No one expected Roe v. Wade to get overturned in our lifetime. But it (thankfully) happened. Trump’s fundamental remaking of the Supreme Court put this country on the right track constitutionally. Nevertheless, the current, corrected, constitutional Supreme Court needs to address ongoing precedent errors. Griswold v Connecticut’s “right to privacy” needs to go, along with the substantive due process doctrine from Lochner v. New York.
Another decision must be revisited, reviewed, and reversed, too: Obergefell v. Hodges.
Since that fateful day in 2015, when Obergefell was imposed on this country, I have hoped that the court would see the error of its ways regarding that radical and unjust redefinition of marriage. Obergefell is just as bad, if not worse, than Roe because of the unkind undermining of the natural family. Babies need their Dad and Mom to survive and thrive, do they not? And the basis of every country is the family. You cannot put America first if you treat American children second. Besides, it is wrong to normalize sexual misconduct, which harms the body, undermines public order, and defies natural law. The court had no right to normalize unnatural relations. Redefining marriage has unleashed an unremitting assault on natural law and natural rights (as predicated by Justice Alito). And now children are being created and trafficked like commodities to same-sex couples.
This year, pro-family activists anticipated that they would hear a seminal case to reverse that decision. Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who had refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2015, has been fighting back. She had endured five days in jail after her brave decision not to issue marriage licenses. On top of that, she was sued in court by the two men she refused for “emotional distress,” and faces a $100,000 judgment as well as $260,000 in attorneys' fees.
She took a righteous stand against sexual degeneracy and legal anarchy, and she deserves justice in a court of law. I hoped the best for Davis and Liberty Counsel in their suit. On a First Amendment basis alone, Davis should not have been persecuted because she would not issue a fake marriage license to two men.
I followed Davis’ legal challenges, first rebuffed at the district court level and then again at the appellate level. The appellate court, however, provided an open door of sorts, stating that larger political and legal matters have emerged because of Obergefell, and the Supreme Court needed to resolve those issues. With this opportunity, I trusted that the United States Supreme Court would grant Davis’ case certiorari. This is a First Amendment issue, and the country has consistently upheld and expanded the scope of the First Amendment. We must protect Freedom of conscience as well as freedom of religion to oppose the definition of marriage beyond one man and one woman.
When the Supreme Court ordered the plaintiffs to provide a response to Davis’s appeal, I suspected that they would take the case. Sadly, the court has rejected her appeal, not just to waive the judgment imposed on her, but her broader attempt to overturn the same-sex “marriage” decision imposed on the country.
This is a disappointing, frustrating outcome. It’s terrible that she faces the ongoing financial indemnity. One can only hope that some benefactor (or benefactors) will step up and defray her legal costs.
However, in the long run, I am not worried about the restoration of natural marriage and family in the United States.
Here are the reasons why:
- The Davis case was predominantly about the First Amendment rights of a government employee not to issue a license to a false marriage. Only later on did her attorneys expand their suit to contend that Obergefell should be overturned. Pushing back on this legal change, the plaintiffs said that this novel argument was too late to file, and therefore, their appeal should be rejected. It was a timing issue, not a substantive issue, so we can rest easy that another case can challenge the 2015 decision.
- As of now, attitudes are changing about restoring natural marriage, but not fast enough. The majority of the country still does not accept the whole truth about same-sex “marriage,” i.e., that it is wrong to redefine a fundamental institution. Imagine the liberal-leaning backlash that would ensue across the country, even in red states, should the Supreme Court strike down the decision, but the public has been indoctrinated to accept same-sex “marriage” as normal, or only on a partisan basis, there is current opposition. When Roe was overturned in 2022, red and blue states enacted egregious abortion measures via constitutional referenda. Many of them passed. A similar outcome, with red and blue states codifying same-sex “marriage” in the next year or two, is the last outcome we would want at this time.
- This country is facing off against a communist Democratic Party, which, once back in power in Washington and in several states, is ready to push through a fundamental regressive transformation of the country, shoving every left-wing wish onto the nation. Overturning Obergefell right before the 2026 midterms would set up Democrats to win majorities in Congress and in statehouses across the country. We need to pick our fights and advance the MAGA agenda now.
- The bigger issue, and one we are winning on, is overturning the larger cultural lie that people are “born that way.” In Chiles v Salazar, the Supreme Court is expected to strike down all bans on reparative therapy, a form of therapy that helps people overcome unwanted same-sex attraction. With this likely victory, parents and children will be able to overcome same-sex attraction as well as identity dysphoria. The transformation will help more people leave the homosexual lifestyle, and the general public will realize that the innate nature of homosexuality is wrong. The idea of same-sex “marriage” will seem ludicrous, thus making it easier to restore cultural norms in the United States.
We can celebrate the Supreme Court’s more conservative composition. But even now, the five votes to reverse Obergefell are still not there. Aside from Alito and Thomas, the other justices, including a recent admission by Amy Coney Barrett, have indicated that they are not yet inclined to reverse Obergefell due to the radical repercussions. President Trump or a future President Vance (or DeSantis?) can appoint more conservative justices like Clarence Thomas, who will challenge other legal precedents, including Obergefell.
The main point is that regarding the restoration of natural marriage, the pro-family fight is far from over. The growing commodification of children, the increased persecution against people of faith who refuse to celebrate same-sex weddings, and the increased efforts to groom children in public schools and the public square are raising alarm about the normalization of homosexuality.
Same-sex “marriage” is not inevitable, either. The island nation of Bermuda reversed same-sex “marriage” even though the local courts imposed it. Supreme Courts in the Philippines and India have also rejected extralegal efforts to redefine marriage via judicial fiat. Poland recently rejected a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, as well. This fight to restore the family will be won in the United States, too. We just have to wait for the right time.