Will Obergfell vs Hodges be overturned?

[Midnight FM]

I don't consider same-sex marriage a significant political issue, given that people who identify as gay/homosexual are a small percentage of the population, and that the issue only affects consenting adults. Regardless, there has been some talk about the Supreme Court overturning Obergfell vs Hodges in the same vein as Roe vs. Wade. I'm curious if and when it will happen, and what the ramifications will be. Most likely, the end result will simply be that "progressive" states will keep gay marriage legal, while some "conservative" states may elect to ban it. The progressive states will then become popular tourist destinations a la Vegas for same-sex couples looking to get married. So, in the long run, I don't think it will have a significant impact.

 

[BackAgain]

I don't consider same-sex marriage a significant political issue, given that people who identify as gay/homosexual are a small percentage of the population, and that the issue only affects consenting adults. Regardless, there has been some talk about the Supreme Court overturning Obergfell vs Hodges in the same vein as Roe vs. Wade. I'm curious if and when it will happen, and what the ramifications will be. Most likely, the end result will simply be that "progressive" states will keep gay marriage legal, while some "conservative" states may elect to ban it. The progressive states will then become popular tourist destinations a la Vegas for same-sex couples looking to get married. So, in the long run, I don't think it will have a significant impact.

What does all the research you’ve done tell you?

 

[candycorn]

Will Obergfell vs Hodges be overturned?​

yes

 

[BackAgain]

Doubtful.

 

[The Duke]

OP is a leftist shill turd, obviously starting a fuckton of OPs.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Perhaps.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't consider same-sex marriage a significant political issue, given that people who identify as gay/homosexual are a small percentage of the population, and that the issue only affects consenting adults. Regardless, there has been some talk about the Supreme Court overturning Obergfell vs Hodges in the same vein as Roe vs. Wade. I'm curious if and when it will happen, and what the ramifications will be. Most likely, the end result will simply be that "progressive" states will keep gay marriage legal, while some "conservative" states may elect to ban it. The progressive states will then become popular tourist destinations a la Vegas for same-sex couples looking to get married. So, in the long run, I don't think it will have a significant impact.

Not such a minor issue

Since the Obergefell v. Hodges decision in June 2015, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, approximately 591,000 same-sex couples have married in the United States, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA. This has led to a significant increase in the number of married same-sex couples, with the total estimated at 823,000 as of June 2025, according to the Williams Institute.

If you were gay and among those people and living in a Shit Hole Red State you might not be so cavalier about it. My guess is that if Obergefell is overturned, the bigots will not be happy with just ending future marriages. They my seek to have existing marriages annulled upending hundreds of thousands of lives.

In addition, if a gay couple in one of those SHIT HOLE states wanted to get married, it would not just be a matter of their traveling to a blue state to get hitched and then go back home. It would probably be made illegal to do so as was interracial marriage before Loving v. Virginia .

 

[0311]

yes

Who the **** are to decide whom a person can marry solely based the gender of couple involved?

 

[candycorn]

Who the **** are to decide whom a person can marry solely based the gender of couple involved?

The same people who decided that women are not responsible enough to make their own healthcare decisions.

Inter-racial marriage is on life-support too BTW.

Whether we, as a society as a whole, deserve to call ourselves "the land of the free" is questionable at this point.

 

[Midnight FM]

The same people who decided that women are not responsible enough to make their own healthcare decisions.

The issue is about defining when a human life begins.

Whether we, as a society as a whole, deserve to call ourselves "the land of the free" is questionable at this point.

People don't have the "freedom" to take another person's life, if that is in question. And that's a good thing.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Abortion is not your concern, Midnight, if it is another person.

Same sex marriage is not your concern.

Inter-racial marriage is not your concern.

 

[0311]

The same people who decided that women are not responsible enough to make their own healthcare decisions.

Inter-racial marriage is on life-support too BTW.

Whether we, as a society as a whole, deserve to call ourselves "the land of the free" is questionable at this point.

Thomas will vote to end his own marriage.

 

[candycorn]

Thomas will vote to end his own marriage.

He'll likely be long gone when it finally reaches the court. But given what you know about the cut-it-to-fit principles of the conservatives...would it surprise you? This is the same group of morons who say that "money is speech".

