10 years of tyranny is enough: The legal fiction of Obergefell

The Christian Post ^ | June 26, 2025 | Daniel Schmid

[Engraved-on-His-hands]

“When it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution — the ‘great charter of our liberties,’ which was ‘meant to endure through the long lapse of the ages,’ — we place a high value on having the matter ‘settled right’ ...When one of our constitutional decisions goes astray, the country is usually stuck with the bad decision unless we correct our own mistake” – (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization 2022).

The time has come for the Court to do just that — correct the mistake it made a decade ago and overturn the disastrous and unconstitutional decision that legalized same-sex “marriage.”

[pierrem15]

It didn’t “legalize” it. It effectively forced every jurisdiction of the United States to redefine marriage to include homosexual unions. It did so without any lawful or Constitutional authority.

[TiGuy22]

Good point. Marriage is not mentioned in the constitution, so like Roe, it should be up to the states. Unless I am missing something...

[Jamestown1630]

I agree.

[adorno]

‘Homosexual union’....

That should be an x-rated term. Yuk!

[dennisw]

Since when does the Federal government/Supreme Court have anything to say about marriage? Marriage laws are up to each state.
If 15 states liberal wanted to legalize gay marriage then pass the laws. But leave the other states out of this mess. So what if the this ends up with gay marriage laws being a patchwork?
Where a state that allows gay marriage has three bordering states that do not. Not my problem!
-
-

But this is precisely why the gay lawyers jammed the Supreme Court to make gay marriage legal in all states. For money reasons, for the convenience of gays when it comes to their “marriage” being recognized everywhere when it comes to buying a house, joint bank accounts, gay divorces, inheritances, hospital visits, child custody battles, joint filing for taxes, and so on.

[Claud]

I would argue it’s even not up the states. Not up to them one bit.

The institution of marriage is universal, and predates all human government. It was here before any modern government was created, and will be here long after every government falls. Therefore, governments have ZERO authority to change or modify it in its essence.

In a wiser age, people would have simply said that it is part of the Natural Law. The law of nature.

[Still Thinking]

SCOTUS was hypocritical on gay marriage.

Two decisions had roughly opposite logic around states rights, whichever one was needed to find in favor of gay marriage in each case.

[Jamestown1630]

They could have all of that with a civil union.

[Dr. Franklin]

This precedent highlights the difference between conservatives and federalists. Conservatives oppose recognition of homosexuals having a right to legally marry. Federalists think federal courts should interpret the constitution to forward elitist agendas. There is a large difference between the two, although sometimes they overlap.

[joshua c]

obergefell is made from the same weak sauce as roe

[joshua c]

gun laws are a patch work

[unlearner]

The legal fiction of Obergefell is rooted in the social fiction that a sexual fixation is an identity.

[KingofZion]

Why do you care so much about what other people do?

[subterfuge]

Gay “marriage” paved the way for “trans rights,” soon to be followed by pedophile rights.

[Albion Wilde]

Apparently, today is the 10-year anniversary of this atrocity. However, and not often mentioned, is that the passage of Obergefell was preceded by the same judicial overreach we have seen with the activist courts towards Trump. When the gay lobby ramped up its demands for gay marriage after a SCOTUS decision in 2003 that decriminalized homosexual behavior (Lawrence v. Texas), state after state—around 30, if I recall correctly—passed legal definitions of marriage as "one man and one woman", only to have rogue judges call these laws “unconstitutional”, thus preventing states from upholding the will of the People to order their own society.

In fact, our nation's jurisprudence was in an earthquake of judicial overreach. Ever since Brown v. Board of Education (1954) when the fundamental fairness of ending Jim Crow went to the courts' heads, the destruction of Christianity began apace and has not stopped. In one declsion after another, SCOTUS violated any ostensible “wall between church and state” in the church direction, incrementally destroying the influence of JudeoChristianity on our society. Birth control distributed to the unmarried, legal cohabitation, pornography, abortion, decriminalization of gay sex, unmarried pregnancy rights in the workplace including schools, single parent adoption, no-fault divorce, gay adoption—every “liberalization” passed in those post-WWII years tore apart the People's ability to uphold our social values at the ballot box.

Looking back in hindsight at those brazenly liberal times after Reagan (GHWBush, Clinton, GWBush, Obama), I can only thank God the question of the constitutionallity of gay marriage did not go up to the SCOTUS to be Ginsburgized. Only now do we have a small window and a shot at correcting this mistake, although with John Roberts at the helm, and the crypto sexual liberationist Gorshuch in addition to the wymen on the high court, it's a crap shoot.

[cowboyusa]

It made a mockery of the 14th Ammendment. Kennedy invented a right from cloth.😡

[Albion Wilde]

Why do you care so much about what other people do?

Because "what other people do" has led to compulsions and punishments of people holding traditional values, including being fired for using "wrong" pronouns or for heterosexuals using words like "husband" or "wife" in the workplace, to sensitivity brainwashing at work and in schools, to children as young as 5 being subjected to graphic descriptions of adult sexual behavior, to an uprise in public displays of behaviors that gays used to joke among themselves was "outrageous"—such as the drag queen and pride extortions of libraries, schools, workplaces and corporate sponsorships, to peeping Tomism and peenie flashing in women's bathrooms, to mediocre male athletes literally beating women in sports competitions.

It's been observed, “The love that dare not say its name has become the bore that won't shut the hell up.” Even gays are sick of trannie overkill at this point.

[lastchance]

I was and still am against that decision. I am rather surprised that laws against bigamy, polygamy, polyandry and the like have not been challenged. It seems if they were they would also be scuttled under the same-sex marriage ruling.

[Recovering_Democrat]

correct. Obergfell is a terrible decision. A travesty against common sense. Reverse it.