Skip to content Skip to search

Republish This Story

* Please read before republishing *

We’re happy to make this story available to republish for free under an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives Creative Commons license as long as you follow our republishing guidelines, which require that you credit The 19th and retain our pixel. See our full guidelines for more information.

To republish, simply copy the HTML at right, which includes our tracking pixel, all paragraph styles and hyperlinks, the author byline and credit to The 19th. Have questions? Please email [email protected].

— The Editors

Loading...

Modal Gallery

/
Sign up for our newsletter

Menu

  • Our Mission
  • Our Team
  • Latest Stories
  • Search
  • Upcoming Events
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
  • Donate
  • Work With Us
  • Fellowships
    • From the Collection

      Changing Child Care

      Illustration of a woman feeding a baby a bottle
      • 1 in 4 parents report being fired for work interruptions due to child care breakdowns

        Chabeli Carrazana · February 2
      • Washington, D.C., offers financial relief to local child care workers

        Orion Rummler · September 20
      • As climate change worsens hurricane season in Louisiana, doulas are ensuring parents can safely feed their babies

        Jessica Kutz · May 5
    • From the Collection

      Next-Gen GOP

      Illustration of a woman riding an elephant
      • Mayra Flores’ victory set a record for women in Congress. It also reflects the growing visibility of Republican Latinas

        Candice Norwood · June 21
      • A banner year for Republican women

        Amanda Becker · November 11
      • Republican women could double representation in the U.S. House

        Amanda Becker · November 4
    • From the Collection

      On The Rise

      Illustration of three women marching
      • Can Cheri Beasley build a winning coalition in North Carolina?

        Candice Norwood · October 11
      • Los Angeles has never elected a woman mayor. Karen Bass hopes to change that.

        Nadra Nittle · September 8
      • Judge J. Michelle Childs is confirmed to D.C. appeals court

        Candice Norwood · July 20
    • From the Collection

      Pandemic Within a Pandemic

      Illustration of four people marching for Black Lives Matter with coronavirus as the backdrop
      • Some LGBTQ+ people worry that the COVID-19 vaccine will affect HIV medication. It won’t.

        Orion Rummler · November 23
      • Why are more men dying from COVID? It’s a complicated story of nature vs. nurture, researchers say

        Mariel Padilla · September 22
      • Few incarcerated women were released during COVID. The ones who remain have struggled.

        Candice Norwood · August 17
    • From the Collection

      Portraits of a Pandemic

      Illustration of a woman wearing a mask and holding up the coronavirus
      • For family caregivers, COVID is a mental health crisis in the making

        Shefali Luthra · October 8
      • A new database tracks COVID-19’s effects on sex and gender

        Shefali Luthra · September 15
      • Pregnant in a pandemic: The 'perfect storm for a crisis'

        Shefali Luthra · August 25
    • From the Collection

      The 19th Explains

      People walking from many articles to one article where they can get the context they need on an issue.
      • The 19th Explains: What we know about Brittney Griner’s case and what it took to get her home

        Candice Norwood, Katherine Gilyard · December 8
      • The 19th Explains: Why the Respect for Marriage Act doesn’t codify same-sex marriage rights

        Kate Sosin · December 8
      • The 19th Explains: Why baby formula is still hard to find months after the shortage

        Mariel Padilla · December 1
    • From the Collection

      The Electability Myth

      Illustration of three women speaking at podiums
      • Mayra Flores’ victory set a record for women in Congress. It also reflects the growing visibility of Republican Latinas

        Candice Norwood · June 21
      • Stepping in after tragedy: How political wives became widow lawmakers

        Mariel Padilla · May 24
      • Do term limits help women candidates? New York could be a new testing ground

        Barbara Rodriguez · January 11
    • From the Collection

      The Impact of Aging

      A number of older people walking down a path of information.
      • From ballroom dancing to bloodshed, the older AAPI community grapples with gun control

        Nadra Nittle, Mariel Padilla · January 27
      • 'I'm planning on working until the day I die': Older women voters are worried about the future

        Mariel Padilla · June 3
      • Climate change is forcing care workers to act as first responders

        Jessica Kutz · May 31
    • From the Collection

      Voting Rights

      A series of hands reaching for ballots.
      • Connecticut voters approved early voting. Here’s how their new secretary of state wants to make it happen.

