logo
Ten Years After Landmark Supreme Court Ruling, Is Same-Sex Marriage at Risk?

Ten Years After Landmark Supreme Court Ruling, Is Same-Sex Marriage at Risk?

Newsweek7 hours ago

Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
A decade after same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide via a landmark Supreme Court ruling, many LGBTQ+ individuals fear the right may no longer be secure, with some signs that long-growing Republican acceptance of it could be waning.
Obergefell v. Hodges was decided on June 26, 2015, in a 5 to 4 ruling. Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who still sit on the nation's top court, wrote dissenting opinions along with their former colleague, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
While Gallup polling in 2015 showed that just 37 percent of Republicans thought same-sex marriages should be valid, that number rose to a record high of 55 percent in 2022 and 2023, but has since dropped to 41 percent as of May—a double-digit decline. Over the past few months, conservative lawmakers in at least nine states have introduced legislation aimed at undermining same-sex marriage. Some of these bills specifically take aim at the Supreme Court, urging the justices to overturn the Obergefell precedent.
"As an interracial gay couple with an adopted daughter, these developments are deeply unsettling—especially living in a swing state that leans conservative," Nikhil Patil, who resides in Georgia and married his husband in 2020, told Newsweek. "My husband and I have had difficult conversations about contingency plans."
Jeremy Hanson-McIntyre, left, told Newsweek that the legality of his marriage to husband Joe, right, feels "very unstable, precarious and unsafe."
Jeremy Hanson-McIntyre, left, told Newsweek that the legality of his marriage to husband Joe, right, feels "very unstable, precarious and unsafe."
Courtney Klok/Courtesy of Jeremy Hanson-McIntyre
Jeremy Hanson-McIntyre, who resides in Michigan and married his husband Joe in 2024, shared similar sentiments with Newsweek, saying that the legality of his marriage feels "very unstable, precarious and unsafe." He particularly blamed President Donald Trump and the Christian nationalist movement he's aligned with.
"The current sitting president has built his campaign, image and reputation around the hatred and anger from the viewpoint of the Christian nationalists who utilize their hate-filled Bible thumping as a means to silence freedoms and prevent mere humans from simply living their own lives," he said.
Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment.
Is Same-Sex Marriage Under Threat?
On June 10, the Southern Baptist Convention—the nation's largest Protestant denomination—called at its national meet for the "overturning of laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God's design for marriage and family."
Justice Clarence Thomas took aim at Obergefell in a 2022 concurring opinion when the Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade precedent, which had allowed abortion nationwide for nearly 50 years. In his opinion, Thomas said the court should also "correct the error" set by the precedent of Obergefell, as well as Lawrence v. Texas, which established that criminal penalties for sodomy or private sexual acts between consenting adults are unconstitutional.
The opinion raised alarm bells for many LGBTQ+ individuals, especially as Thomas' opinion came with the Supreme Court's overturning of a long-established right to abortion. In response, Congress passed the bipartisan Respect for Marriage Act later that year, which shored up protections for same-sex marriage.
While Obergefell could still technically be overturned, and conservative states could then outlaw issuing same-sex marriage licenses, the bipartisan legislation requires states to recognize all marriages performed in other domestic or foreign jurisdictions. In the House, 39 Republicans voted "Yea," as did 12 GOP senators—meaning a significant majority of the GOP lawmakers voted against the bill in both chambers.
Jim Obergefell, lead plaintiff in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, speaks outside the U.S. Supreme Court on April 28, 2015, in Washington, D.C.
Jim Obergefell, lead plaintiff in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, speaks outside the U.S. Supreme Court on April 28, 2015, in Washington, D.C.
Olivier Douliery/Getty
Jim Obergefell, lead plaintiff in the 2015 case, recently shared his concerns. "Yes, I'm worried about marriage equality," he told USA Today. "If Obergefell is overturned, we go back to a time or a place where a queer couple in Ohio, where I live, might want to get married, but Ohio could refuse to issue a marriage license because Ohio still has a state level Defense of Marriage Act on the books." He added: "Our biggest challenge is making sure we don't lose the progress we have made."
At the local level, conservative lawmakers in Idaho, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas have introduced measures aimed at undermining same-sex marriage in recent months. While none of these have been successfully passed through a state legislature, the effort is notable, particularly as many directly urge the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell.
"It is an important state sovereignty issue and one that should be debated at the state level, not at the U.S. Supreme Court level. The decision has already infringed on citizens' religious freedoms," Idaho state Representative Heather Scott, a Republican who introduced a measure urging the Supreme Court to overturn the precedent, told Newsweek.
Daniel Innis, chairman of the LGBT group Log Cabin Republicans and a GOP state senator in New Hampshire, dismissed the effort playing out in some state legislatures. "That's not how stuff works, particularly the Supreme Court. I find the whole thing quite amusing, honestly," he told Newsweek.
Innis said "there are people who occasionally play to the sort of fringe," adding the problem exists on the "left and the right."
"Over the last decade, the presence of gay and lesbian folks in the Republican Party has become much more visible. It's totally like coming out of the closet a second time, when you're gay and come out as a Republican," he said.
MassResistance, an anti-LGBTQ+ group that promotes socially conservative positions, has been the key driver behind many of the efforts in state legislatures to target same-sex marriage. The organization declined an interview request for this article.
"We are certainly flattered that Newsweek would want to interview us. However, given your personal situation regarding this issue, we can't believe there's any way you could be objective or fair. So we'll pass on this," the organization said. The rejection appeared to refer to the fact that this writer identifies as queer.
Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of the LGBTQ+ advocacy group GLAAD, said that "threats to marriage equality are coming from a small fringe of extremists." She said that these individuals "refuse to accept the reality that they have lost this battle for acceptance and our country is better off for it."
