This may be the moment many LGBTQ+ advocates feared when Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Idaho politicians are proposing a resolution officially calling Obergefell v. Hodges – which enshrined gay marriage as law across the country – an “illegitimate overreach.” They’re asking the Supreme Court to weigh in and reinstate the “natural definition of marriage,” which they say is between one man and one woman.
Should the measure pass the Idaho legislature, it will be sent to the Supreme Court, who will decide whether to weigh in or not.
Gay Marriage at Risk?
The text of the Idaho resolution is not yet online, but committee notes show that “the background and the purpose of the proposed resolution is to reaffirm the state's authority to regulate marriage. It encourages the Supreme Court to revisit Obergefell vs Hodges and request reconsideration and the purpose to restore federalism.”
“The purpose of this resolution is just to affirm our state authority to regulate marriage,” says Idaho Representative Heather Scott, who initially proposed the measure. The measure is purely symbolic, but if passed by the legislature – which seems likely in highly conservative Idaho – the statement will be sent to the Supreme Court for consideration.
The goal, LGBTQ+ advocates fear, is teeing up the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, to overturn same-sex marriage nation by allowing Idaho to restore its ban on same-sex marriage.
How Roe and Obergefell Connect
It’s an outcome the LGBTQ+ community has dreaded, particularly in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade's demise in 2022. Could a Court focused on the expansion of religious liberty eventually turn its eye on same-sex marriage protections?
Two justices who voted against the Obergefell decision, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, penned a joint opinion at the time insisting that “Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty."
When Roe v. Wade was overturned by the high court’s conservative majority, it was on the grounds that Roe was initially decided on a faulty premise: that abortion is not a form of “liberty” protected by the 14th amendment.
While the high court made clear that this ruling would only apply to abortion and should not be viewed as casting doubt on any other rights granted in non-Roe cases, there have been warning signs that the Court may not stop there.
In a 213-page concurring opinion, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
Thomas's logic indicates that the right to contraception, interracial marriage, and same-sex marriage could also be sent to the chopping block, with similar legal arguments serving as the headsman.
Court Sits In Waiting
So, what next?
It remains to be seen if the resolution in question will be approved by the Idaho legislature. Should the measure pass, it would then need to be challenged, before possibly making its way to the Supreme Court.
There are a lot of "ifs" on that path. However, one thing seems clear: there are those on the Supreme Court who feel Obergefell was a mistake. Should the Court get a chance to rule on the matter again, there's no guarantee they'll come to the same decision as in 2015.
What is your reaction? Is Obergefell a settled case, or could same-sex marriage be in jeopardy?
20 comments
-
Chris
These hypocrites need to keep their religion out of politics and out of people's personal lives. It harms nobody if two men or two women, or even multiple persons, want to marry so long as they are of legal age. It's nothing but legalized bigotry and hatred and discrimination.
For what it's worth, I live in the middle of Trumplandia, and I'm ordained. I am happy to perform any marriage so long as they meet the above criteria.
-
Daniel Gray
you do know that being married to more then one person is illegal and has been since the 1880's (Polygamy became illegal in the United States in 1882 when Congress passed the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act and is classified as a federal felony) and the SCOTUS has refused every challenge for this since this. Not to mention this was the rule that Idaho had to follow to even be considered for statehood, so why you bothered to include this in your post is known only to you. So go ahead and try and marry three or more people and see what happens to you, just remember not to drop the soap in the shower
-
James Riggle-Johnson
Why do you have to be crude and rude, Danny? That last line about dropping the soap in the shower was unnecessary. You go out of your way to insult people, and it’s disgusting in this forum.
-
Robert James Ruhnke
Maybe it shouldn’t be. Maybe the state should stay out of marriage entirely. With the exception of regulating age of consent of course. Time we as a nation grow up and stop penalizing people for who they love.
-
Chris
Daniel, you really are a hoot. I never said it was legal, only that it shouldn't be illegal. The only reason polygamy was banned was because of anti-Mormon sentiment. Your focus on that one part of my comment is quite telling, though. But thanks for playing along.
-
-
-
Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox
My trans child’s marriage hurts no one. Gerald Polis’s Gay marriage hurts no one. Clarence Thomas’s interracial marriage hurts no one. My parents’ inter religious marriage hurt no one. None of these have interfered with anyone’s ability to live their lives.
