Conservative legislators are speaking more and more against the emblematic 2015 decision of the Supreme Court on matrimonial equality between people of the same sex.
Idaho legislators began the trend in January when the Chamber and the Senate of the State approved a resolution that asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision, which the court cannot do unless a case is presented on the subject. Some Republican legislators in at least four other states such as Michigan, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota have followed their example with calls to the Supreme Court.
In North Dakota, the resolution approved the State Chamber with a 52-40 vote and is directed to the Senate. In Dakota del Sur, the Judicial Committee of the State Chamber sent the proposal to the 41st Legislative Day, avoiding the bill on the last day of a legislative session, when it will no longer be considered, and effectively killing the bill.
In Montana and Michigan, bills have not yet faced legislative scrutiny.
Resolutions have no legal authority and are not binding laws, but allow legislative bodies to express their collective opinions.
Resolutions in four other states echo similar feelings about the merits of Obergefell v. Hodges of the Court, which established the right to same -sex marriage under the clause of equal protection and the due process of the 14th amendment.
Representative Josh Schriver on the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives, in the Capitol of Michigan, in Lansing, Mich., On October 10, 2023.
David Guralnick/Detroit News through AP
Some legislators behind the resolutions argue that the legality of homosexual marriage should be left to the states to decide, while others argue that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman.
The defenders and allies of LGBTQ have criticized efforts, arguing that most Americans approve same -sex marriage and say that efforts undermine “personal freedoms.”
A 2024 Gallup survey found that 69% of Americans continue to believe that same -sex marriage should be legal, and 64% say that homosexual or lesbian relationships are morally acceptable.
Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff appointed in the case of the Supreme Court of Obergefell v. Hodges who legalized same sex marriage throughout the country is supported by supporters of the courts that govern with same -sex marriage on the step of the Texas Capitol during a demonstration in Austin, Texas.
Eric Gay/AP
In Michigan, state representative Josh Schriver presented his own Anti-Gay marriage resolution on February 25, arguing that restrictions on homosexual marriage are important to “preserve and grow our human race,” he said at a press conference that announces the resolution.
“Michigan Christians continue the definition of marriage of Christ as a covenant between a man and a woman, an established institution to glorify God and produce children,” Schriver said.
In a press release, he added: “The new resolution urges the preservation of the holiness of marriage and the constitutional protections that ensure freedom of conscience for all Michigan residents.”
Local democratic leaders denounced the resolution, arguing that discriminates the rights of LGBTQ Americans and distracts more pressing problems that face Michigan’s residents.
“At a time when Michiganders are looking for their leaders to address pressing problems such as reducing costs and protecting our economy, Republicans from the House of Representatives are choosing to concentrate on undermining the personal freedoms of Michigan’s residents,” said state representative Mike McFall.
“This resolution is not just a shameless attempt to reverse the civil rights clock, but it is also out of tune with the values and priorities of our State.”
Michigan’s resolution has been sent to the Government Operations Committee and has not yet been voted.
The handful of resolutions occurs after the associated judge Clarence Thomas expressed interest in reviewing Obergefell’s decision in his concurrent opinion on the historical decision of 2022 of the Supreme Court on the case of the health organization of Jackson’s woman who revoked federal law to abortion.
He wrote: “In future cases, we must reconsider all the precedents of due substantive process of this court,” as Obergefell. “Because any substantive decision of due process is” demonstrably wrong “, we have the duty to” correct the error “established in those precedents,” Thomas said.
Thomas had issued a dissident opinion in 2015 against matrimonial equality between same -sex people.
More than two dozen states have some type of restriction in same -sex marriage that could be triggered if the Supreme Court one day annuls its 2015 decision, according to the project to advance the movement of the legislative monitoring group. This is because matrimonial equality has not yet been coded and enshrined in the law throughout the country.
However, respect for the marriage law signed by former President Joe Biden in 2022 guarantees the federal recognition of marriages between people of the same and interracial in case of a decision of the Supreme Court revoked.
It requires that all states recognize legally certified marriages, even if they were made in a state where it is then prohibited or completed in another state.