Trump and Same-Sex Marriage
During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump briefly waved a rainbow flag with the words "LGBTs for Trump" during a Colorado rally. Groups like "Gays for Trump" and Log Cabin Republicans rallied behind him in that campaign, and in June 2016, Trump posted to Twitter, now X: "Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you...."
After taking office, he appointed Richard Grenell, who is openly gay and in a same-sex relationship, as his ambassador to Germany. In 2020 Grenell was named by Trump as acting director of national intelligence, making him the first openly gay person to serve in a Cabinet-level position, although he was never confirmed by the Senate.
Ahead of the 2024 Republican National Convention, Trump quietly, and successfully, pushed the RNC to remove its definition of marriage as "between one man and one woman." The updated platform instead promises that the GOP will "promote a Culture that values the Sanctity of Marriage, the blessings of childhood, the foundational role of families, and supports working parents."
In his second term, Trump appointed Scott Bessent, who is in a same-sex marriage, as treasury secretary. Bessent's appointment made him only the second-ever openly gay individual to be Senate-confirmed to a Cabinet role, the first being former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg under former President Joe Biden. It also made him the highest-ranking LGBTQ+ person in U.S. history, as he is currently 5th in line to the president.
Demonstrators stand with a rainbow flag outside the Supreme Court on April 28, 2015, as it hears historic arguments in cases that could make same-sex marriage the law of the land.
Demonstrators stand with a rainbow flag outside the Supreme Court on April 28, 2015, as it hears historic arguments in cases that could make same-sex marriage the law of the land.
Jose Luis/AP
"Trump has done this quietly," Innis said, criticizing the previous Democratic administration for focusing on "identity politics." He said Bessent is a "perfect example."
"This is a competent professional who knows his business, and he's not walking around carrying the gay flag," the Log Cabin chair said.
Despite Trump's actions, post-2024 election polling by the LGBTQ+ advocacy group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) showed 84 percent of the community backed former Vice President Kamala Harris, while just 14 percent supported Trump. Preelection polling by GLAAD showed that only 15 percent of LGBTQ+ respondents preferred Trump over the Democratic ticket.
Trump and the Transgender Community
Some of the LGBTQ+ opposition to Trump may derive partly from his administration's stance on transgender issues. Solidarity is important to many LGBTQ+ individuals, and some see strong parallels between the anti-trans movement and the efforts to prevent same-sex couples from marrying prior to Obergefell.
During his 2024 campaign, the president routinely railed against transgender athletes and raised concerns about "gender ideology" in schools. He even floated the claim that gender transition surgeries were being conducted during the school day.
"No transgender, no operations. You know, they take your kid...there are some places, your boy leaves for school, comes back a girl. OK? Without parental consent," he said last October. The claim lacks evidence, and professional medical organizations recommend that any gender-affirming surgery is performed after an individual turns 18.
On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order targeting the transgender community. The order said the U.S. would "recognize two sexes, male and female," stating that "these sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality." His administration has gone on to target transgender athletes, and transgender individuals applying for new passports have received documents that list their sex assigned at birth, disregarding how they identify today.
Innis said he doesn't see the Trump administration's effort as being "anti-trans." He said it is "a sentiment of protecting girls in sports and, you know, all sorts of other issues."
"I think we've got to be reasonable and say, you have every right to exist. You have every right to pursue what you perceive to be the best solution for you, but that doesn't mean you could trample on the rights of others. And I think that's what the president is trying to get at," he said.
Last December, Charlie Baker, president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), told a Senate panel that there were fewer than 10 transgender athletes—out of more than 500,000 total athletes—competing in the association. It's unclear how many there are nationwide in local high schools and middle schools, but most researchers believe the number to be vanishingly small.
The Future of Same-Sex Marriage
While Gallup's polling has shown a dip in GOP support for same-sex marriage over the past couple of years, Americans overall approve by a large margin. As of May, the polling organization's data showed 68 percent of Americans believe same-sex marriages should be valid, while less than half that number, 29 percent, said they should not be.
"When people see our families and recognize that we share the same values and challenges as any other family, support for our basic rights rises," GLAAD's Ellis said.
Additionally, a growing number of young Americans identify as LGBTQ+. More than one in five, 22 percent, of those aged 18 to 29 say they are part of the community, according to survey results from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). That's more than double the 10 percent of the 30- to 49-year-olds who identify the same way.
But even as demographics change and gay Republicans become more visible, the conservative pushback to the LGBTQ+ community raises concern for many.
Nikhil Patil has had "difficult conversations about contingency plans" with his husband.
Nikhil Patil has had "difficult conversations about contingency plans" with his husband.
Courtesy of Nikhil Patil
"It's a strange dichotomy—we have more gay representation in media and pop culture than ever before, yet we're seeing a surge in anti-LGBTQIA+ sentiment at the political level," Patil said.
Hanson-McIntyre said that the Trump administration has "made active moves against the LGBTQ+ community" and "has fostered an environment and atmosphere...that emboldens those with prejudices, biases and uneducated fears against the LGBTQ+ community."
At the same time, Hanson-McIntyre said he's seen how some within the Republican Party have changed their perspectives. "Those who have become more accepting are out there and do exist. The problem is, it's the irrational far-right agenda which screams the loudest and the ugliest," he said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Court decision guide: States can block Planned Parenthood from getting Medicaid funding, and other cases to watch in 2025
Supreme Court decision guide: States can block Planned Parenthood from getting Medicaid funding, and other cases to watch in 2025