        Barbara Rodriguez · February 13
      • Women lawmakers in Minnesota are in the vanguard of the democracy movement

        Barbara Rodriguez · February 3
      • Election workers believe in our system — and want everyone else to, too

        Barbara Rodriguez, Jennifer Gerson · November 8

    View all collections

  • Explore by Topic

    • 19th Polling
    • Abortion
    • Business & Economy
    • Caregiving
    • Coronavirus
    • Education
    • Election 2020
    • Election 2022
    • Election 2024
    • Environment & Climate
    • Health
    • Immigration
    • Inside The 19th
    • Justice
    • LGBTQ+
    • Military
    • Politics
    • Press Release
    • Race
    • Sports
    • Technology

    View All Topics

Home
  • Our Mission
  • Our Team
  • Latest Stories
  • Search
  • Upcoming Events
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
  • Donate
  • Work With Us
  • Fellowships

We’re an independent, nonprofit newsroom reporting on gender, politics and policy. Read our story.

The 19th Represents Summit

Don’t miss our biggest event of 2023!

Register Today

Become a member

The 19th thanks our sponsors. Become one.

Demonstrators react during a rally while holding a sign that reads
Demonstrators react during a rally in support of abortion rights in May 2022 in Seattle, Washington. (David Ryder/Getty Images)

LGBTQ+

What will happen if Obergefell is overturned? Queer legal experts are scrambling

35 states have marriage bans, and experts doubt that Congress could codify marriage equality.

By

Kate Sosin, Candice Norwood

Published

2022-07-11 05:00
5:00
July 11, 2022
am

Share

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Email

LGBTQ+ advocates — already exhausted from battling hundreds of anti-trans bills in states for three years — started to grapple with another reality after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade: Marriage equality now seems vulnerable to being overturned, and legal experts are unsure what could be done to protect LGBTQ+ marriage rights. 

Now, queer legal experts are scrambling to put together a strategy as they debate if Congress has the authority to shore up marriage protections or if the country would revert to a 2014 patchwork, with most states outlawing LGBTQ+ marriages.

“I can’t give you an answer to that question as we have that conversation now,” said Jenny Pizer, law and policy director for Lambda Legal who was co-counsel on the 2008 California case that secured marriage equality in the state. “I’ve been practicing law now for quite a while, and we have not had this situation of rights being taken away.”

The 19th thanks our sponsors. Become one.

When Roe was reversed, legal experts say the court left a slate of other civil rights protections vulnerable to being thrown out — including the right to interracial marriages (Loving v. Virgina), contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), sexual relationships for LGBTQ+ people (Lawrence v. Texas) and marriage for LGBTQ+ couples (Obergefell v. Hodges). 

The right to an abortion was an unenumerated right, meaning it was not explicitly written in the Constitution and has instead been granted through the Supreme Court’s interpretation of major legal cases. Abortion, like marriage equality, access to contraception and a number of other rights, had been upheld through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause meant to protect against deprivation of the right to life, liberty and property. 

A concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that ultimately overturned Roe indicates he wants to reexamine whether other rights based on substantive due process have been interpreted correctly. 

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents,” Thomas wrote. Other opinions written by conservative justices show division over how the court should handle similar civil rights issues in the future.

Additionally, Thomas cited a 1997 decision on assisted suicide stating that rights that rely on due process must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” This is where Obergefell could run into trouble in the future. With the decision being only seven years old, there is no long-established tradition of marriage equality throughout the country, legal experts said.

  • More from The 19th
    President Biden speaks in front of a microphone
  • Biden signs executive order on abortion access and legal backing
  • From marriage equality to interracial marriage, Supreme Court conservatives appear divided on handling civil rights after Roe decision
  • As Pride month closes, LGBTQ+ advocates are split on whether Biden is doing enough to protect the community

“The Supreme Court could say, ‘We can’t find this right in the Constitution,’ which is correct, it doesn’t exist as an enumerated right. And it is absolutely not a right that is deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. So they can say, ‘Let’s throw it back to the states,’” said Kimberly Mutcherson, co-dean and professor at Rutgers Law School.

Ezra Young, a visiting assistant professor at Cornell Law School, cautions that the ruling does not automatically mean that the court is preparing to scrap civil rights precedent for marginalized groups. 

“This is a huge blow to disproportionately women, the vast majority are women of color or poor, [who] depend upon abortion, and all the folks who can get pregnant,” Young said. “Does this necessarily mean the court — because of Dobbs — is going to attack Obergefell, Loving, all of those things? No. That’s just what we fear they’re going to do.”

Before the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, LGBTQ+ advocates secured marriage equality state by state, through various legal routes. Some states passed legislation granting queer couples the right to marry. Others sent the issue to the ballot. Many took up the issue in court. But nothing was ever passed at the federal level.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last week signaled interest in codifying abortion rights and other landmark rulings. She did not mention specific bills on marriage equality, but criticized Thomas for taking aim at Obergefell. 

“Legislation is being introduced to further codify freedoms which Americans currently enjoy,” she wrote in a letter. 

