Gay Marriage Harms Kids. It’s Time To End It (And Here’s How)
For the sake of the least of these, we must either restore the heavens or answer for the hell we’ve unleashed on children.For the sake of the least of these, we must either restore the heavens or answer for the hell we’ve unleashed on children.Trans is the natural progression from ‘gay marriage’
The LGBT political coalition is beginning to fray. Andrew Sullivan is hardly alone among LGB advocates in believing the demands of the T’s are pushing the movement too far.
While I appreciate their contributions to resisting trans tyranny, I must part company with the LGBs on one important point. I don’t believe we can roll back the trans tide without at least revisiting and probably reversing the “gay gains” in general and “gay marriage” in particular.
The successful ‘gay marriage’ movement directly contributed to the falsification of public documents, the ‘born that way’ myth, and the battering of parental rights.
Key ideas in the campaign to redefine marriage laid the groundwork for key ideas in trans activism. I was active in the marriage debate from the 2008 battle over Proposition 8 in California all the way to the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage in Obergefell in 2015. I remember the cavalier manner in which our arguments were dismissed at that time. Let’s revisit a few of them.
Government as arbiter of biological truth
We can start with the rewriting of public documents for ideological purposes. Trans activists claim the right to falsify their birth certificates. Many people across the political spectrum can see problems with allowing them to do so. Yet some of those same people who once promoted “gay marriage” but currently criticize transgenderism (like Andrew Sullivan) seem to forget that removing the gender requirement from marriage introduced and normalized this very process.
Some states changed marriage licenses and birth certificates. No more husband and wife, just “partner.” No more “mother” and “father,” just gender-neutral “parents.” In the state of California, “gay marriage” led to the law permitting three people to be listed on a birth certificate as legal parents.
In other words, California (and 11 other states) redefined parenthood by stealth. Before “gay marriage,” the government document known as a “birth certificate” simply recorded the biological reality of the man and the woman who contributed their genetic material to the procreation of the child. After “gay marriage,” “parenthood” becomes the creation of the state, delinked from any necessary connection between the child’s body and the bodies of the parents.
I can testify that throughout the debate over redefining marriage, few people seemed to care about this redefinition of terms.
‘Born that way’ as founding myth
The gay lobby and the campaign for gay marriage also paved the way for transgenderism by promoting the “born that way” myth. Trans rights activists claim, in all seriousness, that some people are “born in the wrong body.” Many people are rightly skeptical, realizing that this concept has literally zero foundation in any actual biological science.
However, some of these skeptics accept at face value the idea that certain people are “born gay.” The gay lobby has aggressively promoted this claim, in spite of the fact that extensive efforts to prove it have failed. In 2019, a massive study of the human genome concluded decisively that there is no “gay gene.” There is a modest genetic contribution to “gayness” (an inexact term, but that’s another whole story), comparable to the genetic component of other complex behavioral patterns.
Even prior to 2019, studies of identical twins should have ended the “born gay” idea. Identical twins, by definition, share identical genes and an identical prenatal uterine environment. By any understanding of “born gay,” the concordance rate of sexual orientation should be 100%. That is, if one identical twin is “gay,” the other should also be gay, 100% of the time. The actual number is closer to 30%.
When the T’s demand that we rewrite the foundational social institutions of civilization, based on some supposed accident of nature that they have no control over, they are following the path pioneered by the L’s and the G’s.
State ideology as wedge between parents and children
Finally, and most alarming, enacting the trans agenda has put the state at war with the natural right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. Trump’s executive order ending federal support for the trans agenda included a long laundry list of things the U.S. Department of Education would henceforth cease doing. Nonetheless, many public schools continue to teach pro-trans propaganda to impressionable children.
Some states have redefined child abuse to include parents who refuse to sufficiently “affirm” their child’s (mis)understanding of their gender. Some states offer themselves as “sanctuary states” for children in other states whose parents fail to affirm them. Parents in Maryland had to fight, all the way to the Supreme Court, not to direct the education of their children, but simply to protect them from the egregious harm of state-sponsored indoctrination.