Yahoo

time32 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Supreme Court decision guide: States can block Planned Parenthood from getting Medicaid funding, and other cases to watch in 2025

The Supreme Court is issuing a flurry of consequential decisions this week as the justices wrap up all of their unfinished business before they adjourn for summer break. On Thursday, the high court ruled that states can block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding for all services it provides. That decision comes a week after the court issued an opinion in one of the most highly anticipated decisions, delivering a setback for transgender rights. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices upheld a Tennessee law that restricts gender-affirming care for minors. Advertisement The high court has also issued opinions in other bigger blockbuster cases this term: It upheld a Biden administration rule that regulates ghost guns; it blocked a contract for the nation's first religious charter school in Oklahoma; it allowed a lawsuit from an Ohio woman who alleges she was discriminated against for being straight to proceed; and it blocked Mexico's multibillion-dollar lawsuit from proceeding against U.S. gun manufacturers. The court is expected to wrap up its term on Friday by releasing decisions in all of its remaining undecided cases, including rulings on hot-button issues like President Trump's end to birthright citizenship, transgender rights, LGBTQ books in public schools and age verification for porn sites. Here are some major cases on the SCOTUS docket. Yahoo News will be updating the list below as rulings come in; check back for updates. Defunding Planned Parenthood Case: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic Advertisement Decided: June 26, 2025 Case argued: April 2, 2025 The ruling: Medicaid consists of federal and state funds that help low-income people cover medical costs. Public health funds generally cannot be used for abortions, but this case centered around whether South Carolina or other states could block that money from being used for any of the other services that Planned Parenthood provides — things like contraception, cancer screenings and other reproductive health procedures. In a 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines, the justices found that states can indeed block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds entirely. Planned Parenthood and other health organizations had argued that cutting off these funds would harm poor South Carolina residents who may struggle to find other providers that accept Medicaid, but Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion that any fallout from the funding freeze was 'a policy question for Congress, not courts.' Advertisement What the ruling means: The ruling could prove to be a major blow for Planned Parenthood, which has been a longtime target of conservatives because it provides abortions among the many other health services it offers. Other conservative states may follow South Carolina's lead in barring Planned Parenthood from receiving any public funds, which could make it even more difficult for low-income Americans to access health care. Nationwide injunctions (aka the birthright citizenship case) Case: Trump v. CASA Not yet decided Case argued: May 15, 2025 Advertisement The issue: A federal judge in one district has the power to block a government policy nationwide, not just for the parties involved in the case. This is known as a nationwide or universal injunction. Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship hasn't been enforced because a few federal judges blocked the policy by issuing a nationwide injunction through lawsuits that challenged Trump's order. Trump is asking the Supreme Court to narrow the birthright citizenship injunctions so they apply only to the individual plaintiffs who brought the case. In this case, Trump wants the injunction limited to the people, organizations and potentially the 22 states that legally challenged his executive order. What's at stake: If the Supreme Court sides with Trump and narrows the injunctions so they apply only to the individuals and others who filed lawsuits, there will be different birthright citizenship rules for different people while litigation plays out. If the Supreme Court ultimately decides to limit national injunctions in general, the Trump administration would have a less challenging time implementing future policies going forward. Parents' religious rights vs. LGBTQ books in public schools Case: Mahmoud v. Taylor Not yet decided Case argued: April 22, 2025 Advertisement Read more from Slate: One of the Most Complex Cases of the Supreme Court Term Is Also One of the Most Straightforward The issue: A group of Maryland parents whose children attend a public elementary