat Obergefell.

“Really what we want to do is challenge that concept and see if we can get to Obergefell. And I think that’s kind of what we’re pushing at around the board with a bill like this, is to actually go straight at Obergefell and say: ‘No, the constitution protects my right, my freedom of speech, my freedom of expression, my freedom of religion to disagree with same-sex marriage.'”

Now, it is being reported that senators in 9 different states are introducing measures to challenge the Obergefell ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States in 2015.

Republican senators call on the Supreme Court to reconsider Obergefell v. Hodges

Michigan has introduced a resolution asking the Supreme Court to once again delegate the ruling on same-sex marriage to state law. Michigan Rep. Josh Schriver introduced this resolution and claimed that Obergefell “is at odds with the sanctity of marriage, the Michigan Constitution and principles upon which the country was established.”

Schriver cited several instances of LGBTQ+ scrutiny as examples of why this resolution must , including one instance of a wedding venue turning away a homosexual couple due to the venue’s religious beliefs. Schriver had previously called for the prohibition of same-sex marriage, writing on X: “Make gay marriage illegal again. This is not remotely controversial, nor extreme.”

And Michigan isn’t the only state. Idaho is also following suit with a separate appeal to the Supreme Court, and Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota aren’t far behind with their own measures. “Marriage as an institution has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman for more than two thousand years, and within common law, the basis of the United States’ Anglo-American legal tradition, for more than 800 years,” claims Idaho House in their filing, though whatever they supposedly mean by an Anglo-American tradition and whether it has any bearing on the rights of individuals under the 14th Amendment is unclear.

Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee aren’t directly challenging Obergefell, but they’re introducing bills which reinforce the concept of “covenant marriage” between a man and a woman.

Michigan Democrats are already railing against Schriver’s ridiculous notion. Rep. Jason Morgan has called the resolution a “ridiculous distraction” that doesn’t help a “single Michigan family” and made it clear that all of this is happening under Trump’s encouragement. “With Donald Trump leading the Republican Party, the threats to our rights are more real than they’ve ever been,” Morgan said.

Has the overturning of Roe v. Wade paved the path for the reversal of Obergefell?

These developments have understandably raised a lot of worry over the future of Obergefell, especially considering what already happened with Roe v. Wade.

Back in June 2022, the Supreme Court made a historic decision overturning Roe v. Wade, ending the right to abortion, which had been a landmark ruling for nearly five decades. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who has consistently taken positions opposing the expansion of LGBT+ rights (he dissented from Obergefell v. Hodges, Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, and Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020), ed the decision along with three Trump appointees, and claimed that this opens the door to overturning other “demonstrably erroneous” landmarks ruling like the Obergefell, Lawrence (overruling criminalizing sodomy between consenting adults) and even Griswold, which prevents states from banning contraceptives. He wrote:

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents. After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.”

Fortunately, the Biden istration’s 2022 Respect for Marriage Act, ed by Congress, has codified the right to same-sex and interracial marriage into law, offering some protection to minority groups if Obergefell succumbs to the same fate as Roe v. Wade. But while RFMA protects same-sex couples for federal purposes, it still falls to Obergefell to protect their rights in regard to marriage and parental rights.

It might seem far-fetched right now, but we probably thought the same about Roe v. Wade. At some point, this stops being a judicial conflict with legal jargon and becomes a fight for fundamental rights. And if the rights everyone has fought so long and paid dearly for can be taken away this easily, what does that say about the future of this world? It’s brutal and disheartening to see years of progress being challenged with so much senseless prejudice, but I think it’s safe to say this battle is far from over.