I‘d like to remind my former opponents in the Prop 8 debate of a prediction we made at the time: that enshrining “gay marriage” in law would lead to exposing children to pro-gay propaganda in the schools.
“No, no!” you said.
We brought up the case of David Parker in Boston, who was arrested for being too aggressive in his objections to the school reading to his son "Heather Has Two Mommies" in kindergarten. That was in 2005!
You dismissed our concerns. Nearly 20 years later, Scott Smith was arrested for disrupting a Loudoun County school board meeting. Smith’s daughter was assaulted in the girls’ restroom by a boy who said he was a girl.
Could you, just for a moment, admit that advocates of natural marriage had a point?
RELATED: ‘Children as assets’: Gay couple’s viral IVF video reveals just how far Obergefell has gone
Facing facts
The successful “gay marriage” movement directly contributed to the falsification of public documents, the “born that way” myth, and the battering of parental rights.
As I said at the outset, I respect and appreciate the contributions of self-described gays and lesbians to resisting the pro-trans agenda. But I really urge you to rethink your earlier commitment to the pro-gay agenda. It was not the harmless “advance of freedom” we’ve all been led to believe. Sooner or later, we are all going to have to face this fact. We need to stop falsifying birth certificates, walk back the “born gay” myth, and restore parental rights. It would be great if y’all could help us out with that.
‘Children as assets’: Gay couple’s viral IVF video reveals just how far Obergefell has gone
A video has gone viral of a gay man explaining how he and his partner are choosing two embryos via in vitro fertilization that they will be transferring to two surrogates.
“We’re so happy that we decided to purchase as many frozen eggs as we could, 40, because that leaves us with these 10 embryos for two babies. And we’re told that the majority of journeys take two to three transfers to get pregnant,” the man explained.
“We’ve decided which embryo on both sides that we want to transfer to our two surrogates. We’ll keep you updated as we do the transfers and as we find out whether or not we’re pregnant,” he continued.
“But we’re not going to share the sex of both babies until we’re officially pregnant, just like any other expecting parents would,” he added.
BlazeTV host Steve Deace does not like what he’s hearing.
“So, that’s a homosexual man talking in depth, in detail, about essentially trying to manufacture a human life on an open market with him and his gay lover. And this video went everywhere. It was viral everywhere on social media over the weekend,” he explains.
Deace cites Katy Faust — founder and president of Them Before Us, a global children’s rights nonprofit that focuses on a child’s right to a mother and a father — who blames the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court case for same-sex couples manufacturing human life.
The Obergefell v. Hodges’ Supreme Court case decided that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples.
“Her argument really is that Obergefell is the genesis of all these kinds of videos ... and Katy points out, the central core of her premise, the best that I can understand it, is that since Obergefell, the paradigm of child-rearing and procreation has completely flipped,” Deace says.
“And in the past, what happened for thousands of years essentially of human existence is that children and their priorities were put ahead of the adults,” he continues. “And now what we have is that the children are assets to be acquired.”
Want more from Steve Deace?
To enjoy more of Steve's take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Yes, SCOTUS should end gay marriage — but it’s WAY bigger than who stands at the altar
On July 24, former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis formally petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalizes same-sex marriage, marking the first significant challenge to the ruling since its inception. Davis, who was jailed in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples due to her religious beliefs, is appealing a $360,000 judgment against her for emotional damages and attorney fees, arguing that her First Amendment rights protect her from liability and that Obergefell was wrongly decided.
“Just like abortion, the left tries to tell us that [same-sex marriage] is untouchable, that this cannot be overturned. I'm not so sure that they're correct about that,” says Liz Wheeler, BlazeTV host of “The Liz Wheeler Show.”
She reads a line from Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurrent opinion published following the overturning of Roe v. Wade: “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”
“‘Substantive due process,’” says Liz, “is this legal philosophy held by leftist jurists that reads rights into the Constitution where they are not enumerated.”
“It's just a way of judicial activists – ideologues who are on the bench – to invent meaning to the Constitution where the Constitution had no such meaning.”
