Supreme Court isn't poised to end gay marriage, despite the media's fearmongering
A former county clerk in Kentucky has officially filed a petition to the Supreme Court, asking it to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the ruling that founda constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
People should temper their reactions to this petition. There is no guarantee that this case will be heard, and there is no indication that the nation's highest court is likely to overturn the previous ruling.
The general public has a poor understanding of how the Supreme Court, and the judicial branch in general, actually works. The court is not a partisan machine that takes cases based on the whims of the Republican Party, but rather a process-oriented institution that is very restrained.
While I understand the fears that members of the LGBTQ+ community hold at the prospect of losing their right to marry, particularly in the context of the hostile cultural swing within the GOP against it, fearmongering coverage only stokes overreactions. This case is not likely to be heard by the court, nor is it anywhere close to ending the constitutional protections for gay marriage.
Petitions for review are many, but Supreme Court decides few cases
The Supreme Court has discretion over what cases it takes, so a petition for review does not necessarily mean that the panel will consider the issue. It takes the votes of four justices to eventually grant review in a case, which advances it to the court's docket.
All of this is to say that just because a petition is filed with the Supreme Court, that doesn't mean it will eventually be heard. The vast majority are never heard. Of the more than 7,000 cases filed each year, the Supreme Court grants review in only 100-150 of them.
In 2024, for example, the court ultimately ruled on just 59 cases.
While legislation is by no means a complete replacement for a constitutional amendment, the constitutional right to gay marriage is rendered somewhat obsolete by the Respect for Marriage Act, the 2022 piece of bipartisan legislation that requires states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
The odds of that legislation being overturned are extremely low, given gay marriage's popularity, even among conservatives. Thus, if the constitutional protections for gay marriage were to disappear, the practice still would most likely remain protected.
The fearmongering began almost immediately
But none of that stopped people from panicking at the prospect of the court considering such a case.
Obviously, the partisan hacks of X immediately latched onto this story to fearmonger, but even larger news sources like ABC couldn't help themselves from dedicating feature-length articles to the topic.
'Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision,' said ABC News in an X post.
Despite acknowledging the fact that the case is a 'long shot' in its own article on the matter, ABC News chose to frame this piece in this manner because it sensationalizes the potential for Obergefell to be overturned, with little indication that this is not an impending event.
Other news sources were far more honest in their framing, but ABC News' post is irresponsible because it capitalizes on a massive problem in American civic education. Others, including USA TODAY, have tied it to President Donald Trump's position, while highlighting that the case is unlikely to succeed.
Supreme Court literacy is important, but it's currently lacking
At the moment, gay marriage is extremely safe going into the future. So, what is all the worry about?
As it stands, very few Americans understand the judicial processes that lead to a case being considered by the Supreme Court. Even many who are otherwise rather politically intelligent understand very little about how the Supreme Court operates.
The typical American comically knows little about the Supreme Court, from basic facts like the number of justices to the branch of government the court is housed within. Americans who have a limited understanding of this information naturally have little business understanding the meaning of a petition for certiorari or how precedent is overturned.
Partisan sources are aware of this and capitalize on it. Democratic groups have already begun to incorporate the mere fact that someone has petitioned the court to review such a decision.
I've written previously about how people's views of the court are far too simplistic, and that is an interconnected problem with this one. People do not understand the dynamic of the court well enough to actually make judgments beyond the partisan talking points. People naturally assume that the conservative majority Supreme Court will always rule in favor of conservative social outcomes, but the justices have proved that's not the case.
Sources like the ABC News article may not be malicious, but their potential for harm is still great. America has a problem with civic education when it comes to the Supreme Court, but an honest news media has a responsibility to be conscious of framing court stories in relation to the public's knowledge.
Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
Over 300 protests held Saturday against Trump redistricting push
Pro-democracy activists and labor groups held hundreds of rallies and other events across the United States on Saturday, Aug. 16, protesting the Trump administration's push for Texas to redraw its congressional map in favor of Republicans. Former Congressman Beto O'Rourke was among those who spoke on Saturday in Texas, from which dozens of Democratic state lawmakers fled to deny Republicans the quorum needed to vote on a redistricting plan that President Donald Trump had demanded. "They do this because they are afraid," O'Rourke told an audience on Saturday, speaking of those attempting redistricting. "They fear this power they see here today." More: Obama calls Texas GOP redistricting an 'assault' on democracy Drucilla Tigner, executive director of pro-democracy coalition Texas For All, told Reuters pro-democracy and labor groups held over 300 events attended by tens of thousands of people in 44 states and Washington, D.C. Many of the more than 50 Texas Democrats who fled the state have been staying in Illinois, also the site of protests on Saturday. The Texas lawmakers in Illinois are out of reach of civil arrest warrants that could be acted on within Texas. The Texas Democrats kept the map from coming to a vote during a special session Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called that ended Friday. Abbott immediately called a second special session. Abbott said that redistricting plans, legislation to increase flash flood safety in the wake of deadly July flooding, and other legislative work remain undone because Democrats are absent. California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom on Thursday, Aug. 14 unveiled a redistricting plan in his state that he says would give Democrats there five more Congressional seats, possibly offsetting any Republican gains in Texas. The Texas House Democrats said in a written statement on Thursday that they will only return to Texas if their state's special legislation is ended and once California's redistricting maps are introduced.
4 hours ago
In Trump's redistricting push, Democrats find an aggressive identity
ATLANTA -- Fight! Fight! Fight! It's not just Donald Trump's mantra anymore. As the Republican president pushes states to redraw their congressional districts to the GOP's advantage, Democrats have shown they are willing to go beyond words of outrage and use whatever power they do have to win. Democrats in the Texas Legislature started it off by delaying, for now, Republican efforts to expand the GOP majority in the state's delegation and help preserve party control of the U.S. House through new districts in time for the 2026 midterm elections. Then multiple Democratic governors promised new districts in their own states to neutralize potential Republican gains in Washington. Their counter has been buoyed by national fundraising, media blitzes and public demonstrations, including rallies Saturday around the country. 'For everyone that's been asking, 'Where are the Democrats?' -- well, here they are," said U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, one of several Democrats who could be ousted under her state's new maps. "For everyone who's been asking, 'Where is the fight?' – well, here it is.' There is no guarantee Democrats can prevent the Republican-powered redistricting, just as Democrats on Capitol Hill have not been able to stop Trump's moves. But it's a notable turn for a party that, by its own leaders' admissions, has honored conventional rules and bypassed bare-knuckled tactics. So far, progressive and establishment Democrats are aligned, uniting what has often been a fragmented opposition since Republicans led by Trump took control of the federal government with their election sweep in November. Leaders on the left say the approach gives them a more effective way to confront him. They can challenge his redistricting ploy with tangible moves as they also push back against the Republicans' tax and spending law and press the case that he is shredding American democracy. 'We've been imploring Democrats where they have power on the state and local level to flex that power,' said Maurice Mitchell, who leads the Working Families Party at the left flank of mainstream U.S. politics. 'There's been this overwrought talk about fighters and largely performative actions to suggest that they're in the fight.' This time, he said, Democrats are 'taking real risks in protecting all of our rights' against 'an authoritarian president who only understands the fight.' Texas made sense for Republicans as the place to start a redistricting scuffle. They dominate the Statehouse, and Gov. Greg Abbott is a Trump loyalist. But when the president's allies announced a new political map intended to send five more Republicans to the U.S. House, state Democratic representatives fled Texas, denying the GOP the numbers to conduct business in the Legislature and approve the reworked districts. Those legislators surfaced in Illinois, New York, California and elsewhere, joined by governors, senators, state party chairs, other states' legislators and activists. All promised action. The response was Trumpian. Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Kathy Hochul of New York welcomed Texas Democrats and pledged retaliatory redistricting. Pritzker mocked Abbott as a lackey who says 'yes, sir' to Trump orders. Hochul dismissed Texas Republicans as 'lawbreaking cowboys.' Newsom's press office directed all-caps social media posts at Trump, mimicking his signature sign off: 'THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.' U.S. Rep. Al Green, another Texas Democrat who could lose his seat, called Trump 'egomaniacal.' Yet many Democrats also claimed moral high ground, comparing their cause to the Civil Rights Movement. State Rep. Ramon Romero Jr., invoked another Texas Democrat, President Lyndon Johnson, who was 'willing to stand up and fight' for civil rights laws in the 1960s. Then, with Texas bravado, Romero reached further into history: 'We're asking for help, maybe just as they did back in the days of the Alamo.' A recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that about 15% of Democrats' own voters described the party using words like 'weak' or 'apathetic.' An additional 10% called it 'ineffective' or 'disorganized.' Beto O'Rourke, a former Texas congressman who is raising money to support Texas Democrats, has encouraged Democratic-run statehouses to redraw districts now rather than wait for GOP states to act. On Friday, California Democrats released a plan that would give the party an additional five U.S. House seats. It would require voter approval in a November election. 