Riding on momentum of historic Roe v. Wade reversal – Obergefell may fall next!
January 7, 2025
State lawmakers across the country are demanding that the devastation caused by activist Supreme Court Justices be reversed.MassResistance has drafted text for state legislature resolutions that call on the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse its infamous and illegitimate Obergefell ruling. That 2015 decision forced the idea that the U.S. Constitution requires states to allow same-sex “marriage.”
We have been working with state representatives and senators across the country to introduce a resolution in their 2025 sessions. Legislators in six states are now poised to file them (Idaho, North Dakoda, Montana, Michigan, Iowa, Kansas - see list below), and we are in discussions with several more.
Although these are simply “resolutions” by state legislatures, they send an important public message. They can also get positive momentum moving across the country.
Background
The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was passed by a slim 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices.
It has caused immense societal havoc across the country. States have been forced to ignore their legitimate laws and constitutional amendments regarding marriage. Governments, businesses, and even schoolchildren have been forced to accept same-sex “marriage” – and by extension homosexual behavior – as normal, under pain of punishments, fines, and even imprisonment.
The First Amendment guarantees free speech, freedom of assembly, religious liberty, and the right to petition government for redress of grievance. By forcing same-sex “marriage” on the country in this way, Obergefell challenged all those rights.
At the time, MassResistance covered the 2015 ruling very closely and predicted much of what resulted. Here are two of our posts:
(Just before the oral arguments) 4/26/15: Primer: Ten things you need to know about the US Supreme Court “gay marriage” case being heard April 28, 2015
(Just after the ruling was announced): 7/1/15: The US Supreme Court “gay marriage” ruling – how we got to this, and what do we do now?
A new Supreme Court majority of constitutionalists
Unlike in 2015, the current Supreme Court has a majority of constitutionalists rather than ideologues. And they’re willing to revisit past bad rulings. The recent Dobbs decision overturning the similarly illegitimate 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling has generated excitement that Obergefell might also be overturned.
The Obergefell ruling was clearly illegitimate on various levels.
Ruling was based on a fraudulent interpretation of the Constitution
In order to invent a previously unknown constitutional “right” to same-sex marriage, the 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices used a strategy concocted by the LGBT lawyers. They redefined the Fourteenth Amendment to allow them to effectively change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to “two people who love each other.”
You can read the ruling here along with the fierce dissents by Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas.
The Fourteenth Amendment says:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The justices in the majority began by stating that homosexual “sexual orientation” constitutes a class of citizen similar to race, ethnicity, or a religious denomination, - rather than a perverted, addictive behavior that causes documented medical and psychological harm.
They stated that “due process” and the “equal protection” clauses in the 14th Amendment are linked in a way that compels the definition of marriage to be altered to accommodate “gay marriage.”
“Gays” are not allowed to marry the ones they love, but heterosexuals are, the Justices argued. Denying them marriage is unfair and irrational and causes them terrible harm. Gays are “demeaned,” made “second class citizens,” and kept “unequal.” They concluded that the 14th Amendment implies that there is a universal right to marry, and it requires that marriage be re-defined across America to accommodate gays.
The activist Justices compared “gay marriage” to the miscegenation laws that barred interracial marriage. But that actually was an issue of “equal protection” It did not alter the meaning of marriage (i.e., require plural marriages, incestuous marriages, marriages to young children), but only the application to a marriage case where the meaning of the word was commonly agreed upon.
The Justices blatantly applied the popular (extra-constitutional) concept of "substantive due process," under which courts may discover and enforce unenumerated constitutional rights.
This absurd and twisted interpretation of constitutional law is simply blatant judicial activism. Marriage (like abortion) is not mentioned in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has no authority to change its definition to suit a bizarre special interest. A new “right” was invented.
In his opinion on Dobbs, Justice Clarence Thomas stated that the Court's use of “substantive due process” in Roe and other rulings – including Obergefell -- is faulty, and a basis for revisiting those cases. "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote.
Finally, that sodomy could be the basis for consummating a (same-sex) marriage goes against centuries of legal tradition (and millennia of moral tradition). Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1772), condemns sodomy as “a crime against nature” … … “an offence of so dark a nature” … “the very mention of [it] is a disgrace to human nature” … “a crime not fit to be named.” The Massachusetts statute describes sodomy as “the abominable and detestable crime against nature.”
Two of the Justices voting in the majority legally should have recused themselves
Federal law 28 U.S. Code § 455 states:
Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Prior to the Obergefell case, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan officiated at same-sex “weddings.” This qualifies as a clear conflict and unquestionable bias.
Impartial? Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiates at same-sex "wedding" on August 31, 2013. She told the Washington Post, "I think it will be one more statement that people who love each other and want to live together should be able to enjoy the blessings and the strife in the marriage relationship." [Fox News photo]Moreover, Ginsburg told people that the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” reflects “the genius of our Constitution.” She also told Bloomberg Business News that she thinks Americans were ready for gay marriage.
Justice Elena Kagan’s aggressive advocacy for LGBT “rights” went back to her years as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009), and is thoroughly documented in our MassResistance report.
Kagan at Harvard Law School LGBT alumni event in 2003 [Photo: Harvard University Gazette]Ironically, a near-universal (and legitimate) interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process” clause includes the right to impartial court proceedings.
Thus, like the obviously flawed Roe v. Wade ruling (which invented a “right” to abort an unborn baby), the Obergefell ruling must also be reversed.
Here are the states where legislators have committed to introducing the resolution:
- Idaho. Over the last four years, Idaho MassResistance activists have been working with numerous conservative state lawmakers on pro-family bills. One of them, a State Representative, offered to spearhead this effort this year. Here is an early draft of the Idaho resolution.
- North Dakota. In 2023 we worked closely with a group of legislators to assist with the successful passage of legislation to ban “sex change” procedures on minors. This year, one of them has confirmed that he will file this resolution.
- Montana. In 2023, a group of state representatives filed legislation to get rid of obscene books in schools and libraries throughout Montana, and MassResistance assisted with its successful passage. We’ve continued working with them on pro-family legislation. This year one of them has agreed to file this resolution.
- Michigan. For the last two years, since the Democrats took control of the Legislature, we have worked with activists and legislative leaders to stop some of the most horrendous anti-family bills filed in Michigan’s history. During the latest legislative session, MassResistance activists began floating this resolution. One of the younger, more conservative State Reps has announced that he wants to submit this resolution in the 2025 filing period.
- Iowa: A state senator has agreed to file the resolution.
- Kansas: A state senator has agreed to file the resolution.
In each of these states, the MassResistance activists and many others will be leading the public outcry for sanity and an end to this horrendous judicial activism.
Other states that may join:
- We are very close to getting legislators in Mississippi to committing.
- Several legislators in Wyoming are working on this. Here is a current draft of that resolution.
- We are also working closely with people in Alabama, Texas, Florida, Arizona, Arkansas, New Hampshire, and West Virginia. We’re hoping that at least a few of those will join in soon!
Final thoughts
The Left – and of course the LGBT media – is already erupting over these resolutions! That’s actually a good sign. They know this flawed ruling is vulnerable and they are livid that some conservatives are taking an offensive approach.
In our next post we will report on their reaction to the resolution in one state.
Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!
Our successes depend on people like you.
Donate to MassResistance
Your support will make the difference!