Like abortion, which is “guaranteed nowhere to anyone in the Constitution,” same-sex marriage is yet another example of substantive due process.
“Even if you're pro-gay marriage, even if you are libertarian and you don't think we should be telling other people what to do, if you read the Constitution of the United States, start to finish ... is gay marriage ever referred to?” asks Liz. “No, it's never referred to.”
“You cannot contest the reality that the Constitution of the United States contains no such reference to gay marriage directly or indirectly.”
“Even if you think that the legislature of the United States should make gay marriage legal, which you're obviously wrong on that for multiple different reasons, that's different than the Supreme Court pretending there is a Constitutional right to gay marriage in the Constitution when there's not,” Liz explains.
If SCOTUS agrees to take Davis’ case, there’s a chance — albeit a “low” one, says Liz — that the Court might re-evaluate Obergefell and reverse its original decision.
“It's probably not going to be heard by the Supreme Court,” she says, but “it should be because Kim Davis had her religious freedom ... violated by the government, and she's one of the only Americans right now that has standing to challenge Obergefell because she was hurt by it.”
However, even if Obergefell is overturned, it’s unlikely to change much in terms of who can legally get married, Liz explains. “The United States Congress has passed a piece of legislation codifying gay marriage to a certain extent. It requires any state that doesn't allow same-sex marriage to recognize ... any valid marriage from any other state. So it kind of effectively nationally forces gay marriage in all the states,” she says.
And yet, she hopes Obergefell is reversed anyway because what it will really be reversing is the idea that the government has the right to redefine a word.
“Marriage means the union between one man and one woman, and they said, ‘No, no, we're going to redefine that. It now means the union between any two consenting adults regardless of their sex.’ When government has the power to redefine a word, they can redefine any word,” says Liz. “And if they can redefine words, if they are the arbiters of truth, then they're tyrants.”
To hear more of her commentary, watch the episode above.
Want more from Liz Wheeler?
To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Petitioner Asks SCOTUS To Overturn Its Ill-Fated Obergefell Decision
A Christian petitioner has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider a case that could potentially overturn its disastrous 2015 ruling on so-called “gay marriage.” Throughout the past few days, numerous outlets have published articles on a petition recently filed with the high court by former Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis. According to Liberty […]The pipeline from 'gay marriage' to radical trans ideology
This is part of an ongoing series on the relationship between the campaign for redefining marriage and trans activism.
"The greater acceptance of trans people is a huge step forward for all of us," writes prominent gay marriage advocate Andrew Sullivan in a recent New York Times opinion piece. "But abolishing the sex binary for the entire society? That’s a whole other thing entirely. And madness, I believe."
So no, Mr. Sullivan: Despite your rosy-colored memories of an earlier, more civil era of gay activism, you have no right to be surprised by the excesses of the trans rights lobby.
Sullivan is hardly alone among fellow LGBT activists in thinking that the movement with which he once identified has gone too far.
But the trans radicals are not so different from the “mainstream” that now disavows them. In fact, these trans radicals use tactics pioneered and perfected during the fight to redefine marriage.
Imposed tolerance
As one who defended (and continue to defend) marriage between a man and a woman as good public policy, I can only say this: We tried to tell you.
Mr. Sullivan's 1996 book "Virtually Normal" presented gay marriage as a modest demand for "formal public equality" before the law, while rejecting the "political imposition of tolerance" and "the regulation of people's minds and actions."
Ten years after Obergefell finally made this "equality" the law of the land, Sullivan is scandalized to find that the newly ascendent trans wing has no intentions of stopping there:
Dissenters from gender ideology are routinely unfriended, shunned, and shamed. Almost all of the gay men, trans people, and lesbians who have confided in me that … they think that J.K. Rowling or Martina Navratilova have some good points, have said so sotto voce lest anyone overhear. That’s the extremely intolerant and illiberal atmosphere that now exists in the gay, lesbian, and transgender space. This little community used to champion all manner of expression or argument or speech, eccentrics and visionaries. Now it’s fearful, self-censored, and extremely uptight.
