10 years after Obergefell, state legislators fight uphill battle against same-sex marriage

 

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jul 12, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).

Just over a decade ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered that every state must offer marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Ten years later, several lawmakers throughout the country are reigniting the marriage debate within their state legislatures.

In 2025, lawmakers in several states introduced resolutions that urged the Supreme Court to overturn the 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which established same-sex civil marriage nationwide.

The North Dakota House and the Idaho House passed resolutions, but both efforts failed when sent to their respective state senates. In most states, the resolutions died in committees.

The limited success was in legislative chambers with overwhelming Republican supermajorities. The Idaho House, for example, has a 61-9 Republican majority and passed the resolution in a 46-24 vote.

The North Dakota House, with its 81-11 Republican majority, adopted the resolution more narrowly: 52-40.

Still, both measures died in the upper legislative chambers despite Republicans holding a 29-6 supermajority in the Idaho Senate and a 42-5 supermajority in the North Dakota Senate.

The current effort to urge state lawmakers to pass resolutions on Obergefell is being led by the national pro-family group MassResistance. Arthur Schaper, the group’s field director, told CNA he expects the resolutions to be reintroduced in 2026 in most states where lawmakers carried them this year and is working with lawmakers to carry them in several additional states.

“We are hitting the pedal to the metal,” Schaper said. “We are doubling down on this fight. We are not giving up. We are going to keep pushing.”

Most of the state legislatures likely to see a resolution on their dockets next year will again be ones with Republican majorities, but Schaper said the holdups in many states are caused by “a real timidity on the part of Republican operatives in some states,” along with “liberal politicians masquerading as conservatives.”

Some Republican leadership in states have “frustrated our efforts,” he said. In some cases, he added, members of the party “just don’t want to touch the issue.”

Still, Schaper expressed optimism moving forward, saying that “people are waking up to the dangerous, destructive realities of redefining marriage.” He noted that recent polling shows a majority of Republicans oppose same-sex marriage.

Yet about 41% of Republicans do support it, as do about two-thirds of the country’s voters as a whole, which is contributing to the difficulty of getting legislative support.

Ongoing efforts in Idaho

Although resolutions don’t have the force of law, Idaho Rep. Heather Scott — who introduced her state’s resolution — told CNA that a resolution “lays out the facts on the issue and allows legislators to take a stand on the idea itself.”

“It also alerts the Supreme Court of the Idaho state lawmakers’ opposition to their decision,” she said. “Resolutions are often the first step in crafting language for successful legislation.”

Scott said the resolution was successful in the House “because we strategized a path forward and worked with outside supporters and legislators to be clear with the messaging.” But she noted it became “a very controversial issue,” which she attributed to “false narratives and messaging.”

According to Scott, some members of the media “promoted the idea that Idaho lawmakers were trying to end all ‘gay marriages’.”

She said many citizens “did not understand that this is a state sovereignty issue that should be discussed, debated and dealt with at the state level, not mandated from the federal government.”

Schaper partially attributed the success to Idaho’s commitment to “state’s rights” and “state’s authority.” He said “it’s kind of baked into the idaho culture, resistance to federal overreach.”

In the Senate, however, he noted that leadership “didn’t bring the bill up for a vote.” But he said he expects “widespread outrage” at some of the chamber’s leadership for failing to take up major conservative priorities. He said he is “more confident going into next year.”

“The state population has become very conservative,” Shcaper said, adding “a lot of liberal Republicans have been phased out; they lost their primaries or they retired.”

“There’s a real push for respect for the 10th Amendment, respect for family, the population is getting more conservative, and they want the legislature to respect that,” he said.

North Dakota lawmaker defends marriage

North Dakota Rep. Bill Tveit, who introduced his state’s resolution, told CNA that despite the Republican supermajority in the House, “clearly it wasn’t a unanimous vote.” But, he added, “we were pleased with that passage.”

Yet, when the bill got to the Senate, Tveit said the chamber took a “verification vote,” which allows lawmakers to vote anonymously to gauge the level of support for a resolution.

Tveit referred to the procedure as “a chicken way to do things.” Most Republicans voted against the resolution in a 31-16 vote, but it’s unclear who voted for it and who against it.

“It was very easy for all of the senators to hide behind what they considered to be the threat of the next election,” Tveit said. “I think all too often we have ‘RINOS’ in charge — Republicans In Name Only. … Once it passed the House, I thought this thing would sail through the Senate.”

“Under certain leadership, it did not move forward,” he added.

The North Dakota legislature meets every two years, and Tveit noted he is up for re-election before the next session. He said, if re-elected, he will introduce the resolution again. If not, he said he expects another lawmaker to do so.

“I believe it’s that important,” Tveit explained. “We need to keep the pressure on.”

Movements in South Dakota and elsewhere

South Dakota Rep. Tony Randolph also introduced his state’s resolution in 2025. Although only one Democrat serves on the House Judiciary Committee, eight Republicans voted with the sole Democrat to defer a vote to the 41st legislative day, essentially killing the resolution.

Only four Republicans voted against the deferral.

“This is one of those things where, a lot of times, folks really struggle with what to do with it,” Randolph told CNA.

Randolph attributed its failure to a mix of reasons, saying that many Republicans are “worried about getting on the wrong side of certain groups.” He said some lawmakers are “concerned about public backlash.”

Although both chambers of the legislature have Republican supermajorities, similar to Idaho and North Dakota, he said South Dakota is “not as red as it appears from the outside.” He said that “some of the Democrats are actually more conservative than [some of] the Republicans.” There are some lawmakers, he said, who run as Republicans because it’s the “only way to get elected in their district.”

In spite of the setback this year, Randolph said he plans to introduce the resolution again next year. He said the resolution this year was put together at “the last minute” and he believes “it’ll have more support” next year.

Lawmakers in Michigan and Montana introduced resolutions nearly identical to Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Lawmakers in four other states introduced different resolutions to establish a new legal category reserved for one man and one woman, called a “covenant marriage.”

Schaper said MassResistance is in talks with lawmakers in other states where he hopes to get resolutions introduced that encourage the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell. Some of the states he hopes will see resolutions include Louisiana, Florida, Arkansas, Missouri, and Kansas.

He noted that state-level resolutions have been able to launch larger legislative movements in the past, and that the next step will be to get states approving resolutions in both chambers.

“It’s about starting the conversation,” Schaper said.