In late January, the Idaho House of Representatives passed a document calling on the U. S. Supreme Court to “reverse” its 2015 gay union choice, Obergefell v. Hodges,” and restore the natural definition of marriage, a coalition of one man and one woman” . ,
The letter passed the House by 46 to 24 and is now headed to the Idaho Senate. It will be sent to the Supreme Court as one more official encouragement that it taking up a situation that might reverse Obergefell if it is approved by the senate.
The letter excoriates the “illegitimate overreach” in Obergefell, arguing that the choice redefined relationship in direct opposition to its natural, age-old explanation, some also enshrined in Idaho’s state law.
The Supreme Court may be open to for a visit after the 2022 overturn of Roe v. Wade and the reinstallation of Trump, but the debate may look ten years later.
Sitting justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito argued in the past that the Obergefell decision should be overturned or at least fixed. The justices came to the conclusion that Obergefell had no legal basis in the 14th Amendment. The decision serves as law, overriding state and previous federal law, and attempts to redefine marriage’s fundamental principles in a way that is against the teachings of all major religions on earth. Bergefell rode rough-hew over these ideologies and dozens of state constitutions on the grounds of a moral — not legal — claim that the conventional definition of marriage embraces” a bigoted worldview,” as the opposing opinion put it.
The justices wrote that the court has caused a problem that only it can resolve. ” Until then, Obergefell will continue to have” ruinous consequences for religious liberty.’ “
Why Repeal Obergefell?
Stresching about the natural definition of marriage may seem trivial in a country where young women are celebrating because men who believe they are women may no longer be able to break records in women’s sports.
And maybe it is.
However, it’s important to realize that the same-sex marriage debate is logically connected to the transgender craze of the past ten years because of how Obergefell was decided. Obergefell didn’t just say”, same-sex couples operate in ways pretty similar to infertile opposite-sex couples from a legal perspective, so let’s give marriage certificates to those who want them. Bergefell also argued that gays and lesbians are naturally only meant to get married to one another.
Since antiquity, gays and lesbians have been held to be their sole means of enduring sexually sealed union, according to Obergefell, but for gays and lesbians, their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment.
In other words, Obergefell doesn’t argue that the legal definition of marriage should be changed for practical reasons. The court, instead, rejected the idea that men and women are naturally meant for one another, sexually speaking. According to Obergefell, some physically normal people’s sexual biology is meant to be used with a member of the same sex in accordance with nature.
Some physically normal men and women are told to only “marry members of their own sex” by the court because of their “immutable nature.” They made their claim that marriage must be redefined as a 14th Amendment right on the basis of this somewhat fragile assumption.
Transgenderism
But how did this relate to the trans phenomenon? The trans argument, which gained momentum immediately after Obergefell, claimed that some people are the sexual opposite of their utterly unmistakable physical biology. Obergefell declared the opposite of the obvious design-based function of male-female sexuality: a man can be sexually” meant for” a man. A woman can be sexually” meant for” a woman. The trans argument took a further step by denying not just apparent design, but actual, physical reality: a man can literally be a woman.
The logic in Obergefell is less socially problematic than transgenderism. We don’t always have to use our bodies exactly as their apparent purpose-making dictates. However, Obergefell is undisputed in his assertion that some physically normal people are naturally drawn to have sex with their own sex. Similar disregard for physical reality can be found in the claim that a person can by nature be a member of the other sex.
A Reality Check
Only two sexes, male and female, are equipped with complementary halves of the human sexual system. That is a matter of immutability. Those who identify as” gay “or” lesbian,” as well as those who simply enjoy a little” gay” sex on the side, have the same immutable nature as everyone else.
As for people’s sexual attractions and desires, they are — like all attractions and desires — not really” immutable “or biologically inborn. People’s non-heterosexual preferences are typically quite fluid over the course of five or ten years, especially before people make decisions in their lives and settle down, as I have already pointed out before.
This doesn’t mean that American laws should be antiquated for those who lead a gay lifestyle. However, it does suggest that Obergefell should be replaced with something sincere, one that respects both those who want to be in same-sex relationships and those who, for religious or moral reasons, wouldn’t choose to do so.
In 2025, will SCOTUS Reconsider Obergefell?
Statements like Idaho’s are only toothless petitions — what’s needed is lawsuits and robust debate.
The same five justices who overturned Roe v. Wade may overturn Obergefell. Democrats were able to pass a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act in 2022 with the help of this overwhelming evidence. Three left-leaning states took the trouble by changing their constitutions by ballot in the November 2024 election because they were aware Obergefell might go the way of Roe v. Wade.
Nevertheless, to date, it is not clear if Obergefell will face serious reexamination. The only current case to attempt to challenge Obergefell is the irrational legal arguings that arose out of Kim Davis ‘ case in 2015 Although the case is in the Sixth Circuit, it is unlikely to be heard by SCOTUS because the court, which includes Thomas and Alito, decided not to review her case in 2020.
Obergefell continues to be the rule of the land until the end of the day, whether or not it is reasonable.
Jeremiah Keenan is a freelance writer and pro-life activist. He recently graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, where he argued with leftists and wrote for The Daily Pennsylvanian. He also earned a bachelors in mathematics and assisted the sociology department researching religious opinion trends on eugenics, race, birth control, and homosexuality. Jeremiah grew up in China and lives, at the moment, in Ohio.