Any potential path through Congress, however, appears tenuous. Congress has failed to pass the Equality Act, legislation that has been waiting in some form since 1974 and would grant LGBTQ+ people nationwide protection from discrimination in housing, credit and public accommodations. LGBTQ+ nondiscrimination laws tend to be easier to pass than marriage laws, and states that have both often pass discrimination protections first. Illinois passed its antidiscrimination law in 2006, seven years before passing marriage equality. 

Currently, Democrats have a slim majority in the U.S. House and Senate and could stand to lose seats in the midterm elections this fall, as the president’s party often does. 

Given that reality, Mutcherson believes much of the activity to protect marriage and relationship rights will happen by working at the state level to enshrine them in state constitutions, for example. 

Plaintiff Jim Obergefell holds a photo of his late husband John Arthur as he speaks to members of the media in front of the Supreme Court
Plaintiff Jim Obergefell holds a photo of his late husband John Arthur as he speaks to members of the media after the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry in all 50 states on June 26, 2015. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Legal experts are split on whether or not Congress would even have the authority to codify rights left vulnerable by the Dobbs decision. That’s because such issues have traditionally been under the power of states. 

“Some things we as a society will be figuring out in the days to come,” Pizer said. “How much of the next chapter is written in Congress and how much is written through other political and other democratic means, I can’t tell you that right now.”  

So faced with the prospect of an Obergefell overturn, advocates now find themselves staring at maps they haven’t had to look at since 2014.

“There is not a clear and easy path or one specific way that the movement would move to protect marriage,” said Fran Hutchins, executive director of the coalition of statewide LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations The Equality Federation. 

From Michigan to Arizona, Colorado to Florida, 35 states have laws banning marriage equality on the books.

Naomi Goldberg is the deputy director of the Movement Advancement Project, an organization that tracks the state of LGBTQ+ rights nationwide. Goldberg has been analyzing state marriage laws in anticipation of a scenario where Obergefell is struck down.  

Goldberg believes that if the Supreme Court invalidated its own marriage ruling, 32 states would revert back to banning marriage equality. Twenty-five states have banned marriage equality both in their constitutions and through their legislatures. Five block the unions only through their constitutions, and another five have done so through their statehouses. Of those, California, Iowa and Hawaii would likely continue offering marriages because their bans were either invalidated by lower courts or struck down in the legislature.

This would create a patchwork of laws around the country similar to what was in place before Obergefell, in which some states would allow marriages and others would not.  LGBTQ+ advocates are confronting the reality that they may need to restart field campaigns to win support for marriage equality in states across the country. For those that have constitutional bans, most would have to send the question of marriage equality into the hands of voters via a ballot measure. 

Stories by experienced reporters you can trust and relate to.

Delivered directly to your inbox every weekday.

Please check your email to confirm your subscription!

Submitting…

Uh-oh! Something went wrong. Please try again later.

“I feel in many ways as though we’re back in 2004, in 2008, with the prospect of what it takes to have those conversations with the public to do deep public education work,” Goldberg said. “It’s an incredible investment. I feel sad that that is something we might have to do because I think there’s so many more issue areas where I want to be investing that time.”

The possible reemergence of a system of inconsistent marriage laws around the country would be significant: Hundreds of thousands of couples have been able to legally marry as a result of Obergefell and many of these families have children. One possibility is that people’s marriages could become invalid if Obergefell is overturned, though Mutcherson notes this, “would be an outrageous move to take procedurally,” given some of the structural changes that have taken place to recognize the legitimacy of these families.

Another consequence of overturning marriage equality, Mutcherson said, is that we would end up with “a world where some same-sex couples are married and others no longer have the right to enter into marriage, which is also, I think, an untenable set of circumstances.” 

“If my marriage disappears, that’s something that goes to the very heart of what it means to be a holder of rights in this country.”

Pizer believes it’s unlikely that past marriages would be invalidated, but fears the court has abandoned all precedent. As a result, she says, anything is possible for the future post-Roe. 

“We now have a court that appears to be heedless in its rush to remake our society according to a very different understanding of the Constitution,” she said.

Share

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Email

The 19th Represents Summit

Don’t miss our biggest event of 2023!

Register Today

Become a member

Up Next

President Biden speaks in front of a microphone

Abortion

Biden signs executive order on abortion access and legal backing

The order comes two weeks after the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, allowing states to ban abortion. 

Read the Story

The 19th
The 19th is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. Our stories are free to republish in accordance with these guidelines.

  • Donate
  • Newsletter
  • Events
  • Search
  • Jobs
  • Fellowships
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Community Guidelines
  • Membership
  • Membership FAQ
  • Major Gifts
  • Sponsorship
  • Privacy
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram