13-03-2025
North Dakota Legislature close to asking US Supreme Court to undo landmark same-sex marriage ruling
Advertisement
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.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'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 Since 2020, California, Colorado, Hawaii, and Nevada have repealed old constitutional amendments that defined marriage as being allowed only between a man and a woman, and Virginia lawmakers advanced a similar measure this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.
Advertisement
Differing views
The North Dakota measure states that the Legislature 'rejects' the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision and urges the US 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.
Advertisement
'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 US 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.
Associated Press writer Geoff Mulvihill contributed from Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