Also, lets keep in mind that "overturn" doesn't mean outlaw. It usually means sending it back to the states. In the case of marriage, the full faith/credit clause would have to fall so that Mississippi wouldn't recognize Thomas's marriage whereby Maryland or Virginia may. So he would not be voting to end his own marriage, he would be voting to where Mississippi doesn't have to recognize his marriage (theoretically of course).

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Wait and see, gomer.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

He'll likely be long gone when it finally reaches the court. But given what you know about the cut-it-to-fit principles of the conservatives...would it surprise you? This is the same group of morons who say that "money is speech".

Also, lets keep in mind that "overturn" doesn't mean outlaw. It usually means sending it back to the states. In the case of marriage, the full faith/credit clause would have to fall so that Mississippi wouldn't recognize Thomas's marriage whereby Maryland or Virginia may. So he would not be voting to end his own marriage, he would be voting to where Mississippi doesn't have to recognize his marriage (theoretically of course).

OH come on!! Why are you trying to minimize this?

First of all,
AI Overview

The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution generally requires states to recognize the legal acts and judicial proceedings of other states, including marriages. This means a marriage validly created in one state should be recognized as valid in another, even if the second state has different laws regarding marriage. However, this principle has been complex and sometimes contested, particularly in the context of same-sex marriage and public policy exceptions.

Secondly, while it would not be outlawed on the Federal level, states will outlaw it. Don;t forget the fact that with abortion, they said that they were "just turning it back to the states" and look at what happened. There would be large swaths of the country where gay marriage is illegal, and I would not be surprised if they imposed travel bans for the purpose of getting married.

And as I said before, they will likely move to invalidate current gay marriages as well as banning future marriages

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Obergefell is the law of the land until it is not.

And guess what?

 

[candycorn]

OH come on!! Why are you trying to minimize this?

First of all,
AI Overview

The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution generally requires states to recognize the legal acts and judicial proceedings of other states, including marriages. This means a marriage validly created in one state should be recognized as valid in another, even if the second state has different laws regarding marriage. However, this principle has been complex and sometimes contested, particularly in the context of same-sex marriage and public policy exceptions.

Secondly, while it would not be outlawed on the Federal level, states will outlaw it. Don;t forget the fact that with abortion, they said that they were "just turning it back to the states" and look at what happened. There would be large swaths of the country where gay marriage is illegal, and I would not be surprised if they imposed travel bans for the purpose of getting married.

And as I said before, they will likely move to invalidate current gay marriages as well as banning future marriages

I’m not minimizing anything. Just pointing out the nuances of most court decisions. Those who think the State needs to bless marriages are just as sick as the judges who think they have a role to play in women’s healthcare decisions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't consider same-sex marriage a significant political issue, given that people who identify as gay/homosexual are a small percentage of the population, and that the issue only affects consenting adults. Regardless, there has been some talk about the Supreme Court overturning Obergfell vs Hodges in the same vein as Roe vs. Wade. I'm curious if and when it will happen, and what the ramifications will be. Most likely, the end result will simply be that "progressive" states will keep gay marriage legal, while some "conservative" states may elect to ban it. The progressive states will then become popular tourist destinations a la Vegas for same-sex couples looking to get married. So, in the long run, I don't think it will have a significant impact.

The corrupt Thomas already signaled to his political allies and patrons that now is the time.

They got the message.

 

[Mashmont]

I don't consider same-sex marriage a significant political issue, given that people who identify as gay/homosexual are a small percentage of the population, and that the issue only affects consenting adults. Regardless, there has been some talk about the Supreme Court overturning Obergfell vs Hodges in the same vein as Roe vs. Wade. I'm curious if and when it will happen, and what the ramifications will be. Most likely, the end result will simply be that "progressive" states will keep gay marriage legal, while some "conservative" states may elect to ban it. The progressive states will then become popular tourist destinations a la Vegas for same-sex couples looking to get married. So, in the long run, I don't think it will have a significant impact.

Normally, I would say no, but John Roberts is on record saying 0bergefell was an extremely poorly justified decision. so there may be hope for its reversal. Not sure this is the case, unfortunately.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

• He argued that the Constitution does not explicitly grant a right to same-sex marriage.
• Roberts believed the issue should be decided through democratic processes, not judicial mandate.