A coalition of nearly fifty conservative groups launched a campaign in late January aimed at overturning the constitutional precedent on same-sex "marriage." The 2015 ruling, known as Obergefell v. Hodges, requires states to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states.
The Greater Than campaign follows on from last year's efforts by a Kentucky judge who refused to register a same-sex couple as married, resulting in a lawsuit worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Judge Kim Davis appealed to the US Supreme Court in July, but the nine-member high courtrejected her request on November 10.
And while liberal organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign and GLAD Law celebrated the preservation of the precedent, conservatives were gearing up for another round in the ring. They were motivated by their successes in the so-called culture war, dating back to June 24, 2022—the day the Roe v. Wade precedent, which according to its defenders guaranteed the "right to abortion," was overturned.
Children's rights and the "right" to marriage
Another partial victory was the defense of a state law in Tennessee thatprohibitsthe prescription of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to persons under the age of 19. The United States v. Skrmetti case [named after state attorney Jonathan Skrmetti, editor's note] was concluded by the Supreme Court on June 18 with a ruling that the state law does not restrict federally guaranteed rights.
The Trump administration also expanded the understanding of child protection to include protection from castration and mutilation, as defined by the White House chief during his inauguration on January 20, 2025. The State Department also began to consider "abortions covered by health insurance" as a violation of human rights.
The organization Them Before Us, which advocates for children's rights, and 46 other foundations and groups named the campaign "Greater Than" andargued in the introductory commercial that "children's rights are 'greater' than the desires of adults."
Daily Wire commentator Michael Knowles summed up the coalition's view: "We prioritize adult fantasies—no matter how sincerely felt—over the actual needs and actual welfare of children."
"Since the redefinition of marriage ten years ago, we have seen the consequences: parenthood is considered replaceable, and children are deprived of the unique love and guidance that only a mother and father can provide," said Katy Faust, head of Them Before Us.
"Ten years of Obergefell have clearly shown us that children deserve better and are more important than the desires of adults—and it's time to change that," she added.
Newsweek editor-at-large Josh Hammer noted that legal norms regarding marriage "should be about children." That is the first step in the proposed strategy: a return to a marriage policy focused on the relationship between parents and children.
The next steps are to "change public opinion" through an advertising campaign highlighting the beneficial effects of marriage on child development and to "mobilize Christian churches."
Greater Than argues that the ruling in favor of activist James Obergefell has radically changed the boundaries of family law. It considers the relationship between parents and children to be a "configurable legal status, not a natural bond based on biology."
Controversial precedent
However, the coalition has assured that overturning the precedent would not mean a loss of rights for couples who entered into "marriage" before it took effect—including adoption or the purchase of a child through surrogacy (womb rental).
It also recalled former President Joe Biden's law on respect for marriage. On December 13, 2022, this law replaced the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as an official union between a man and a woman and gave states the right not to recognize same-sex "marriages."
According to the Greater Than coalition, Biden's law "requires states to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere—and therefore does not require states to grant them licenses." The effectiveness of this law would be "significantly weakened" by the repeal of Obergefell.
Conservatives are probably eager to see the ruling overturned, even though it has been on shaky ground from the outset. The Supreme Court's argument in June 2015 was that the non-recognition of same-sex unions was contrary to the 14thAmendmentto the United States Constitution.
The amendment's clauses on due process and equal protection originally applied to freed black slaves after the Civil War, to whom the federal government granted citizenship and thus equal protection under the law.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," states the first paragraph of the amendment.
As can be seen from the court's decision, the author of the majority opinion, Anthony Kennedy, argued a decade ago for "freedom" and "the right to marry." "The Constitution promises all those covered by it a freedom that includes certain specific rights enabling individuals to define and express their identity within the legal framework,"he wrote.
"The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying a person of the same sex and having their marriages recognized as lawful under the same terms as marriages between persons of the opposite sex," continued Ronald Reagan's nominee.
Despite the fact that this member of the "Democratic Party aristocracy" defines himself as a Catholic, in addition to this bizarre decision, he also contributed to the hardening of the Roe v. Wade issue by issuing a supporting opinion on the Planned Parenthood v. Casey precedent.
Let us recall that Justice Kennedy retired in 2018 and was succeeded by his former law clerk Brett Kavanaugh after a dramatic confirmation in the Senate.
Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey sought to impose a waiting period for women who decided to have an abortion, mandatory consent from their husbands, or mandatory notification of parents in the case of minors. The Supreme Court rejected this, saying it would be an "excessive legal burden." The ruling overturning Roe alsoendedthis precedent.
And just as the "right" to destroy one's own offspring through abortion has been abolished and the federal government has moved away from protecting "gender identity" by returning to the biological definition of sex, so too may the precedent on same-sex unions one day be overturned. Davis's lawyer, Mat Staver, is definitely counting on it.
"Like the Roe v. Wade abortion decision, the Obergefell decision was completely wrong from the start," he told CNN. "We will continue to work to overturn the Obergefell precedent. It's not a question of whether the Supreme Court will overturn it, but when," he said.
In July 2023, at the MCC Feszt event in Ostrihome, Knowles spoke about how young people in the US are increasingly turning away from the achievements of the sexual revolution, with the rejection of transgender ideology being just the beginning.
"A Gallup poll showed that the more Americans oppose the transition of minors, the more they begin to reject the earlier stages of the sexual revolution. In recent years, not only has the number of Americans who agree with transgenderism fallen dramatically, but the proportion of those who approve of same-sex cohabitation in any form has fallen by a full seven percentage points,"he noted.
According to this thesis, it would be enough to wait for a generational change that would cause a shift in the understanding of marriage and its return to the state before 2015.
As signs of a certain generational political change or even religious revival in the West are increasing, Staver is probably not wrong.