Sullivan may be surprised that people in the “LGBT space” suppress dissent within their own ranks, but I'm not.
A history of harassment
Remember Brendan Eich, who donated $1,000 to the pro-marriage Proposition 8 campaign in 2008? Gay activists did not have a rational conversation with him. They harassed him so much that he had to resign from the company that he founded.
“Marriage equality” activists published interactive maps showing names and addresses of Prop 8 donors so they could be systematically doxxed. Anti-Prop 8 protesters surrounded the Mormon temple in Los Angeles and beat people to the ground. In the years since Prop 8, many people have become fearful for their jobs if they say anything that could be construed as “hateful.”
Welcome to our world, Mr. Sullivan. Some of us have felt “fearful, self-censored, and extremely uptight” for some time.
Free speech foes
We share Sullivan's alarm at ACLU lawyer and trans activist Chase Strangio's reaction to a book criticizing childhood transition: “Stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.”
But he loses us when he goes on to portray the gay rights movement as First Amendment champions. "If censorship was in the air, gay men and lesbians were the first to oppose it.”
That’s not how I remember it, Mr. Sullivan. Didn’t you know that gay activists pressured Amazon to remove books by authors like ex-gays Joe Dallas and therapist Joseph Nicolosi?
Maybe you forgot the time when the Log Cabin Republicans insisted that the pro-family group Mass Resistance be banned from a Conservative Political Action Conference meeting in 2018 because of its book “The Health Hazards of Homosexuality"?
I haven't forgotten. I wrote an article about the book and the controversy it sparked when it first came out in 2017. Amid the ubiquitous outcry, not one critic bothered to offer evidence countering even a single claim in the 600-page, meticulously footnoted book.
In 2020, gay activists succeeded in getting the book banned from Amazon, where it remains unavailable.
And so it is that much harder for people with same-sex attraction to access a resource providing accurate, albeit unpleasant, information about the medical and psychological risks associated with acting on those attractions. Is removing this book from the biggest book distributor in the world really a way of “treasuring” free speech?
RELATED: Gay marriage has a hidden cost — and children are paying the price
Live and let live?
Mr. Sullivan writes, “The gay rights movement, especially in the marriage years, had long asked for simple liberal equality and mutual respect — live and let live . ...We will leave you alone."
Baker Jack Phillips would dispute the “live and let live” claim. He did not challenge the legal right of same-sex couples to wed; he just didn't want to bake a cake celebrating that union. So in 2012, activists dragged him to court.
When the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, another activist dragged him back into court for not baking a cake to celebrate his "transition." Phillips' nightmare didn’t come to an end until 2024.
A new version of 'homophobic'
Despite his misgivings about the radical trans agenda, in his article, Mr. Sullivan uses the word "transphobic" without a hint of irony. It is a word meant to cast any disagreement with trans ideology as "hate."
It is the direct successor to the word "homophobic," which similarly attempted to discredit our objections to gay marriage. We learned that “hate” was the only possible reason anyone would disagree with such obviously correct views.
I should know. I ended up on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate list for my unacceptable, intolerant views that prioritize children’s rights to their parents over adults’ rights to feel good about themselves.
And who invented the term “heteronormative,” the (supposedly erroneous) belief that heterosexuality is normal? (News flash: Heterosexuality is normal, in all mammal species.) Perhaps the same person who later came up with “gender affirming care” as a euphemism for drugs and surgeries performed on perfectly healthy, though confused, young people.
So no, Mr. Sullivan: Despite your rosy-colored memories of an earlier, more civil era of gay activism, you have no right to be surprised by the excesses of the trans rights lobby.
I implore you to rethink your presumptions. Your tactics laid the groundwork for the trans movement. If you are sincerely appalled by their tactics (and I hope you are), I would appreciate an apology. I bet Brendan Eich, Jack Phillips, and the Mormon Church would, too.
But I’m just getting started. My next column will describe how “gay-friendly” policies set the stage for “trans-friendly” policies.
Gay marriage has a hidden cost — and children are paying the price
Ten years ago, a great injustice was done to children.
