Arguments for and against gay marriage

Home / identity relationships / Arguments for and against gay marriage

This legislation is symbolic, since state legislatures do not have control over what the Supreme Court does. It simply recognizes the natural order of things.”

Since this version of covenant marriage excludes same-sex couples, they would be denied access to covenant marriages, although they would still have access to more traditional forms of marriage.

Hodges.” According to Bulso, “The bill is not ‘anti’ anything or any person.

But the Biden administration reversedmost of these policies.

In his second term, Trump has upped his hostility to the LGBTQ+ community, following an election campaign in which he madetransgender rights a wedge issue. Hodges, is facing resurgent hostility.

Timing of attacks

Efforts by state Republican lawmakers to revisit same-sex marriage bans are part of a broaderassault on LGBTQ+ rights taking place in the U.S.

The timing of these efforts is primarily driven by two factors: Donald Trump’s second term as president and the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Although Thomas’ concurring opinion does not have the force of law, it nonetheless sent what some court observers say is a clear message to opponents of same-sex marriage that at least one justice has an appetite for reconsidering Obergefell.

Reaffirm or overrule?

Should the Supreme Court agree to hear a challenge to Obergefell, one of two main outcomes is likely.

Now she wants to cancel gay marriage.

In 2024, critics on both the left and the right said the conservative majority’s decision that presidents have immunity for certain official acts lacked any basis in the Constitution.

Alito, however, said that while an originalist judge must start with the text of the Constitution, there are times – such as in the immunity decision – when an originalist principle “emerges from the very structure of the Constitution.” “The absence of explicit constitutional text,” he said, “is not decisive.”

Wade.

Wade in Dobbs v.

First, the court could reaffirm Obergefell. In one part of the study, subjects took a test designed to reveal whether and to what extent they associate images of gay couples with words and phrases like “promiscuous” or “one-night stand.” On sensitive topics, people often tell researchers what they think they should say, rather than what they really believe.

For a state such as Michigan, whose constitutional language defining marriage as between one man and one woman is still on the books, the status quo would revert immediately to outlawing same-sex marriage – it wouldn’t require any legislative vote.

As a professor of legal studies, I believe such attacks on same-sex marriage represent a serious threat to the institution.

And others share my concern.

A 2024 poll of married same-sex couples found that 54% of respondents are worried that the Supreme Court might overturn Obergefell, with only 17% saying they did not anticipate such a challenge.

Recognizing this fear, Democratic legislators in Michigan have called for the state to pass a ballot initiative to protect same-sex marriage.

Currently, about 70% ofAmericans approve of legally recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples, a 10-percentage-point bump from 2015.

Obergefell led to an increase in marriages among same-sex partners, with more than 700,000 same-sex couples currently married.

Despite this, Republican lawmakers in five states have recently introduced symbolic bills calling on the Supreme Court to overturn its ruling in Obergefell.

This first test enabled researchers to avoid this problem because participants can’t easily control or fake the results, Haselton said.

Participants were shown a series of words associated with the adjective “promiscuous” — such as “casual sex” and “one-night stand” — as well as words associated with “monogamous” — such as “faithful” and “loving” — and images of either gay couples or heterosexual couples.

And even if it passes, the legislation does not directly threaten the legality of same-sex marriage in those states because it does not address those states’ marriage laws.

But if it becomes law, this legislation sends a clear signal that, should Obergefell be overturned, these states could quickly enact legislation banning same-sex marriage.

This includes canceling more than US$125 million in federal grants related to LGBTQ+ health programs and stopping the enforcement of the Equal Access Rule, a federal policy that ensured access to federal housing programs regardless of gender identity.

In turn, this has emboldened Republican lawmakers to target same-sex marriage and other protections for the LGBTQ+ community.

The Supreme Court’s decision to overrule Roe v.

Why people oppose same-sex marriage

Why do opponents of same-sex marriage really oppose it?

A UCLA psychology study published online today in the journal Psychological Science concludes that many people believe gay men and women are more sexually promiscuous than heterosexuals, which they may fear could threaten their own marriages and their way of life.

“Many people who oppose same-sex marriage are uncomfortable with casual sex and feel threatened by sexual promiscuity,” said David Pinsof, a UCLA graduate student of psychology and lead author of the study.

Such people often marry at a younger age, have more children and believe in traditional gender roles in which men are the breadwinners and women are housewives.

“Sexual promiscuity may be threatening to these people because it provides more temptations for spouses to cheat on one another,” Pinsof said.