school want to be able to have notice and an opportunity to opt their children out of lessons with LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks they feel violate their religious beliefs. The justices will decide whether a Maryland public school district unconstitutionally burdened parents' religious rights under the First Amendment when the school abruptly reversed a policy that provided notice and an opt-out option before the lesson without explanation. What's at stake: The justices could issue a broad ruling affecting how public schools manage their curriculums nationwide. If the justices side with the Maryland parents, the case could set a precedent for greater parental control over public school curriculum, particularly when it comes to gender and sexuality. Drawing Louisiana's congressional maps is a balancing act Case: Louisiana v. Callais Not yet decided Case argued: March 24, 2025 Advertisement Read more from USA Today: Supreme Court weighs racial gerrymandering claim, protections for Black voting power The issue: A congressional redistricting map in Louisiana has been ensnared in years of legal battles. Following the 2020 census, the Louisiana state legislature redrew a congressional map of the state's six House districts in response to population shifts. But the state of Louisiana was sued because it only included one majority-Black district, even though the state's entire population is one-third Black. The plaintiffs argued that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans voting practices or procedures from discriminating against a voter based on race or color. A federal district judge ordered that the maps be redrawn. The GOP-led state legislature redrew the maps to include a second majority-Black district. But Louisiana was sued again by a group of self-described non-Black voters who argued the new map violated the Equal Protection Clause. This time, a divided panel of three federal judges sided with the group. That's why Louisiana has asked the Supreme Court to intervene and decide whether the latest version of the state's congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violates the 14th Amendment. Advertisement What's at stake: The Supreme Court ruling could shift the congressional majority-Black districts in Louisiana. But it also has national implications. The balance of political power in the House of Representatives has frequently come down to razor-thin margins. The ruling could ultimately determine the balance of power in the House in future elections. Age verification for porn sites Case: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton Not yet decided Case argued: Jan. 15, 2025 Read more from Mashable: What the Supreme Court hearing about age verification could mean for you The issue: The justices will decide whether a 2023 Texas law that requires age verification for porn websites is constitutional. Users are required to submit some form of identification, like a driver's license or digital ID, in order to access the site. Free speech organizations and the porn industry are challenging the law, arguing that it burdens adults' access to content they are legally allowed to consume and it violates their First Amendment rights. Advertisement What's at stake: Currently, 24 states have passed laws requiring some sort of age verification in order to access porn sites, with the goal of protecting minors under the age of 18 from accessing sexual content on the internet. The ruling by the justices will not just affect Texas, but it will have implications for these other laws as well. Defunding Planned Parenthood Case: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic Not yet decided Case argued: April 2, 2025 The issue: Medicaid consists of federal and state funds that help people with low incomes cover medical costs. Under federal law, Medicaid funds can cover abortion only in cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the pregnant person. At the state level, South Carolina does not allow for Medicaid funds to cover abortions, whereas some states like New York and California do. The state wants to block clinics like Planned Parenthood from being considered a 'qualified Medicaid provider' because the clinics provide abortion services. Advertisement The Supreme Court will weigh whether states can remove providers like Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid program because they offer abortion services, regardless of the fact that the clinics also provide non-abortion-related services like gynecological and obstetrical care and cancer screenings. What's at stake: If the high court rules in favor of South Carolina, health care options will be jeopardized for Medicaid patients in the state, and could embolden other states to remove Planned Parenthood from the program, effectively defunding it.