In Obergefell vs. Hodges, the Supreme Court equated two things that for children will never be equal: Same-sex and opposite-sex marriages. One pairing unites children with two people to whom they have a natural right. The other separates children from one — or both.
Gay marriage hasn’t led to greater love for LGBTQ adults but rather harm to children.
As many of us predicted, gay marriage eroded children’s right to their mother and father. It turns out, when you make husbands and wives legally optional in marriage, mothers and fathers become legally optional in parenthood.
Family redefined, kids sidelined
Since 2015, activists have been arguing state by state that equality requires making parenthood gender-neutral and elevating “social parents” (unrelated adults in the home who have not undergone background checks). Fathers have been legally erased from birth certificates to accommodate “two moms” and vice versa. Activists have insisted on requiring insurance or the government to fund the creation of fatherless and motherless children. Biology and adoption are bypassed in favor of “intent-based” parenthood. Giving same-sex couples equal access to the marital “constellation of benefits” denied children equal access to their own mother and father.
Politicians have followed suit.
RELATED: Rainbow rebellion: How Christians can take back what Pride Month stole
When was the last time you heard a lawmaker say that children need a mom and dad? Odds are, it's been about 10 years. In 2013-14, the phrase “every child deserves a mother and father” appeared in over 30 congressional speeches. By 2023-24, it surfaced fewer than five times.
The message is clear: Redefining marriage redefined the family. Dissent is now discrimination.
Culture followed the court
But it isn't just law and politics. The Supreme Court's decision had a massive impact on culture, especially on kids.
The education establishment went all in on the Court-appointed family makeover. Before 2015, the National Education Association still referred to “mothers” and “fathers” in lesson plans and holiday activities. But after the ruling, it began purging traditional language.
Its 2020 “Checklist to Support LGBTQ Students” advised teachers to replace “mom and dad” with “family” or “caring adult.” GLSEN’s 2016 re-release of Ready, Set, Respect! toolkit conditioned kindergartners and first- and second-graders to believe that a mom and dad, two moms, two dads, or no mom or dad, all are perfectly normal.
What the Court de-gendered in law, teachers now de-gender in the classroom.
Publishers followed the court’s lead — and the money.
In 2021, Americans bought nearly five million LGBTQ-themed fiction books. By 2023, that figure had topped six million, a 173% increase since 2019. Many aimed to normalize motherless and fatherless families to children such as "Heather Has Two Mommies" and "My Two Dads and Me."
We lied to children, using school curriculum and sweet librarians, about the one thing every child longs for instinctually — to be loved by their mother and father.
The culture shift and the legal restructuring contributed to a booming fertility market. Surrogate pregnancies more than doubled from 2.2% in 2011 to 4.7% in 2020. Fertility clinics often direct gay couples to surrogacy grants in the name of “equitable access to parenthood.”
These children did not lose their mothers to tragedy. They lost their mothers to adult “equality.”
Enough is enough
Many good-hearted Americans, even conservatives, supported gay marriage because they felt it was a way to love their LGBTQ neighbors. Some stammered for a response to the question: “How will my gay marriage harm anyone else?!” Others were bullied into silence by accusations that they were “on the wrong side of history.”
After 10 years, we have seen the results. Gay marriage hasn’t led to greater love for LGBTQ adults but rather harm to children.
The truth is, their “marriage” redefined all families, and children across the nation are paying the price. That so-called “right side of history” has turned out to be the side of child victimization.
RELATED: Is same-sex marriage about to get the Dobbs treatment?
About 50 years ago, the Supreme Court made a devastating decision that victimized children. It denied the biological reality that children in the womb are fully human and worthy of life. It took nearly 50 years to overturn the child-victimizing Roe v. Wade.
Ten years ago, the Supreme Court made another devastating decision that victimized children. It denied the biological reality that children come from a man and woman and have a right to that man and woman. It redefined the institution that every society throughout history has employed to unite children to that man and woman.
We can't wait another 50 years to undo this injustice.