'Maximize Democratic Party advantage,' O'Rourke said at a recent rally. 'You may say to yourself, 'Well, those aren't the rules.' There are no refs in this game. F--- the rules. ... Whatever it takes.' Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin acknowledged the shift. 'This is not the Democratic Party of your grandfather, which would bring a pencil to a knife fight,' he said. Andrew O'Neill, an executive at the progressive group Indivisible, contrasted that response with the record-long speeches by U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J. and the Democratic leader of the U.S. House, New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, in eviscerating Trump and his package of tax breaks and spending cuts. The left 'had its hair on fire' cheering those moments, O'Neill recalled, but were 'left even more frustrated in the aftermath.' Trump still secured tax cuts for the wealthy, accelerated deportations and cut safety net programs, just as some of his controversial nominees were confirmed over vocal Democratic opposition. 'Now,' O'Neill said, 'there is some marriage of the rhetoric we've been seeing since Trump's inauguration with some actual action.' O'Neill looked back wistfully to the decision by Senate Democrats not to eliminate the filibuster 'when our side had the trifecta,' so a simple majority could pass major legislation. Democratic President Joe Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, he said, was too timid in prosecuting Trump and top associates over the Capitol riot. In 2016, Democratic President Barack Obama opted against hardball as the Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, refused to consider Obama's nomination of Garland to the Supreme Court. 'These unspoken rules of propriety, especially on the Democratic side, have created the conditions' that enabled Trump, Mitchell said. Even on redistricting, Democrats would have to ignore their previous good-government efforts and bypass independent commissions that draw boundaries in several states, including California. Party leaders and activists rationalize that the broader fights tie together piecemeal skirmishes that may not, by themselves, sway voters. Arguing that Trump diminishes democracy stirs people who already support Democrats, O'Neill said. By contrast, he said, the GOP 'power grab,' can be connected to unpopular policies that affect voters' lives. Green noted that Trump's big package bill cleared the Senate 'by one vote' and the House by a few, demonstrating why redistricting matters. U.S. Rep. Greg Casar of Texas said Democrats must make unseemly, short-term power plays so they can later pass legislation that 'bans gerrymandering nationwide ... bans super PACs (political action committees) and gets rid of that kind of big money and special interest that helped get us to this place.' U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, added that a Democratic majority would wield subpoena power over Trump's administration. In the meantime, said U.S. Rep. Julie Johnson, D-Texas, voters are grasping a stark reality. 'They say, 'Well, I don't know. Politics doesn't affect me,'' she said of constituents she meets. 'I say, 'Honey, it does' If you don't do politics, politics will do you.''
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Committee backs bills to require paper ballots and prohibit ballot drop boxes
CHEYENNE — Legislators voted to sponsor bills addressing the state's use of paper ballots and ballot drop boxes during Friday's Joint Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee meeting. The two bills, which would require paper ballots be the default voting method in each county and would prohibit the use of ballot drop boxes, are in alignment with legislation that Secretary of State Chuck Gray backed earlier this year. During the meeting, Gray repeatedly referred to President Trump's executive order 'Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,' saying these bills are essential to achieving the president's objectives. The bills also align with Gray's 'election integrity' agenda. Wyoming Republican Party Chairman Bryan Miller echoed Gray's concerns. 'National politics have driven a big distrust in the election system, and that distrust is very prevalent in Wyoming at the moment,' Miller said. 'Bottom line, the perception is the reality.' Though Gray and Miller insisted that these bills are essential to election security, opponents of the bills noted that they responded to perception, rather than addressing any documented errors. Wyoming League of Women Voters President Linda Barton told the committee that they should heavily consider the input of the county clerks, and avoid supporting legislation that takes away local control for the sake of national agendas. 'The bills before you today do not meet that standard,' Barton told the committee. 'Instead, they erect barriers; impose costly, unfunded mandates; reduce access, and risk undermining public trust in our elections.' Barton noted that voter access should be considered alongside election integrity. 'We must carefully consider the real-life effects on both election administration and voter access,' Barton said. 