SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
marriage equality
Cautious Celebration as Supreme Court Allows Marriage Equality to Remain Law of the Land
"We cannot take those protections for granted," said Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who helped to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide a decade ago.
Nov 11, 2025
In one of vanishingly few US Supreme Court rulings protecting equal rights, the majority-conservative court on Monday rejected efforts to overturn the decade-old precedent of marriage equality.
Without issuing a comment, the court denied an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was ordered to pay $360,000 in compensation after she refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple in defiance of the precedent set by the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision.
Amid a flurry of rulings that have rolled back sexual and reproductive freedom in other realms—including for the LGBTQ+ community—the court's refusal to hear Davis' appeal was considered a small but still invigorating victory.
“The bar is in hell,” wrote Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on social media. “But this is a win for decency and compassion.”
The ruling came as a relief to advocates for equal rights, who long feared that marriage equality might soon become the next target as the conservative movement grows increasingly hostile to the LGBTQ+ community.
In 2022, as the court's right-wing majority overturned the right to an abortion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case, the archconservative Justice Clarence Thomas signaled in a concurring opinion that it should be the start of efforts to fully revise the court's recognition of "substantive due process," that is, the recognition of rights not explicitly granted by the US Constitution.
He questioned not just the right of same-sex couples to marry, but the court’s entire recognition of the right to privacy established by the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut ruling, which has been the basis for rulings against bans on homosexual relationships and the right to contraception.
Thomas was one of the four conservative justices who dissented from the majority's ruling in Obergefell. Two others—Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito—also still serve on the court. The other three conservative justices who have been appointed since, all by President Donald Trump during his first term—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—have remained relatively coy on how they’d rule if marriage equality were to come back up, though they have sided with conservatives in cases that pitted religious liberty against discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people.
In 2023, the six conservatives ruled that a Christian web designer was allowed to decline services to same-sex weddings, overturning a Colorado law that banned discrimination against gay people. Notably, the designer who brought the case had not actually been asked to design a website for any gay couple, but the court's right-wing majority accepted her case regardless.
This apparent zealousness to intervene in favor of discrimination appeared to be a red flag, but as Harvard University law professor Noah Feldman wrote for Bloomberg, Monday's ruling "is best read as a signal that the conservative majority has little interest in revisiting gay marriage," even as "the conservative constitutional revolution at the Supreme Court remains underway."
He notes that just four justices are required for a case to be heard by the court. And while it has aggressively rolled back the rights of transgender people, ended affirmative action, and recognized unprecedented executive authority for President Donald Trump, when it comes to same-sex marriage, "their silence is noteworthy."
Public support for marriage equality has grown considerably in the decade since Obergefell. In July 2015, a month after the court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, 58% of Americans said in a Gallup poll that they agreed that same- sex couples should have the same rights as opposite-sex pairs. That number ballooned to a high of 71% in 2023, and even as attacks on LGBTQ+ people have ratcheted up intensely within the conservative movement, support for marriage equality remains stubbornly steady—68% of Americans still say gay marriages should be valid.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who represented two of the plaintiffs in the 2015 case, said that while she welcomes the court's decision Monday not to erode the hard-won rights of gay people further, advocates should not become complacent.
"I am relieved for today’s decision reaffirming same-sex couples’ continued right to dignity and protection under the law, but we cannot take those protections for granted," Nessel said in a news release. “Members of this Supreme Court have already told us they are willing to overturn Obergefell. It’s only a matter of time before they do.”
Her state of Michigan is one of more than two dozen in which same-sex marriage would become illegal or face restrictions if Obergefell is overturned. She said that Monday's decision "allows us a reprieve, an opportunity to bring our state Constitution into alignment with the protections our residents are entitled to and have enjoyed for more than a decade. Now is the time to act."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Love Wins': Thailand Set to Be First Southeast Asian Nation to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage
"While there is no doubt that the legalization of marriage for LGBTI couples is a key milestone for Thailand, much more must be done to guarantee full protection," said one campaigner.
Jun 18, 2024
LGBTQ+ advocates around the world on Tuesday cheered the Thai Senate's passage of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, a move that—if approved by the country's king as expected—would make Thailand the first country in Southeast Asia to do so.
The Bangkok Post reported Thai senators voted 130-4, with 18 abstentions, in favor of a bill to legalize same-sex marriages in the country of 72 million people. The Thai House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the legislation in March. The legislation would become law if it passes further review by the Senate and the Constitutional Court and is approved by King Rama X. Royal assent is a formality that will almost certainly be granted.
"The bill represents a monumental step forward for LGBTQ+ rights in Thailand," Panyaphon Phiphatkhunarnon, founder of the advocacy group Love Foundation, told CNN.
