North Dakota Legislature close to asking US Supreme Court to undo landmark same-sex marriage ruling
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — North Dakota lawmakers are on the verge of making their state the first to tell the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its decade-old ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Similar efforts — which would not have any direct sway with the nation's top courts — have been introduced in a handful of states this year. North Dakota's resolution passed the Republican-led House in February but still requires Senate approval, which is not assured.
'The original Supreme Court ruling in 2015 went totally against the Tenth Amendment, went totally against the North Dakota Constitution and North Dakota Century Code (state laws),' sponsor Republican Rep. Bill Tveit said. 'Why did I introduce it? Every one of us in this building took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the state.'
When the Legislature considers such resolutions, attorney and North Dakota National Guard member Laura Balliet said she wonders why she stays in her home state. The measure makes her feel unwanted, unwelcome and judged because of who she is, she said. She married her wife in 2020.
'I don't know what this resolution does other than to tell people like myself, my friends and my family that we're not welcome here, and I'm angry about that because I want to be welcome here. This is my home,' Balliet told the Senate panel that heard the measure on Wednesday — one in a stream of opponents who testified against it.
A push across states
Massachusetts-based MassResistance, which describes itself as an 'international pro-family group' but has been labeled 'anti-LGBTQ hate group' by the LGBTQ+ advocacy organization GLAAD, is pushing the resolution across the country.
Massachusetts became the first state to recognize same-sex marriage, in 2004. Over the next 11 years, most states began to recognize it through laws, ballot measures or court decisions before the Supreme Court made it legal nationwide.
Outside of Idaho and North Dakota, the measures have not progressed far, according to an analysis of legislation collected by the bill-tracking service Plural.
By contrast, there have been additional protections for same-sex marriage over the years, including a federal law in 2022. Since 2020, California, Colorado, Hawaii and Nevada have repealed old constitutional amendments that defined marriage as being allowed only between a man and a woman, and Virginia lawmakers advanced a similar measure this year. It could be on the ballot there in 2026.
Differing views
The North Dakota measure states that the Legislature 'rejects' the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision and urges the U.S. Supreme Court 'to overturn the decision and leave unaddressed the natural definition of marriage as a union between one man, a biological male, and one woman, a biological female.'
In the court's 2022 ruling that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should reconsider its precedents in the marriage decision and other past cases.
Soon after the measure passed the North Dakota House last month, several Republican state reps who voted for it stated they meant to vote no or regretted voting yes.
Republican Rep. Matt Ruby said he wished he had voted against the measure, saying his yes vote was for a different intent he realized wasn't going to happen. The vote sent a bad message 'that your marriage isn't valid and you're not welcome,' Ruby said. He said he supports the right for same-sex couples to be married.
Republican Rep. Dwight Kiefert said he voted for the resolution because of his Christian faith and that the institution of marriage was established in the Bible in the Garden of Eden between Adam and Eve.
'Slap in the face'
The measure is a slap in the face to North Dakotans who are happily married and invested in their state, said Democratic Sen. Ryan Braunberger, who is gay and sits on the Senate panel that heard the resolution. The measure sends a dangerous message as North Dakota wants to grow its population and expand economically, he said.
'We want to make sure that we bring everybody in the best of the crop, and that runs the gamut of all sorts of different races, ethnicities, sexual orientations through that,' Braunberger said.
The measure is a declaration, if passed, that lawmakers would want to define marriage through what is arguably a religious lens, which dangerously gets close to infringing upon the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, said Cody Schuler, advocacy manager for the American Civil Liberties Union's North Dakota chapter.
'Marriage defined as 'one man, one woman' is a particular religious view. It is not held by all religions, all societies or by nonreligious people, and so therefore it is dangerous to be making that kind of statement because it puts legislators on record as to how they might vote on law, on a binding law versus this nonbinding resolution,' Schuler said.
