The North Dakota Senate on Thursday rejected a measure that would have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its landmark 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
A vote to approve would have made North Dakota the first state to make such an overture to the high court, after the state House passed the measure last month.
The resolution failed in a 16-31 Senate vote after about 10 minutes of debate.
Democratic Sen. Josh Boschee said in opposition, “I understand that this puts us all in a tough spot, but I ask you to think about who’s put in the toughest position with this resolution: the people of North Dakota who are the subject of the resolution … the gay and lesbian North Dakotans who did not ask to be the subject of this conversation, but the conversation was brought to us.”
Republican Sen. David Clemens supported the measure, saying that while the U.S. Constitution does not mention marriage, the North Dakota Constitution recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman. Clemens said he took an oath to uphold that document.
Several people in the gallery applauded when the measure’s defeat was announced.
Massachusetts-based MassResistance pushed the measure and ones in other states. The group called itself an “international pro-family group.” But it has been labeled an “anti-LGBTQ hate group” by the LGBTQ advocacy organization GLAAD.
Lawmakers in at least nine states have recently introduced measures to try to chip away at same-sex couples’ right to marry. Five of them, including North Dakota’s failed resolution, urge the Supreme Court to overturn its 2015 landmark same-sex marriage ruling.
North Dakota lawmakers are on the verge of making their state the first to tell the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its decade-old ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Similar efforts — which would not have any direct sway with the nation’s top courts — have been introduced in a handful of states this year. North Dakota’s resolution passed the Republican-led House in February but still requires Senate approval, which is not assured.
“The original Supreme Court ruling in 2015 went totally against the Tenth Amendment, went totally against the North Dakota Constitution and North Dakota Century Code (state laws),” sponsor Republican Rep. Bill Tveit said. “Why did I introduce it? Every one of us in this building took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the state.”
When the Legislature considers such resolutions, attorney and North Dakota National Guard member Laura Balliet said she wonders why she stays in her home state. The measure makes her feel unwanted, unwelcome and judged because of who she is, she said. She married her wife in 2020.
“I don’t know what this resolution does other than to tell people like myself, my friends and my family that we’re not welcome here, and I’m angry about that because I want to be welcome here. This is my home,” Balliet told the Senate panel that heard the measure on Wednesday — one in a stream of opponents who testified against it.
A push across states
Massachusetts-based MassResistance, which describes itself as an “international pro-family group” but has been labeled “anti-LGBTQ hate group” by the LGBTQ advocacy organization GLAAD, is pushing the resolution across the country.
Massachusetts became the first state to recognize same-sex marriage, in 2004. Over the next 11 years, most states began to recognize it through laws, ballot measures or court decisions before the Supreme Court made it legal nationwide.
Outside of Idaho and North Dakota, the measures have not progressed far, according to an analysis of legislation collected by the bill-tracking service Plural.
By contrast, there have been additional protections for same-sex marriage over the years, including a federal law in 2022. Since 2020, California, Colorado, Hawaii and Nevada have repealed old constitutional amendments that defined marriage as being allowed only between a man and a woman, and Virginia lawmakers advanced a similar measure this year. It could be on the ballot there in 2026.
Differing views
The North Dakota measure states that the Legislature “rejects” the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision and urges the U.S. Supreme Court “to overturn the decision and leave unaddressed the natural definition of marriage as a union between one man, a biological male, and one woman, a biological female.”
In the court’s 2022 ruling that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should reconsider its precedents in the marriage decision and other past cases.
Soon after the measure passed the North Dakota House last month, several Republican state reps who voted for it stated they meant to vote no or regretted voting yes.
Republican Rep. Matt Ruby said he wished he had voted against the measure, saying his yes vote was for a different intent he realized wasn’t going to happen. The vote sent a bad message “that your marriage isn’t valid and you’re not welcome,” Ruby said. He said he supports the right for same-sex couples to be married.
Republican Rep. Dwight Kiefert said he voted for the resolution because of his Christian faith and that the institution of marriage was established in the Bible in the Garden of Eden between Adam and Eve.
‘Slap in the face’
The measure is a slap in the face to North Dakotans who are happily married and invested in their state, said Democratic Sen. Ryan Braunberger, who is gay and sits on the Senate panel that heard the resolution. The measure sends a dangerous message as North Dakota wants to grow its population and expand economically, he said.
“We want to make sure that we bring everybody in the best of the crop, and that runs the gamut of all sorts of different races, ethnicities, sexual orientations through that,” Braunberger said.
The measure is a declaration, if passed, that lawmakers would want to define marriage through what is arguably a religious lens, which dangerously gets close to infringing upon the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, said Cody Schuler, advocacy manager for the American Civil Liberties Union’s North Dakota chapter.
“Marriage defined as ‘one man, one woman’ is a particular religious view. It is not held by all religions, all societies or by nonreligious people, and so therefore it is dangerous to be making that kind of statement because it puts legislators on record as to how they might vote on law, on a binding law versus this nonbinding resolution,” Schuler said.
Check out this slideshow put together and posted to MSN.
While some places still make same-sex marriage complicated (or even illegal), others celebrate it fully, offering welcoming venues and stunning locations for your big day. If you’re looking for somewhere unique, safe, and unforgettable to say “I do,” these destinations offer the perfect mix of charm, romance, and friendliness toward the queer community.
The cities mentioned in the slideshow are:
Amsterdam Netherlands
Queenstown New Zealand
Toronto Canada
Cape Town South Africa
Reykjavik Iceland
Barcelona Spain
Valleta Malta
Sydney Australia
Mexico City Mexico
Copenhagen Denmark
Each town on the slide deck has a short excerpt about why the author included them. Be sure to read it.
North Carolina State Representative Deb Butler (D–New Hanover), one of the first openly gay members of the state House, has filed two bills aimed at securing marriage equality and protecting LGBTQ+ families in the state.
The proposals – H174 and H175 – come as lawmakers brace for potential challenges to same-sex marriage rights amid a shifting federal judiciary.
H174 seeks to repeal North Carolina’s outdated ban on same-sex marriage, a statute that remains on the books despite being rendered unenforceable by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. If enacted, the bill would affirm the federal protections of all married couples, regardless of gender.
H175 would introduce a constitutional amendment explicitly safeguarding marriage equality in North Carolina. The amendment is designed as a long-term shield, ensuring that even if the Supreme Court revisits Obergefell, LGBTQ+ families will remain protected from discriminatory state-level policies.
“In North Carolina, we must defend the rights of our LGBTQ+ citizens,” Rep. Butler said. “Marriage equality is a settled issue for the vast majority of Americans, and our state should reflect that reality. These bills are about ensuring dignity, security and legal protection for all families in the face of uncertainty at the federal level.”
According to a news release, Butler’s initiative is part of a broader effort to fortify civil rights protections across North Carolina. Advocates, legal experts and LGBTQ+ organizations have voiced strong support for the bills, emphasizing the urgent need for state-level safeguards amid a volatile national political climate.
The legislation now heads to the North Carolina General Assembly.
Nine states are now seeing Republican efforts to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court decision that legalized marriage equality in all 50 states. This is a new trend; state Republican lawmakers have been focused on rolling back trans rights since 2020.
In five of the states — Idaho, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota — Republican lawmakers have introduced resolutions calling for the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell. Those measures have been passed by at least one chamber of the state legislature in Idaho and North Dakota.
In the four other states – Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas – Republican legislators have introduced bills to privilege heterosexual marriages, with some of the states referring to a new institution called “covenant marriage,” which would be limited to heterosexual couples. The point there, according to the sponsor of one such bill in Oklahoma, is to create inequality in marriage rights between opposite- and same-sex couples and invite a legal challenge that could be taken to the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell.
Two justices on the Supreme Court have openly stated that they want to overturn Obergefell, and the Court has moved to the right since 2015. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, and Stephen Breyer were all in the Obergefell majority but have either retired or passed away in the last ten years. Only one was replaced by a Democratic president. It is not clear if there are the five votes needed to protect marriage equality on the Court if it were to take up a test case.