“On the other hand, for people who are comfortable with women being more economically independent, marrying at a later age and having more sexual partners, sexual promiscuity is not as much of a threat because women do not depend on men for financial support.” The researchers measured people’s attitudes, regardless of their accuracy.

People who feel their way of life is most threatened by sexual promiscuity tend to be socially conservative and strongly believe in traditional gender roles.

They were instructed to match the words to either “promiscuous” or “monogamous,” while also categorizing the couples as gay or straight.

Participants were instructed to press a button whenever they saw a photo of a gay couple or a word associated with “promiscuous,” and then to do the same whenever they saw a gay couple or a word associated with “monogamous.” The researchers measured how quickly participants responded in each scenario.

“If you have a hard time disassociating ‘gay’ and ‘promiscuous,’ it will take you longer to respond when ‘gay’ and ‘monogamous’ are paired,” Haselton said.

The test showed that many people tend to strongly associate the concepts “gay” and “promiscuous.”

Next, researchers asked people the extent to which they agree or disagree with statements such as:

Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Same-sex marriage undermines the meaning of the traditional family.
I oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage.
I support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
Same-sex couples should have the same legal rights to get married as heterosexual couples.

The researchers determined subjects’ level of “sexual conservatism” based on how much they agreed or disagreed with statements like “Sex without love is okay” and “I can easily imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying casual sex with different partners.” Those who agreed more strongly with those statements were likely to support same-sex marriage.

“What people are willing to say about links between sexual promiscuity and sexual orientation and their reaction times tell a very similar story,” Haselton said.

The challenge of the study was whether Pinsof’s statistical analysis could predict whether participants support or oppose same-sex marriage strongly, moderately or slightly, based on their response times and their answers to the series of statements.

On a seven point-scale from “strongly oppose” to “strongly support” same-sex marriage, he was able to account for 42.3 percent of the variation in people’s attitudes, and able to accurately predict their attitudes about same-sex marriage substantially better than chance.

“That is remarkable; in psychological research, explaining 42 percent is huge,” Haselton said.

“Opposition to same-sex marriage may be strategic by people who are seeking to protect their marriages and the marriages in their communities, and are fearful that changing the definition of marriage is threatening to their way of life,” Pinsof said.

In the decade since the court’s decision, public support for same-sex marriage has increased. Hodges, Alito said at the conference, "is a precedent of the court that is entitled to the respect afforded by the doctrine of stare decisis."

Not `the gospel' Ahead of Supreme Court term, Clarence Thomas weighs in on precedent

But a former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses in 2015 because of her religious beliefs has asked the court to scrap the decision.

"The High Court now has the opportunity to finally overturn this egregious opinion from 2015," Mat Staver, head of the conservative legal group representing the clerk, said when filing the appeal in July.

More: Alito says he was right to fear that opponents of gay marriage would be treated as bigots

Court watchers think it’s unlikely the justices will hear her case despite criticisms of it from the conservative side of the bench.

Alito brought up the Obergefell decision as an example of how justices should not be “too quick to read certain constitutional provisions to embody broad abstract principles and to justify results that would have astonished those who framed and ratified those provisions.”

But in laying out what he views as the best way to apply the conservative judicial philosophy of originalism – the idea of interpreting the words of the Constitution as the framers would have understood them – Alito also said it’s OK to go beyond what’s in “black and white.”

More: Kim Davis refused same-sex marriage license in 2015.

If a majority of justices did so, I believe they would almost certainly use the same logic employed to overturn Roe v. That is, the court’s conservative majority could argue that the Constitution does not recognize marriage as a fundamental right, and therefore it is up to the states to regulate and define marriage, including prohibiting same-sex couples from obtaining marriage licenses.

Under the Respect for Marriage Act, however, signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022, states outlawing same-sex marriage would have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, as would the federal government.

The bottom line is that Trump’s second term and the Supreme Court’s conservativeactivism have lit a fire in some Republican lawmakers, who are targeting same-sex marriage as part of a broader attack on LGBTQ+ rights.

If successful, these efforts would be a dramatic blow to the progress made toward LGBTQ+ equality over the past two decades.

Justice Alito still doesn't like court's gay marriage decision but said it's precedent

WASHINGTON − Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, in recent remarks, offered no encouragement to anyone hoping he will push the court to overturn its 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

Alito, one of the court’s most conservative justices, squarely criticized the decision in an Oct.

3 speech at an academic conference.