A Friendly Reminder: The GOP's Renewed Assault on Same-Sex Marriage and the Potential Reversal of LGBTQ+ Rights
With Roe v. Wade Overturned, Could Same-Sex Marriage Be Next?
In a move that has sent shockwaves through the LGBTQ+ community, the Idaho House of Representatives recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 case that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. This request is part of a broader Republican agenda aimed at rolling back LGBTQ+ rights and could have far-reaching implications for same-sex couples across the United States. With the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade, it's very possible that same-sex marriage could be next on the chopping block.
The Republican Party has long opposed same-sex marriage, but recent actions suggest a renewed focus on this issue. By challenging Obergefell v. Hodges, Republicans are signaling their intent to dismantle the legal protections that have allowed same-sex couples to marry and enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case and rules in favor of the Idaho House, it could lead to the reimplementation of state-level bans on same-sex marriage, effectively nullifying the progress made over the past decade.
Idaho's Resolution
In January 2025, the Idaho House of Representatives passed a resolution known as House Joint Memorial 1, which calls on the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the landmark 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. This decision had established the constitutional right to same-sex marriage across the United States under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The resolution, passed by a vote of 46-24, reflects the Idaho Legislature's commitment to restoring the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The resolution argues that the Obergefell decision was an overreach by the federal government and that marriage laws should be determined by individual states and their citizens. It also includes religious references, stating that the decision undermines the vision that "all humans are created in the image of God" and that dignity should not be sought from the state.
The resolution's sponsor, Republican Representative Heather Scott, emphasized that the federal government should not have the authority to create rights, and that such decisions should be left to the states. The resolution now moves to the Idaho Senate for consideration.
This move by the Idaho House is part of a broader effort by some Republican lawmakers to challenge and potentially roll back LGBTQ+ rights, similar to the recent challenges to abortion rights following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. As of now, the Supreme Court has not agreed to hear the case challenging Obergefell v. Hodges. However, the Court has the discretion to consider it in the future if they choose to.
The current U.S. Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. This conservative tilt has been evident in several recent decisions, including the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, which significantly impacted abortion rights across the country. The Court's conservative majority means that future cases involving LGBTQ+ rights, including same-sex marriage, could face a challenging environment if brought before the justices.
Impact on LGBTQ+ Individuals
For many LGBTQ+ individuals, the potential reversal of Obergefell v. Hodges is deeply personal. The right to marry is not just about legal recognition; it encompasses a range of benefits, including tax advantages, property rights, and healthcare decisions. Losing these rights would be a significant setback for the LGBTQ+ community, forcing many to live in fear and uncertainty about their future.
The push to overturn same-sex marriage is part of a broader pattern of Republican efforts to restrict the rights of marginalized groups. In 2022, the Supreme Court's decision to send abortion rights back to the states led to a wave of restrictive laws that have severely limited access to reproductive healthcare. The current challenge to same-sex marriage is a continuation of this trend, reflecting a broader agenda to impose conservative values on all Americans.
Legislative Bill to Watch in South Carolina:
S.B.0322 - This bill, titled the "Free to Speak Act," aims to regulate how public school and higher education employees address students in terms of pronouns and titles. The key provisions of the bill include:
Pronoun and Title Usage: The bill prohibits public school employees from knowingly and intentionally addressing an unemancipated minor who is a student at the school by a pronoun or title that is inconsistent with the student's sex, unless they have written permission from the student's parent or guardian.
Protection for Employees: It protects public school employees from getting in trouble with their higher-ups for declining to address a student using a pronoun that is inconsistent with the student's sex, for declining to identify their pronouns, and for other related reasons.
Policy Requirements: The bill requires the governing body of each school district to adopt policies consistent with these provisions.
Higher Education Institutions: Similar provisions apply to employees of public institutions of higher learning, ensuring they are also protected from getting in trouble with their higher-ups for the same reasons.
Implications for Transgender and Nonbinary Minors in SC
The implications of S.B.0322 for transgender and nonbinary minors are profound and potentially harmful. By restricting the use of pronouns and titles that align with a student's gender identity, the bill could exacerbate feelings of gender dysphoria and contribute to a hostile school environment. Transgender and nonbinary students may feel invalidated and unsupported, leading to increased mental health challenges, including anxiety, depression, and a higher risk of suicide.
Furthermore, the bill's emphasis on parental permission could place transgender and nonbinary students in difficult situations, particularly if their parents are not supportive of their gender identity. This could lead to a lack of access to affirming and supportive environments, which are crucial for the well-being and development of transgender and nonbinary youth.
As of now, South Carolina's S.B.0322, titled the "Free to Speak Act," has been introduced and referred to the Senate Education Committee for further consideration.
Conclusion
As the Supreme Court considers whether to take up the challenge to Obergefell v. Hodges, the LGBTQ+ community and its allies must remain vigilant. The fight for equality is far from over, and it is crucial to continue advocating for the rights of all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The potential rollback of same-sex marriage rights and the introduction of restrictive bills like S.B.0322 are stark reminders of the ongoing struggle for justice and equality in the United States.