The winds of history are shifting once again, carrying with them the tremors of a judicial earthquake that has already toppled Roe v. Wade. Ever since Dobbs shattered that half-century-old precedent, Obergefell v. Hodges has stood in the shadow of the same legal logic – and shadows, as history reminds us, do not last forever. The Court's willingness to admit past error and restore the Constitution's original meaning has set a precedent of its own: no ruling, however loudly defended by cultural elites, is beyond reconsideration. The nation watches with bated breath, aware that decisions made in the marble halls of the Supreme Court ripple outward, reshaping culture, law, and the lives of millions.
That reconsideration is no longer an abstract idea; it is a growing movement. In recent months, several state legislatures have passed resolutions formally urging the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell, declaring that the decision overstepped the Court's authority and stripped the states of their rightful power to define marriage.
These legislative actions are more than symbolic; they serve as constitutional invitations, signaling to the justices that the people's representatives are ready to restore marriage to its proper democratic forum. The momentum reflects a broader conservative resurgence, a reminder that legal precedent is never fully immune from the will of the states and the evolving interpretation of the Constitution.
The momentum to challenge Obergefell is not just confined to the federal courts. At the state level, lawmakers in nine states – eight of which currently have a Republican governor – have introduced measures that either directly or indirectly urge the Supreme Court to reconsider its 2015 decision. These efforts include:
- Idaho: The measures here reflect a growing conservative movement whereby the state House passed a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell.
- Michigan: State Rep. Josh Schriver introduced a resolution urging the Court to reverse Obergefell, arguing that it is at odds with the sanctity of marriage and the Michigan Constitution.
- Montana: A resolution was introduced in the state legislature calling for the Supreme Court to revisit its decision on same-sex marriage.
- North Dakota: The state House passed a resolution urging the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell, which is now awaiting Senate approval.
- South Dakota: A similar resolution was introduced, though it has not yet passed.
- Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas: Legislators in these states have introduced bills recognizing "covenant marriage," that is reserved only for one man and one woman. These measures are designed not only to protect traditional marriage at the state level but could also possibly to invite a legal challenge that might ultimately reach the Supreme Court.
These state-level initiatives underscore a broader conservative strategy: to create a patchwork of legislative efforts that both preserve the traditional definition of marriage locally and pressure the federal judiciary to revisit the contours of constitutional authority. In doing so, lawmakers hope to remind the nation that the power to define marriage has always resided primarily with the states, not the courts.
When Dobbs came before the Court in late 2021, it was the culmination of decades of meticulous groundwork. A tidal wave of legal scholarship, state legislation, and cultural momentum all converged to bring down Roe. Now, the July 2025 petition from former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis (right) arrives in a very different way: not as the flagship of a movement, but as the latest chapter in a personal battle that began when she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after Obergefell.
Her filing doesn't just argue that the Court invented a new right. It suggests that, in doing so, it diminished another: the free exercise of religion. Like Dobbs, it challenges the notion that courts can "discover" rights hidden between the lines of the Constitution. But unlike Dobbs, it comes wrapped in the story of one woman's stand for her conscience and the price she paid to take that stand. Her story raises a sharper question: did Obergefell secure new protections for one group by effectively trading away the constitutional liberties of another? The Davis petition forces the Court to confront the human stakes behind abstract legal doctrines, asking whether the balance struck by judicial fiat truly reflects the values of the people.
My wife and I run a marriage and family-focused nonprofit, and not long ago we were invited to Mar-a-Lago to join several faith-based leaders from across the country for encouragement and new vision. Being in that room, seeing so many committed to the same principles of moral truth and the sanctity of marriage, was deeply hopeful and exhilarating. The last several years had brought so many seemingly insurmountable challenges that many leaders in our "space" were left with very little hope, yet we powered through adversity anyway.
But this event at Donald Trump's Florida residence really marked a shift from my perspective from just a few short years ago. I believe that this and many other events happening right now across our country are proof that people are coming together to stand boldly for what is right. Not only has recent history helped solidify my purpose and resolve, but as I travel across the USA, I see these once small pockets of hope really blooming into wonderful strongholds of encouragement and purpose, showing that the conservative movement for marriage and religious freedom is not just surviving, but it is quietly thriving!
Opponents will predictably decry any reconsideration of Obergefell as an assault on "settled law," the same refrain once used to defend Roe. But as Dobbs proved, a law is not settled simply because a court declares it so – especially when it rests on shaky constitutional ground.
The growing chorus of states demanding a course correction reflects a deeper reality: America is weary of judicial decrees that reshape the moral landscape without the consent of the governed. Whether Obergefell meets the same fate as Roe in SCOTUS' ash heap will depend not only on the courage of the Court, but on the persistence of a people unwilling to be ruled by bad judicial precedent.
Read related commentary:
Americans are waking up to the effects of same-sex marriage
Notice: This column is printed with permission. Opinion pieces published by AFN.net are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, AFN.net, our parent organization or its other affiliates.