___
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nancy Mace said 'due process is for citizens.' Here's who it's really for
In early June 2025, Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina wrote an X post (archived) that read: "Due process is for citizens." Her comment had been viewed more than 2.4 million times as of this writing and had amassed more than 6,500 likes. The same claim has appeared in multiple X posts. In a similar tone, in May 2025, another X user wrote: "Due process is for citizens, not invaders." (X user @NancyMace) In short, due process is the legal principle that the government must follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty or property. It serves as a safeguard against arbitrary actions by the state, ensuring that people are treated justly under the law. For a more detailed explanation, see our full breakdown in this article on former President Bill Clinton's 1996 immigration law. While Mace's post did not explicitly say that due process protections are, or should be, limited to only U.S. citizens, her replies below the post reinforced that interpretation. However, the U.S. Constitution protects all "persons," not just citizens, under the due-process clauses of the Fifth and 14th amendments. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that these protections apply to anyone physically present in the United States regardless of citizenship or immigration status. An MSNBC article on the topic similarly concluded that Mace's "implication … that noncitizens don't get that protection" was "incorrect." The South Carolina representative doubled down on her stance in the replies below her post, suggesting that noncitizens should not be entitled to due-process protections in the U.S. For example, when one X user wrote, "The Constitution doesn't say 'only citizens.' Due process applies to persons — that includes non-citizens. That's settled law," Mace replied by saying: "Skip due process coming in, don't expect it going out. Citizens first!" Other replies further suggested she believed only U.S. citizens should be entitled to such protections (archived, archived, archived). (X users @FJBIDEN_22 and @NancyMace) These exchanges were not the first time Mace commented on due process. In late May 2025, she weighed in on the principle in response to a federal judge's decision to block the deportation of eight noncitizens convicted of violent crimes. The day before U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued a 17-page order in which he emphasized that "the Court recognizes that the class members at issue here have criminal histories. But that does not change due process," Mace criticized the ruling, telling Fox News (archived): "They didn't want due process on their way in illegally, they shouldn't get due process on their way out." However, the representative's comments about due process contradicted remarks she made about the principle in the past. In February 2023, Mace wrote on X (archived): "Everyone deserves the right to due process. Even those we vehemently oppose." (X user @NancyMace) Snopes has reached out to Mace for comment on whether she maintains that due-process protections should apply only to U.S. citizens and how she reconciles that view with her 2023 statement. We will update this article if we receive a response. The U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process appears in the Fifth and 14th amendments, both of which state that no person should be deprived "of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." As shown, the language uses "person," not "citizen," with regard to due-process protections. Further, the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted that due-process protections apply to everyone within U.S. borders regardless of citizenship or immigration status. In Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel Mezei (1953) the Court emphasized (Page 212) that "aliens who have once passed through [U.S.] gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness-encompassed in due process of law." Similarly, in cases such as Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) and earlier decisions dating back more than a century, the Supreme Court made clear that the government cannot detain or deport people arbitrarily. In the 2001 case, the Court underscored that "the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." In simple words, noncitizens must be given fair procedures, such as notice or a "credible fear interview," before being deprived of their liberty. The Supreme Court expressed the same view in the case of Reno v. Flores (1993), stating: "It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings." This was not the first time Snopes addressed a claim regarding Mace. For instance, in late May 2025, we investigated a rumor that she ordered staffers to create burner accounts to promote her online. Meanwhile, earlier in June 2025, we also fact-checked a rumor about whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, signed by Clinton, allowed deportation without due process. "327K Views · 15K Reactions | Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments That Illegal Immigrants Convicted of Heinous Crimes Deserve Due Process after a Judge Blocks a Deportation Flight to South Sudan | 'They Didn't Want Due Process on Their Way in Illegally, They Shouldn't Get Due Process on Their Way Out.' Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments... | by Fox News | Facebook." 2022, Accessed 6 June 2025. "U.S. Constitution - Fifth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 15 Dec. 1791, Constitution Annotated. "U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 9 July 1868, Deng, Grace. "Did Nancy Mace Order Staffers to Create Burner Accounts to Promote Her Online? Here's What We Know." Snopes, 30 May 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Dunbar, Marina. "Court Halts Trump Administration's Effort to Send Eight Men to South Sudan." The Guardian, The Guardian, 23 May 2025, Gabbatt, Adam. "Group Stranded with Ice in Djibouti Shipping Container after Removal from US." The Guardian, The Guardian, 6 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. " 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)." Justia Law, Rubin, Jordan. "Due Process Is Not Limited to Citizens, Contrary to Nancy Mace's Claim." MSNBC, 4 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Wrona, Aleksandra. "Bill Clinton Did Not Sign Law in 1996 Allowing Deportation without Due Process." Snopes, 5 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)." Justia Law,