Thirty-five states have amendments or statutes banning same-sex marriage, and most would likely go into effect if the Supreme Court were to overturn Obergefell. Because of the 2022 federal Respect for Marriage Act, though, state and federal governments would have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
“It’s good to anticipate things that could happen in order that we do our best job preparing ourselves,” Jenny Pizer, chief legal officer of Lambda Legal, told LGBTQ Nation last month. “The bottom line for people is that, if there are things that you can do to secure your relationships, your family status and to take other protective measures, please do those things. Don’t be lulled into complacency by our informed and reasonably expert speculation about what may happen.”
Michigan Rep. Josh Schriver is proposing a resolution that would urge the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Schriver says allowing gay marriage has led to “religious persecution” and goes against “the sanctity of marriage.”
Gay marriage is banned in Michigan’s constitution, but is allowed due to the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that Schriver and the resolution’s co-sponsors wish to overturn.
LANSING, Mich. (FOX 2) – A Michigan lawmaker plans to introduce a resolution to the state House of Representatives, urging the United States Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Rep. Josh Schriver (R-Oxford), along with 12 co-sponsors, will introduce the House resolution following Tuesday’s session.
The backstory:
The resolution comes after Schriver posted on social media late in 2024 that gay marriage should be banned.
“America only ‘accepted’ gay marriage after it was thrusted into her by a perverted Supreme Court ruling,” he wrote in part on X. “Make gay marriage illegal again. This is not remotely controversial or extreme.”
In a release announcing the new resolution, Schriver wrote that Obergefell v. Hodges “is at odds with the sanctity of marriage, the Michigan Constitution, and the principles upon which the country was established.”
Without the Obergefill ruling, gay marriage would be illegal in Michigan due to an amendment voters passed in 2004. However, the Supreme Court decision supersedes that.
Schriver went on to reference what he called “religious persecution” since the 2015 ruling, including a wedding venue that was fined for turning away an LGBTQ couple, and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel attempting to ban adoption agencies from turning away same-sex couples for religious reasons. However, a judge later ruled that faith-based adoption agencies can turn away prospective parents because they are LGBTQ.
Lawmakers in other states, including Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, have also been pushing the Supreme Court to revisit the ruling and overturn it.
The new resolution received pushback from Democrats, with state Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel releasing a statement condemning the resolution:
“Unfortunately, this isn’t a surprise coming from Josh Schriver and the right-wing extremists that populate Matt Hall’s Republican caucus – and it’s deeply dangerous. Schriver is attacking hundreds of thousands of Michiganders who are nurses, teachers, soldiers, and beloved members of the community.
“From spreading racist conspiracy theories to homophobic rhetoric, Schriver does not deserve to serve the people of Michigan, let alone sit on a politically motivated oversight committee in the state House. Thankfully, I know that Democrats will continue to fight for Michiganders’ civil rights and personal freedoms in the face of these ugly attacks.”
Gay marriage in Michigan
Because Michigan voters banned gay marriage in 2004, legalizing the practice would first require voters to remove the ban from the state constitution via ballot proposal.
Under the existing amendment, if Obergefell were to be overturned, existing marriages in Michigan would be recognized, but future LGBTQ+ marriages would be banned, said Rep. Jason Morgan (D-Ann Arbor).
A similar scenario played out in 2022 when nationwide abortion was removed following a Supreme Court ruling. The overturning of that ruling allowed states to decide if they would allow abortions. Michigan had an existing abortion ban that was lifted after voters passed a proposal to allow the procedure.
After the Roe ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas said that the Supreme Court should reconsider rulings that legalized same-sex marriage and protected same-sex relationships, creating fear in states that don’t have protections in place.
BANGKOK (AP) — They have been in a committed relationship for more than 13 years, and even had a wedding in 2019. Since then, Danaya Phonphayung and Sunma Piamboon, both women, have considered themselves a married couple, even if same-sex marriages were not legally recognized.
The walls of their home in suburban Bangkok are decorated with faded photos from their happy union, filled with joy and love from their families and friends. Come this Thursday, their wedded status will be recognized by the nation as well, when a law that allows members of the LGBTQ+ community in Thailand to get married and have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples takes effect.
