Is trump trying to overturn gay marriage
In Marsha P. Johnson's final interview before her death in 1992, the activist later recognized as an icon of the movement that preceded LGBTQ rights in the Combined States explained why she, a trans woman, championed a cause that often excluded her.
"I've been walking for same-sex attracted rights all these years," Johnson said, referencing early Identity festival marches in a conversation that appears in a 2012 documentary about her life. "Because you never completely possess your rights, one person, until you all have your rights."
Since then, social and political wins over time grew to encompass everyone represented by the acronym LGBTQ, which stands for womxn loving womxn, gay, bisexual, trans and queer. But that's become less true in recent years, as lawmakers in Tennessee, Texas and a number of other states repeatedly pushed legislation to restrict access to gender-affirming protect, bathrooms and sports teams for gender nonconforming people.
Anti-trans sentiment was central to President Trump's 2024 campaign, LGBTQ advocates state, and it followed him into office. Many of his directives this designation have closely mirrored Project 2025, a conservative policy agenda that explicitly prioritizes eroding LGBTQ rights.
A
Same-sex marriage, which the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 legalized nationwide in the case known as Obergefell v. Hodges, is facing resurgent hostility.
In the decade since the court’s decision, general support for same-sex marriage has increased. Currently, about 70% ofAmericans approve of legally recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples, a 10-percentage-point bump from 2015.
Obergefell led to an increase in marriages among same-sex partners, with more than 700,000 same-sex couples currently married.
Despite this, Republican lawmakers in five states have recently introduced symbolic bills calling on the Supreme Court to overturn its ruling in Obergefell.
And Republican lawmakers in two states own proposed legislation that creates a new category of marriage, called “covenant marriage,” that is reserved for one man and one woman.
As a professor of legal studies, I believe such attacks on same-sex marriage illustrate a serious threat to the institution.
And others share my concern.
A 2024 poll of married homosexual couples found that 54% of respondents are worried that the Supreme Court might overturn Obergefell, with only 17% saying they did not anticipate such a challe
Following Donald Trump’s landslide victory in the 2024 presidential election, many people may be looking to his campaign speeches to understand his position on major issues such as LGBTQ rights.
The Republican Party’s electoral promises in this area include cutting existing federal funding for gender-affirming care and restricting transgender students’ participation in sports.
Yet as a legal scholar who has written extensively on the history of LGBTQ rights, I have seen that the clearest indication of how a politician will do once in office is not what they promise on the campaign route. Instead, it is what they hold done in the past.
Let’s examine the records of Trump and the vice president-elect, U.S. Sen. JD Vance of Ohio.
Trump restricted some LGBTQ rights
Trump and Vance are both relatively new to politics, so their records on LGBTQ rights issues are slim. That said, they have both done enough to qualify them as opponents of LGBTQ rights.
Trump enacted two policies restricting LGBTQ rights adv in his one term in office. The first was his 2017 executive order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty, which reinforced that federal regulation must respect conscience-base
Some Republican lawmakers increase calls against gay marriage SCOTUS ruling
Conservative legislators are increasingly speaking out against the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 ruling on same-sex marriage equality.
Idaho legislators began the trend in January when the state House and Senate passed a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision -- which the court cannot do unless presented with a case on the issue. Some Republican lawmakers in at least four other states like Michigan, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota have followed suit with calls to the Supreme Court.
In North Dakota, the resolution passed the express House with a vote of 52-40 and is headed to the Senate. In South Dakota, the state’s House Judiciary Committee sent the proposal on the 41st Legislative Date –deferring the bill to the final day of a legislative session, when it will no longer be considered, and effectively killing the bill.
In Montana and Michigan, the bills have yet to encounter legislative scrutiny.
Resolutions have no legal authority and are not binding law, but instead allow legislative bodies to express their collective opinions.
The resolutions in four other states ech
Same-sex marriage, which the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 legalized nationwide in the case known as Obergefell v. Hodges, is facing resurgent hostility.
In the decade since the court’s decision, general support for same-sex marriage has increased. Currently, about 70% ofAmericans approve of legally recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples, a 10-percentage-point bump from 2015.
Obergefell led to an increase in marriages among same-sex partners, with more than 700,000 same-sex couples currently married.
Despite this, Republican lawmakers in five states have recently introduced symbolic bills calling on the Supreme Court to overturn its ruling in Obergefell.
And Republican lawmakers in two states own proposed legislation that creates a new category of marriage, called “covenant marriage,” that is reserved for one man and one woman.
As a professor of legal studies, I believe such attacks on same-sex marriage illustrate a serious threat to the institution.
And others share my concern.
A 2024 poll of married homosexual couples found that 54% of respondents are worried that the Supreme Court might overturn Obergefell, with only 17% saying they did not anticipate such a challe
Following Donald Trump’s landslide victory in the 2024 presidential election, many people may be looking to his campaign speeches to understand his position on major issues such as LGBTQ rights.
The Republican Party’s electoral promises in this area include cutting existing federal funding for gender-affirming care and restricting transgender students’ participation in sports.
Yet as a legal scholar who has written extensively on the history of LGBTQ rights, I have seen that the clearest indication of how a politician will do once in office is not what they promise on the campaign route. Instead, it is what they hold done in the past.
Let’s examine the records of Trump and the vice president-elect, U.S. Sen. JD Vance of Ohio.
Trump restricted some LGBTQ rights
Trump and Vance are both relatively new to politics, so their records on LGBTQ rights issues are slim. That said, they have both done enough to qualify them as opponents of LGBTQ rights.
Trump enacted two policies restricting LGBTQ rights adv in his one term in office. The first was his 2017 executive order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty, which reinforced that federal regulation must respect conscience-base
Some Republican lawmakers increase calls against gay marriage SCOTUS ruling
Conservative legislators are increasingly speaking out against the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 ruling on same-sex marriage equality.
Idaho legislators began the trend in January when the state House and Senate passed a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision -- which the court cannot do unless presented with a case on the issue. Some Republican lawmakers in at least four other states like Michigan, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota have followed suit with calls to the Supreme Court.
In North Dakota, the resolution passed the express House with a vote of 52-40 and is headed to the Senate. In South Dakota, the state’s House Judiciary Committee sent the proposal on the 41st Legislative Date –deferring the bill to the final day of a legislative session, when it will no longer be considered, and effectively killing the bill.
In Montana and Michigan, the bills have yet to encounter legislative scrutiny.
Resolutions have no legal authority and are not binding law, but instead allow legislative bodies to express their collective opinions.
The resolutions in four other states ech