Supreme Court tees up blockbuster final day of term
Supreme Court tees up blockbuster final day of term

CNN

time33 minutes ago

  • CNN

Supreme Court tees up blockbuster final day of term

The Supreme Court will hand down its final decisions of the term on Friday, including an expected high-profile ruling on whether President Donald Trump may enforce his divisive executive order curtailing birthright citizenship. As is tradition, Chief Justice John Roberts announced the final day from the bench. The schedule sets up a blockbuster last day at the Supreme Court in which the justices will hand down six opinions in some of the biggest cases of the year, including those dealing with Trump's birthright citizenship order, a challenge from religious parents who want to opt their children out of reading LGBTQ books in school and a First Amendment suit over a Texas law that requires people to verify their age before accessing porn online. Every year, the high court tries to finish its work by July, though it is unusual for the justices to bunch so many closely watched cases into the final day. Last year, the court handed down three opinions on the final day – including the decision granting Trump immunity from criminal prosecution. Two years ago, the court issued three opinions, including a ruling shutting down President Joe Biden's student loan relief program. Among the cases still pending: the court will decide whether a school district in suburban Washington, DC, burdened the religious rights of parents by declining to allow them to opt their elementary-school children out of reading LGBTQ books in the classroom. The court will also decide the fate of a government task force that recommends which preventive health care services must be covered at no cost under Obamacare. And it will decide a challenge over Louisiana's congressional districts that questions how far states may go in considering race when they draw maps to fix a violation of the Voting Rights Act. But by far the most significant decision is likely to be the one dealing with Trump's birthright citizenship order. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to limit the scope of so-called nationwide injunctions that lower courts have issued with increasing frequency, slowing down aspects of the president's agenda. During oral arguments, several conservative justices signaled concern with nationwide injunction but also seemed uneasy letting the president temporarily enforce a policy that flaunts the 14th Amendment. The court did recently hand down one of its most important decisions. Last week, the court's conservative majority upheld a Tennessee law that banned gender-affirming care for trans minors. Roughly half of the nation's states have bans similar to Tennessee's.

Joe Rogan says MAGA ‘very divided' over Trump strikes on Iran: ‘They voted for no war'
Joe Rogan says MAGA ‘very divided' over Trump strikes on Iran: ‘They voted for no war'

New York Post

time33 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Joe Rogan says MAGA ‘very divided' over Trump strikes on Iran: ‘They voted for no war'

Joe Rogan painted a picture of a 'very divided' MAGA on his podcast this week, saying that many Trump supporters are outraged over the US strikes on Iran since they voted for an end to 'forever wars.' 'I think the whole MAGA thing right now is very divided, particularly because one of the things they voted for was no war. Well, now it seems like we're in a war,' Rogan said Tuesday during an interview with Bernie Sanders. 'It's quick, six months in and that's already popped off, and then people are very concerned with now – what happens to our troops overseas that are in these bases in very vulnerable positions?' Advertisement 3 Podcast host Joe Rogan said MAGA is 'very divided' over the US strikes on Iran. YouTube/PowerfulJRE Rogan also shared fears that 'documented terror cells' might have snuck in over the border over the last four years, putting citizens at risk after the US led strikes on three key Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran allegedly sent a message to Trump threatening to activate sleep-cell terror inside the US prior to the attacks, NBC News reported over the weekend. Advertisement Rogan praised Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who has long opposed Trump and most recently decried his attacks on Iran as unconstitutional. 'When a guy like Thomas Massie steps up and says something, he's going to have a lot more support as well,' Rogan said. Trump has hit back at Massie on social media and launched a PAC that aims to unseat him – but Rogan questioned whether 'there's a Streisand effect to that.' 3 The New York Post's front page after the US strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. Advertisement 3 President Trump holds up a closed fist after arriving at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on Wednesday. AP 'Don't you think that there's a blowback for that kind of thing? When people recognize that this guy should be allowed to have his own opinions, and [he] makes some reasonable points, and then people are gonna reject this idea,' Rogan said. It's not the first time Rogan has questioned Trump's tactics during his second term – even though he famously hosted Trump on 'The Joe Rogan Experience' before the presidential election last year. That episode racked up 20 million views on YouTube just 20 hours after its release. Advertisement But last week, Rogan took aim at the ICE blitzes led by Trump across Los Angeles. 'If the Trump administration, if they're running and they said, 'We're gonna go to Home Depot and we're gonna arrest all the people at Home Depot. We're gonna go to construction sites and we're going to just tackle people at construction sites,' I don't think anybody would have signed up for that,' Rogan said on his podcast.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store