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senator Markey announces plans to file amendment on AI regulation
BOSTON (WWLP) – State Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has announced that he intends to file an amendment on AI regulation. Senator Markey said he plans to file an amendment to the Senate reconciliation bill to block Republicans' attempt to prevent states from regulating AI in the next ten years. Senators in both parties have expressed an interest in regulating artificial intelligence. Car dealership aids relief at Baystate Children's Hospital 'Despite the overwhelming opposition to their plan to block states from regulating artificial intelligence for the next decade, Republicans are refusing to back down on this irresponsible and short-sighted provision,' said Senator Markey. Last Tuesday, the senator delivered remarks on the Senate floor opposing the reconciliation bill passed in the House. He also took part in a virtual roundtable last week with advocates to discuss the ban's impact on communities throughout the United States. 'I plan to file an amendment to strip this dangerous provision from Republicans' 'Big Beautiful Bill,'' Markey said. 'Republicans should be prepared to vote on this outrageous policy and explain to their constituents why they are preventing their state leaders from responding to the harms caused by this new and evolving technology.' WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Watch the 22News Digital Edition weekdays at 4 p.m. on Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Controversial housing bill heads to governor's desk
HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) —The 2025 session of Connecticut's state legislature has been over for more than a week, but a major piece of housing legislation passed by majority Democrats continues to cause controversy — and a chorus of calls for Gov. Ned Lamont to veto it. Connecticut House passes housing bill after 11-hour debate The legislation, formally known as House Bill 5002, is the latest in a series of Democratic-led efforts to implement statewide policies that spur the development of more housing. Proponents of statewide housing reform have cited research showing Connecticut's housing stock is short by as many as 100,000 units. Lawmakers clash over proposed affordable housing bill 'We know how imperative it is that we get more housing in the state,' Gov. Lamont said on Tuesday. But as the governor and others look for ways to use public policy to encourage more development, they've encountered resistance from leaders on both sides of the aisle who say provisions of H.B. 5002 encroach on the authorities of local zoning boards. Governor's Hartford residence to open for annual open house day Three provisions in particular have drawn the ire of defenders of local control of zoning. First, the bill establishes a baseline for the amount of units, including affordable units, each municipality in Connecticut must plan for. Municipalities that hit the goals outlined in the bill will be prioritized for certain state grants. Local leaders and legislators who oppose the bill have characterized that provision as a mandate. 'It absolutely is a mandate,' State Rep. Joe Zullo, a leading Republican opponent to 5002, said. 'It allocates to every town a certain amount of housing they have to build no matter what.' Supporters of 5002 push back on this characterization of the legislation. On the affordable housing metrics, they say the bill seeks to set objective standards while providing measured incentives to communities that comply. 'Gasoline on the flames:' Lamont, Tong, Bysiewicz respond to Trump administration's use of National Guard in California 'Any time you want to have a policy outcome, there needs to be an accountability measure and that's what we're talking about here,' State Rep. Jason Rojas, the Democratic house majority leader, said of the concept in an interview conducted before the final passage of the bill. 'We can call it a stick, I call it accountability. We expect every other area of government to be accountable for something. Towns should be accountable, too.' Another provision of 5002 takes aim at minimum parking requirements often imposed by municipalities on small towns. The third provision seeks to bypass planning and zoning hearings for the approval of conversions of certain commercial properties into residential units. These measures have also drawn considerable criticism. In both instances, advocates say the bill seeks to remove onerous barriers, while opponents charge that local control of development is being deeply eroded. H. B. 5002 passed through the legislature over the objections of every Republican and a relatively small but significant vocal faction of Democrats, mostly from the state's suburbs. Now the bill is passed and on the governor's desk awaiting action, Lamont is faced with the decision to either veto or sign it. He has signaled that if he signs it, he would only do so after an agreement had been made with legislative leaders to make revisions before the bill goes into effect in October. 'I think they went too far in some areas of the bill and that's what we look to change,' Lamont said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