A coalition of child defenders is rising — Christians, conservatives, parents, pro-family leaders, ordinary moms and dads, and the children of LGBT parents themselves. We are committed to reclaiming the institution of marriage on behalf of the most vulnerable in the country: children.
10 Years After Obergefell, It’s Even More Obvious It Should Be Overturned
Obergefell embarked us on yet another vast, untested experiment with marriage — and it is not going well.The 10 Years Since Obergefell Have Proven Its Critics Right
Opposing same-sex marriage is essential to defending the truth about human nature and about how we flourish and are fulfilled.Is same-sex marriage about to get the Dobbs treatment?
Could Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage, face Roe v. Wade's fate?
Last month, Idaho lawmakers overwhelmingly passed House Joint Memorial 1, which declares that the Idaho legislature rejects the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell and formally asks the Supreme Court to "restore the natural definition of marriage, a union of one man and one woman."
The memorial accuses the Supreme Court of adopting a definition of "liberty" that the framers of the Constitution "would not have recognized." Whereas the framers declared in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," the memorial accuses the Supreme Court of declaring in Obergefell that "citizens must seek dignity from the state." The memorial, moreover, accuses the Supreme Court of treating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment "as a font of substantive rights," therefore "exalt[ing] judges at the expense of the people from whom they derive their authority."
Ultimately, the memorial demands the issue of marriage be returned to the "several states and the people."
What is most interesting about the memorial is that it was crafted to mirror the language of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
The question seems not to be if the Supreme Court will hear a direct challenge to Obergefell — but when.
Case in point: In his forceful Obergefell dissent, Thomas condemned the "dangerous fiction of treating the Due Process Clause as a font of substantive rights" while warning that when strayed from the Constitution, "substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."
Thomas resurrected his argument seven years later when he wrote a concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the landmark Supreme Court case that overturned Roe.
In light of the Dobbs ruling that abortion is not a form of "liberty" protected by substantive due process rights because it is neither "deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition" nor "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Thomas argued that "all of this Court's substantive due process precedents" must be reconsidered, specifically highlighting Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell.
"Substantive due process ... has harmed our country in many ways," Thomas argued. "Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity."
That opportunity may come sooner than later.
While the Idaho memorial does not carry the force and effect of law, according to the Idaho Capitol Sun, it is a shot across the bow that signals a growing willingness to challenge Obergefell and the jurisprudence on which it stands.
The Supreme Court, however, will not revisit the legal question of same-sex marriage until it receives a direct challenge to the Obergefell precedent.
But it is not hard to imagine such a challenge emerging in the near future.
While the Obergefell decision legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states, more than 30 states still have state constitutional amendments or statutes banning same-sex marriage. Democrats, concerned about a potential Obergefell reversal, warn that more than 200 million Americans live in states where same-sex marriage would become illegal if Obergefell falls.
Not only is there a legitimate argument that marriage is an issue of state's rights, but Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito have written on the consequences of the Obergefell decision for Christians.
After the Supreme Court chose not to hear a case involving Kim Davis — the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses because of her Christian faith — Thomas and Alito described Davis as "one of the first victims of this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision" and warned that "she will not be the last."
"Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other anti-discrimination laws," the duo wrote in 2020.
"It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law," they explained. "But it is quite another when the Court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch."
In their eyes, the Supreme Court chose to "privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment" in Obergefell through "undemocratic" means.
The only remedy, according to Thomas and Alito, is future intervention from the Supreme Court.
Still, there are significant differences between abortion and same-sex marriage that would make overturning Obergefell insurmountable.
For example, support for same-sex marriage remains statistically high: About 70% of Americans support it, according to Gallup. Abortion never enjoyed such widespread support. Even more important is that reversing Obergefell would raise the complex legal question of what to do with existing same-sex marriages. Would they be invalidated? Grandfathered in?
Only the Supreme Court's nine justices can answer that question. But if Dobbs proved anything, it's that the Supreme Court is willing to overturn long-standing precedents to correct legal transgressions.
With growing cultural and political backlash against woke ideology, the question seems not to be if the Supreme Court will hear a direct challenge to Obergefell — but when.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com