The 2015 Supreme Court ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges was historic, legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. This was a monumental win for LGBTQ+ rights advocates, spreading marriage equality as a fundamental constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet, over the last decade, the landscape of such rights has dramatically shifted. Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 with the ruling of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, many fear that other rights given under the Fourteenth Amendment are at risk.
The two cases rest on the idea of life, liberty, and property from the Fourteenth Amendment. This interpretation recognizes rights that, while not explicitly stated, such rights are considered fundamental to individual freedom and dignity. The right to an abortion was deemed to be rooted in this doctrine by Roe v. Wade, while Obergefell v. Hodges ruled that the right to marriage is an essential liberty. Alarms about future rights have been going off since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, with Justice Clarence Thomas calling to reconsider other rulings like same-sex marriage. His statement ignited the fear amongst the LGBTQ+ community that their right would soon be under reexamination.
Despite such threats, several progressive states have acted to ensure marriage equality in their own constitutions. California placed a 2024 ballot measure affirming marriage as a fundamental right for all couples; similarly, Hawai’i and Colorado passed constitutional amendments explicitly protecting same-sex marriage. These proactive steps demonstrate a legal firewall against federal regression.
In the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, state-level efforts to challenge Obergefell v. Hodges have gained momentum. Multiple states have brought resolutions to the Supreme Court urging them to revisit and overturn Obergefell. For instance, in Idaho, the state House passed a non-binding resolution that defines marriage as strictly between one man and one woman, while in Michigan, Representative Josh Schriver proposed legislation to challenge the 2015 case directly. These attempts mirror strategies used by anti-abortion advocates before the overturning of Roe v. Wade
Despite concerns, the post-Dobbs terrain is not entirely hostile. The Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) requires states to recognize same-sex and interracial marriage preformed elsewhere; this offers federal protection even if Obergefell is overturned. The RFMA does not federally guarantee the right to marry, therefore, individual states can still restrict marriage rights.
Despite such threats, several progressive states have acted to ensure marriage equality in their own constitutions. California placed a 2024 ballot measure affirming marriage as a fundamental right for all couples; similarly, Hawai’i and Colorado passed constitutional amendments explicitly protecting same-sex marriage. These proactive steps demonstrate a legal firewall against federal regression.
A buffer may also be provided by public support. According to polling done by Gallup, support from the public for same-sex marriage is nine percent higher than in 2015, though it has gone down two percent since 2023. The greater approval could influence judicial decisions, particularly amongst judges like Chief Justice John Roberts, who has expressed concern regarding the court’s legitimacy and politicization.
The fate of Obergefell is still unknown. The reversal of Roe demonstrated the complications and vulnerabilities of these long-standing precedents rooted in due process. With the election of President Donald Trump, there is a high chance he will appoint a new justice, in which case the chances of maintaining such rights are bleak. Marriage is entangled in the legal and political battle over what rights are constitutional.