The couple said they can’t wait to formalize their union. They plan to register their marriage at a district office near their home on the very first day that the law allows.
“I think I’ll cry,” Danaya, an office worker, said with a big smile, thinking about the moment that they will sign the paper. “I’m so happy. It’s something that was more than I could’ve dreamed of, that suddenly this day is happening.”
“We live together. We bought a house. We bought a car. But we cannot share these things together like a married couple. When this is happening, we feel that it’s our rights that we need to secure as quickly as possible,” she said.
The marriage equality bill, which sailed through both the House of Representatives and the Senate, amended the Civil and Commercial Code to change the words “men and women” and “husband and wife” to “individuals” and “marriage partners.” It would open up access to full legal, financial and medical rights for LGBTQ+ couples.
Sunma, who owns a travel agency, said that she had realized how crucial being legally married was when Danaya was hospitalized with dengue fever, as they don’t live close to her parents.
“The doctors asked me who I was, and I said I was the girlfriend, and they were like, ‘so what’?’ I couldn’t make any decision until her condition became quite serious,” she said. “I was so upset, like, if I had lost her … there would be nothing that could’ve made up for it. So, I think this is very important for both of us.”
How marriage equality became law
Thailand has a reputation for acceptance and inclusivity, but struggled for decades to pass a marriage equality law. Thai society largely holds conservative values. Members of the LGBTQ+ community say they face discrimination in everyday life, although they note that things have improved greatly in recent years.
The government led by the Pheu Thai party made marriage equality one of its main goals. It made a major effort to identify itself with the annual Bangkok Pride parade in June, in which thousands of people celebrated in one of Bangkok’s busiest commercial districts.
Last week, Government House invited dozens of LGBTQ+ couples and activists for a photo op and a meeting with Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and several high ranking officials to celebrate the law coming into effect, making Thailand the first in Southeast Asia and the third place in Asia, after Taiwan and Nepal, to legalize same-sex marriage.
“It is almost like a dream, but it’s not. So, congratulations to all,” Paetongtarn said. “I think it’s very important that the world notice us, and know that in this small country we have this kind of thought. We have this kind of support for our people. So, we all should be proud.”
The organizers of Bangkok Pride have collaborated with relevant government agencies to hold a grand celebration in central Bangkok and facilitate couples who wish to register their marriage on the very first day. They said that more than 300 couples have registered to officially tie the knot on Thursday at the event.
“(The law) is about returning our dignity, and confirming that we also have dignity as a human being,” said Ann “Waaddao” Chumaporn, a gender equality activist and the lead organizer of Bangkok Pride. “That day is going to be meaningful to all the couples that have gone through this journey together. I’d like to thank everyone, every love, that has faithfully struggled so that today would finally happen.”
How the law will be implemented
The government and state agencies in Thailand are historically traditional in outlook. To prepare them for change, the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration said that it has organized workshops for staff of all Bangkok district offices who are in charge of handling marriage registration. They included lectures raising awareness about gender diversity and guidance on how to properly communicate with those who come for the service.
“It’s like a missing piece of the jigsaw,” Bangkok Deputy Gov. Sanon Wangsrangboon said at one of the workshops earlier this month. “Society is ready. The law is getting ready. But the last piece of the jigsaw is the understanding from officials.”
He acknowledged there that would be problems in the beginning, but said that he hoped they would gradually improve over time.
After they register their marriage, Sunma said that she’s looking forward to having a “real marriage celebration” with her and Danaya’s families.
“It’s not just the two of us that are happy, but both of our families feel it is a big deal, and it is what everyone has been waiting for. Everyone said they are waiting for Jan. 23,” she said.
Democrats labeled it “yet another example” of GOP extremists “stirring up divisive social issues to create problems where none exist.”
Republicans in Idaho’s House of Representatives are contemplating a formal statement urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse its landmark 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.
The resolution, proposed by Republican state Rep. Heather Scott, characterizes the court’s decision as an “illegitimate overreach.” Scott’s proposal calls for the restoration of the “natural definition of marriage,” despite the fact that various forms of marriage, including same-sex unions, have existed throughout history.
