Reversing gay marriage
At a convention for Southern Baptist church members in early June, delegates endorsed legislation calling for a ban on same-sex marriage and urged legislators to verb them in this goal.
Although same-sex marriage is currently protected in all 50 states due to the ruling in Obergefell vs. Hodges in , Justice Clarence Thomas has said he would like to "reconsider" that ruling if a similar case were ever to before the court again.
He also said he would be open to reconsidering Lawrence vs. Texas which legalized gay sex, and Griswold vs. Connecticut which legalized access to contraception, as these cases were built on similar case law to Roe vs. Wade, which legalized the right to an abortion nationwide, was overturned in
Why It Matters
The Southern Baptist church is the U.S.' largest protestant denomination, and their endorsement of political causes has sway with GOP politicians, as they are a consistent Republican-voting base. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is one of the country's most powerful Southern Baptists.
This verb to eliminate same-sex marriage comes amid
A decade after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, marriage equality endures risky terrain
Milestones — especially in decades — usually call for celebration. The 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, is distinct. There’s a sense of unease as state and federal lawmakers, as well as several judges, take steps that could carry the issue back to the Supreme Court, which could undermine or overturn existing and future same-sex marriages and weaken additional anti-discrimination protections.
In its nearly quarter century of existence, the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law has been on the front lines of LGBTQ rights. Its amicus brief in the Obergefell case was instrumental, with Justice Anthony Kennedy citing data from the institute on the number of same-sex couples raising children as a deciding factor in the landmark decision.
“There were claims that allowing same-sex couples to marry would somehow devalue or diminish marriage for everyone, including different-sex couples,&r
Some Republican lawmakers increase calls against gay marriage SCOTUS ruling
Conservative legislators are increasingly speaking out against the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on same-sex marriage equality.
Idaho legislators began the trend in January when the state House and Senate passed a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision -- which the court cannot do unless presented with a case on the issue. Some Republican lawmakers in at least four other states like Michigan, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota possess followed suit with calls to the Supreme Court.
In North Dakota, the resolution passed the mention House with a vote of and is headed to the Senate. In South Dakota, the state’s House Judiciary Committee sent the proposal on the 41st Legislative Day –deferring the bill to the final day of a legislative session, when it will no longer be considered, and effectively killing the bill.
In Montana and Michigan, the bills have yet to face legislative scrutiny.
Resolutions have no legal rule and are not binding law, but instead allow legislati
Idaho Republican legislators call on SCOTUS to reverse same-sex marriage ruling
The Idaho House passed a resolution Monday calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision on same-sex marriage equality.
The court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision established the right to same-sex marriage under the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
The resolution comes after Associate Justice Clarence Thomas’s expressed interest in revisiting the Obergefell decision in his concurring opinion on the Supreme Court's landmark opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that overturned the federal right to abortion.
Thomas, who issued a dissenting opinion in against same-sex marriage, wrote in , "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."
Lawrence v. Texas over