'For many Wyoming voters — shift workers, farmers, ranchers, people with health challenges, and those facing immediate harsh weather — barriers to voting are more than theoretical.' The committee was originally set to hear 11 bills Friday morning, but later voted to only work four for the sake of time. The committee also worked on two draft bills, one prohibiting 'ballot harvesting' and one addressing voter registration procedures, which will be revisited during their November meeting. Ballot harvesting refers to the practice of individuals collecting and submitting completed absentee or mail-in ballots on behalf of other voters, rather than the voters submitting their own ballots directly. Paper ballots The committee voted to sponsor the draft bill on pen and paper ballots, which would require counties to use pen and paper as the default method to mark ballots for Wyoming elections, with exceptions for people with disabilities. Laramie County is the only county in the state that doesn't currently provide pen and paper ballots as a default measure. Instead, the county uses an 'express voting' system as its default. Voters insert a card into a machine, select their candidates on a touchscreen and receive a printed ballot with a list of their votes. Gray specifically took issue with the barcodes produced during the process, which encodes the voters' selections. 'Relying on barcodes decreases the trust in our elections, because electors cannot verify that the barcodes on their ballots correspond with the candidates they voted for,' Gray said. 'This bill will increase confidence in our elections, because voters will trust that their ballot was counted accurately when they fill them out with pen and paper.' These electronic voting systems are largely used to increase accessibility for voters who may not be able to fill out a paper ballot without assistance. Gray noted that, further down the line, he would support accessing options that are still accessible, but do not include barcodes. There have been no documented cases of inconsistencies between barcodes and printed votes in Wyoming, Platte County Clerk Malcolm Ervin told the committee. There has been, however, one documented case in 2023, in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, where the voter's selection shown on the machine-generated code differed from the selections that appeared on the human-readable printout, Ervin said. Further investigation showed that the code accurately reflected the voter's choices, but a programming error had caused the text version to be incorrect. The votes were tabulated correctly based on the code. 'That same coding error is not exclusive to the express vote,' Ervin said. 'It could happen on the paper ballot, as well.' These errors have strengthened the argument for testing counting systems prior to an election, as opposed to restricting methods of voting, Ervin said. The other issue with the bill is how difficult it would be for Laramie County to comply with the bill by the 2026 election cycle. Laramie County is the largest county in the state, home to 16% of the voting population. In an email correspondence presented to the committee by Mary Lankford, a lobbyist for the County Clerks Association of Wyoming, Laramie County Clerk Debra Lee wrote that the bill would 'completely upend Laramie County's elections, a recipe for disaster for Wyoming's largest county that could impact elections across the state.' According to Lee, Laramie County would have to completely change its operational plans and would have to acquire additional voting equipment. That equipment would also have to be installed and tested by the vendor prior to undergoing additional required logic and accuracy tests. 'Laramie County does not have the staff, money or time to make such a drastic change in voting operations,' Lee wrote. The committee voted amend the bill's effective date to 'effective immediately' and then voted to sponsor the draft bill, with Rep. Mike Yin, D-Jackson, and co-chair Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander, opposed. Ballot boxes The committee also voted to sponsor a bill that would prohibit the use of drop boxes for the delivery of ballots. Instead, absentee ballots would have to be mailed in or delivered by hand. 'I remain convinced that the use of unstaffed and unattended ballot drop boxes is not secure or the best means for our state,' Gray told the committee, referencing a few instances in which ballot boxes were tampered with, including recent arson cases in Oregon. One of the major concerns with prohibiting the use of ballot boxes is limiting voter access. Many blue-collar workers in Wyoming have jobs that require long hours, Sen. Bill Landen, R-Casper, told the committee. 'My concern all along with this bill was the fact that it was eliminating the ability of a working man or woman to come into town at 7 o'clock at night and drop their ballot off,' Landen said. Gray responded to Landen's concern, saying that the working man was a priority of himself and Trump. 'Working people support these measures,' Gray said. 'There's no question about that.' He offered no supporting evidence to back up that assertion, however. Yin also pointed out that mailing ballots would effectively send them out of the state, as Wyoming no longer has a local U.S. Postal Service distribution center. The nearest distribution center is in Denver, Colorado, or Salt Lake City, Utah. 'It goes out of the state and then it comes back,' Yin said. 'And so how do I know that my ballot is more secured in the postal collection box than a box that's in the county courthouse in my county and will never leave the county?' Gray noted that election-related mail should not leave the state. The committee rejected an amendment to allow voters to deliver their ballots to a drop box in a county or other governmental entity's building; the box would be accessible from the building's exterior. The amendment would have required the drop box to remain under constant video surveillance, and only a county clerk or their designee would have access to the secured receptacle. The committee amended the bill's effective date to 'effective immediately' and then voted to sponsor the draft bill, with Landen, Yin and Case opposed. Solve the daily Crossword