Rep. Heather Scott stated that the purpose of her resolution is to “affirm our state authority to regulate marriage” during a Tuesday hearing.
The 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, following decades of LGBTQ+ activism. At the time of the ruling, many states still had bans on gay marriage, despite growing public support for such unions.
The decision, made by a 5-4 vote, preceded the appointments of three conservative justices during the presidency of Donald Trump—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have since called for a reconsideration of the Obergefell decision.
While Scott’s resolution holds no legal authority, it will be forwarded to the Supreme Court for consideration. The state committee advanced it on Tuesday, and a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
State House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel (D) and Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow (D) dismissed Scott’s resolution as a “sad distraction,” criticizing it as another attempt by the far-right of the Republican Party to “gin up divisive social issues to create problems where none exist.” They emphasized that “big government has no business telling consenting adults who they should love.”
They added, “This resolution may be a helpful gimmick for winning in closed GOP primaries, but it should be offensive to all Idahoans who value their individual rights and freedoms and just want to live their lives without egregious government interference.”
In 2021, Rep. Scott compared Idaho’s mask mandate to Nazi Germany’s policies. Despite a federal judge ruling that Idaho’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution, the ban remains on the books. Recent polling shows that more Idahoans support same-sex marriage than oppose it.
New York City officials have corroborated reports from other local jurisdictions: there has been a noticeable uptick in the number of marriages across the country, often referred to as the “Trump bump.”
While the city doesn’t record details about couples’ gender or immigration status, anecdotal evidence suggests that many of these marriages stem from concerns about the potential rollback of marriage equality for same-sex couples under a possible second Trump administration.
The New York City Clerk’s Office, which manages the Marriage Bureau, reported 8,537 marriage license appointments in November 2024—the month Donald Trump was re-elected for a second term. This marks a 33% increase compared to November 2023, according to data provided by the agency to The City.
In the weeks leading up to the 2024 election, New York City recorded approximately 1,500 marriage license appointments per week. That number surged to 2,365 in the week immediately following Donald Trump’s re-election, representing a 55% increase. Appointments remained above average for the rest of November but dipped to 1,914 by the week ending December 3.
“We already fought for it. I don’t want to have to do it again,” said Ryan Addario, 36, referencing marriage equality as he exited the Marriage Bureau in Lower Manhattan with his new husband, Nicholas Caycedo, 39. The Bronx residents joined other couples voicing concerns about the future of same-sex marriage under a conservative Supreme Court.
“I just didn’t want to have any potential obstacles,” Addario explained.
Many couples interviewed shared similar fears that the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage, could be overturned by the Court’s conservative supermajority. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have previously signaled their willingness to revisit the ruling.
Although Donald Trump has not campaigned on overturning marriage equality, his administration’s anti-LGBTQ+ appointees and policies have left many concerned. Trump’s incoming press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, dismissed these fears, stating to NBC News that concerns over marriage equality are “sadly mistaken” and fueled by “media fear-mongering.” She emphasized that overturning the decision “was never a campaign promise.”
However, legal experts warn that future changes remain possible. Slate’s legal analyst Mark Joseph Stern recently suggested on the Outward podcast that while the current 6–3 conservative majority might not immediately overturn marriage equality, a further shift—such as replacing Justice Sonia Sotomayor under Trump—could create the conditions for such a reversal.
Attorney Diana Adams, executive director of the Chosen Family Law Center, advised same-sex couples, particularly those with children, to secure their legal relationships through marriage. “Having a legal connection to your child, having a legal connection to your partner is very, very helpful,” Adams said. “If you were intending to get married, this is the time to get married.”
Some newlyweds may have simply been celebrating Trump’s electoral success as a New Yorker. Trump significantly improved his 2020 margins in his native Queens and won nearly 70% of Staten Island’s vote in 2024. Data on borough-specific marriage rates, however, was unavailable.
Outside the Marriage Bureau, the mood was a mix of urgency and joy. “There’s so much uncertainty in the world right now,” said Caycedo. “The one thing that is certain is our love. And I was like, ‘let’s surrender to that.’”
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.