The whole “religious exemptions” thing is pure BS. Mind your own genitals.
-
Timothy C Stone
Other people's sex lives are none of my concern. And, same sex marriage has no effect or affect on my life. God bless a union of love.I have gay and lesbian friends. I once heard a comedian say ' I believe 'they' have as much right to be miserable as us other married couples.'
-
Rev. BH
Who is bothered by gay marriage? Who fears it or despises it? Why? I think those who do, the angry, the frightened, are the ones I do not wish to live next door or eat in my restaurant. These people are concerning, not a committed, loving couple.
-
Robin Anne Hannon
I agree, next step is to outlaw mixed marriages. Perhaps they might nullify non-Christian marriages such as Jewish, Muslim, etc. Nothing would surprise me.
-
Joe Stutler
Xtian Nationalist theofascists are antithetical to the values of We The People. Don't give that mouse a cookie.
-
Reverend Paula Copp
What is wrong with two people wanting to be married? What is wrong with them being the same sex? As long as they’re not bothering anyone care? It’s not like my being gay is going to suddenly rub off on you… are they jealous?
-
Nicholas J Page
This doesn't happen in England leave people alone.
-
James Riggle-Johnson
The LGBTQ community has been waiting for this since 2015 when Thomas and Alito wrote that this should be challenged at a future date. Thomas’s opinion that “Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty” is nonsense. Nobody is forcing religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages. The only people forced are those in positions that require them to serve the public. Positions like county clerks and judges were elected or hired to perform certain functions for all citizens. They should not be able to decide which citizens are worthy.
I’d like to believe that those of us already married would be grandfathered but that isn’t guaranteed. And future generations would not be allowed to benefit from the protection’s marriage guarantees like filing jointly on tax returns, making medical decisions for their spouse, and inheritance when a spouse dies.
I have witnessed family members who despised their son's life choices rush in when they were dying and ban their lifelong partner's access to them on their deathbed. They then collect all that person's personal belongings leaving the partner with nothing. Same-sex couples are forced to jump through legal hoops, which cost money, to ensure their rights, and many times those are challenged in court.
Some religious extremists predicted society would fall apart if we were allowed to marry and after 10 years society still stands. Of course, some of them would blame natural disasters on the LGBTQ community claiming it’s God’s punishment, but maybe God is punishing them for their actions. For the record, I do not believe God has anything to do with natural disasters. End of rant. Just my two cents.
-
Alexander Arends
Someone once said here: "keep religion out of politics" but I say keep politics out of religion. We are talking about marital vows but they already have become meaningless since "till death do us part" is no longer considered a part of a marriage contract. As far as same sex marriages, leave it as is, as long as it does not become mandatory for churches to perform such ceremonies.
-
Ellen B. Wentzel
This discussion is one of many that involves judging others. Who are we to judge? I just wish that everyone would truly "love thy neighbor..."
-
Daniel Gray
Why are people getting so worked up? The state legislators have not said they would pass this norm has it been introduced into a committee as is required under their laws. And yet you have people here losing their minds over this non issue
-
Robert James Ruhnke
Cut the gaslighting, Grey. Darkening an already dark matter with your histrionic narcissistic comments does no one any good.
-
Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox
We are not “losing our minds” over this.
Many of us will lose our families to countries where diverse marriages between two consenting adults are permitted.
It’s sad you can’t see what is the very clear direction that president Musk(rat) and his cronies are taking us.
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
Marriage is a practical term, it's an engineering term and a scientific term. It's not possible for two humans of the same gender to marry. They can hang out and commit to be with one another forever under love until death though. And why should this be a problem? Redefining words is where it gets messy and heels get dug in.
Only a woman can be a wife to a man and only a man can be a husband to a woman. Only the combination on man and fulfills the design of Man both body and mind.
Anything else is anything but marriage.
So where does it stop? First abortion, next gay marriage? It this article it mentions "interracial marriage" which would be rich since Clarence Thomas is married to a white woman! I would be okay with the term civil unions, or something else. But to expect people to live in the shadows or lie about who they love in the year "2025" that would be a shame!