Plaifa Kyoka Shodladd, an 18-year-old activist, told The New York Times that "after 20 years of trying to legalize this matter, finally, love wins."
In Asia, only Nepal and Taiwan have achieved same-sex marriage equality. Thailand would become the 39th nation to legalize same-sex marriage worldwide.
Legalization "would underscore Thailand's leadership in the region in promoting human rights and gender equality," said the Thai Civil Society Commission of Marriage Equality, Activists, and LGBTI+ Couples.
Amnesty International Thailand researcher Chanatip Tatiyakaroonwong said in a
statement: "Thailand has taken a historic step towards becoming the first country in Southeast Asia to legalize marriage for LGBTI couples. This landmark moment is a reward for the tireless work of activists, civil society organizations, and lawmakers who have fought for this victory."
"While there is no doubt that the legalization of marriage for LGBTI couples is a key milestone for Thailand, much more must be done to guarantee full protection of LGBTI people in the country," Chanatip continued. "LGBTI people in Thailand continue to face many forms of violence and discrimination, including but not limited to technology-facilitated gender-based violence, which often targets human rights defenders."
"Thai authorities must build on the momentum and take further steps that protect the rights and ensure the participation of LGBTI people and organizations," Chanatip added.
Thailand's imminent legalization of same-sex marriage equality stands in contrast with the hundreds of pieces of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation proposed or passed mostly in Republican-controlled state legislatures in the United States.
Advocates are also worried about the future of LGBTQ+ rights at the national level, as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas suggested in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization—the ruling that erased half a century of federal abortion rights—that the high court could reconsider cases including Obergefell v. Hodges, which in 2015 legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alito Renews Threat to Overturn Marriage Equality
"Overturning Obergefell is on their bucket list," said one journalist.
Feb 21, 2024
Trial attorneys in the U.S. frequently stop potential jurors from serving on cases based on their stated biases, but U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito indicated on Tuesday that he was disturbed by a case out of Missouri in which three people were eliminated from a jury after expressing homophobic views—and suggested the high court should reconsider marriage equality to prevent such outcomes.
The Supreme Court declined to take up Missouri Department of Corrections v. Jean Finney, with none of the justices dissenting. But Alito appeared reluctant in his agreement with the other eight justices and released a five-page statement saying the case "exemplifies the danger that I anticipated in Obergefell v. Hodges," the 2015 case in which the court ruled 5-4 that same-sex couples in the U.S. had the same right to marry as heterosexual couples.
The case out of Missouri on Tuesday centered on Jean Finney, who said she faced discrimination at the state Department of Corrections (DOC) after she began a relationship with another woman.
During her court case, Finney's lawyer questioned potential jurors about their views on same-sex couples to ensure they didn't harbor a bias against the plaintiff.
The lawyer asked the potential jurors, "How many of you went to a religious organization growing up where it was taught that people that are homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else because it was a sin with what they did?"
Three people were eliminated from consideration after stating they believed homosexuality to be a sin.
The jury ultimately sided with Finney in her case, and the state DOC asked for a re-trial, claiming the potential jurors' 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law had been violated.
After the state Supreme Court declined to take up the case, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review it.
The case, said Alito in his statement, showed that "Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be 'labeled as bigots and treated as such' by the government."
The Obergefell ruling "made it clear that the decision should not be used" to discriminate against people for their religious views, wrote Alito, "but I am afraid that this admonition is not being heeded by our society."
Alito's comments come less than two years after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, also a member of the court's right-wing majority, signaled that the court should reconsider a number of rulings, including Obergefell and a case that guaranteed the right to contraception, following its overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Both Alito and Thomas dissented in Obergefell, arguing the ruling had no basis in the U.S. Constitution. In defense of a Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in 2020, the two justices said the decision must be overturned to protect Americans from Obergefell's "cavalier treatment of religion."
"Overturning Obergefell is on their bucket list," said journalist Annika Brockschmidt of the right-wing justices.
At Slate, journalist Mark Joseph Stern noted on Tuesday that Alito's "sudden concern with the striking of a juror due to bias is especially jarring in light of his persistent cold shoulder toward those who faced openly racist juries."
In 2022, the court's right-wing majority rejected an appeal from Kristopher Love, a Black man who was sentenced to death by a jury that included at least one member who believed people of some races "tend to be more violent than others."
"In theory, the equal protection clause bars racism in jury selection," wrote Stern. "In practice, this Supreme Court regularly declines to enforce this guarantee—most often, when a Black defendant faces the death penalty—with Alito's assent."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular