In a major blow to LGBTQIA+ rights, Texas’ Supreme Court has ruled that judges can refuse to marry same-sex couples.
On 24 October, the state’s highest court issued an order adopting comment to Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, which focuses on the “judge’s extra-judicial activities to minimise the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.”
According to the newly implemented comment, effective immediately, judges who “publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon sincerely held religious belief” will not be in violation of the state’s judicial impartiality rules.
According to KERA News, the rule change comes after years of pushback by state legal officials against same-sex marriage and a 2020 lawsuit filed by Jack County judge Brian Umphress.
Umphress’ decision to sue stemmed from his alleged fear that he could face the same sanction.
Shortly after the amendment was announced, Texas Supreme Court clerk Blake Hawthorne said the court would not comment on the change in a statement to the aforementioned news outlet.
“The order speaks for itself, and the Court cannot comment on its connection to pending litigation,” he said.
As of this writing, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct have not commented on the aforementioned change.
The recent development in Texas comes a few weeks before the US Supreme Court will consider whether it will hear a case challenging same-sex marriage.
Back in July, Kim Davis — who made headlines in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, appealing two past verdicts that ordered her to pay $100,000 to one of the same-sex couples she denied a marriage license to, and $250,000 in attorney fees.
The filing also urged the Court to overturn the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, calling it “grounded entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process.” Davis further claimed that the 2015 decision forced her to choose “between her religious beliefs and her job.”
On 23 October, the Court announced that it had set a date to consider whether to hear the challenge.
According to SCOTUSblog, the nine justices will meet in a private conference on 7 November.
The blog noted that the Court usually grants reviews after two consecutive conferences. The upcoming hearing will be the first for Davis’ case. If the Court denies a review following its meeting on 7 November, an announcement could be released as soon as 10 November.
For information about the status of marriage equality in the US, click here.
The filing also urged the Court to overturn the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, calling it “grounded entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process.” Davis further claimed that the 2015 decision forced her to choose “between her religious beliefs and her job.”
On 23 October, the Court announced that it had set a date to consider whether to hear the challenge.
According to SCOTUSblog, the nine justices will be meeting in a private conference on 7 November.
The blog went on to reveal that the Court usually grants reviews after two consecutive conferences. The upcoming hearing will be the first for Davis’ case. If the Court denies a review following their meeting on 7 November, an announcement can be released as soon as 10 November.
The recent update comes a week after conservative Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett – who was appointed to the high court during Trump’s first term– addressed the possibility of Obergefell v. Hodges being overturned.
During a recent conversation withThe New York Times‘s Ross Douthat, Barrett said marriage equality has “very concrete reliance interests,” making it unlikely to be taken away.
Ted Eytan on Flickr
She went on to define “reliance interests” as “things that would be upset or undone if a decision is undone.”
Elsewhere in the interview, Douthat inquired if there can be “social reliance interests in the sense of people making life choices on the basis of a right being protected.”
He added: “One of the arguments for why Obergefell v Hodges is unlikely to ever be overturned is the idea that people have made decisions about who to marry and therefore where to live and children… Everything else, on the basis of that ruling.”
In response, Barrett described Douthat’s example as “absolutely reliance interests,” stating that she wouldn’t classify them as “social reliance interests.”
“That kind of sounds like in things in the air. Those are very concrete reliance interests. So those would be classic reliance interests in the terms of the law, in terms of legal doctrine… Those are financial. Those are medical,” she explained.
Another conservative Supreme Court Justice who shared a similar opinion is Samuel Alito. While speaking at an academic conference on 3 October, he said that marriage equality is “entitled to respect,”despite his dislike of the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling.
For information about the status of marriage equality in the US, click here.
Turkey’s conservative government has proposed extreme and hateful reforms targeting the LGBTQIA+ community.
On 15 October, Turkish lawmakers shared a draft of their 11th Judicial Reform Package, which includes updates to existing laws that restrict trans and queer people.
Under the proposed legislation, “any person who engages in, publicly encourages, praises, or promotes attitudes or behaviours contrary to their biological sex at birth and public morality” could face one to three years in prison, per Türkiye Today.
Another portion of legislation would reportedly make the legal age for gender reassignment surgery change from 18 to 25.
Individuals looking to have the procedure would also need to be unmarried, receive a medical board report confirming that the procedure is “psychologically necessary” from a Ministry of Health-approved hospital; obtain four separate evaluations that are spaced three months apart; and have a court order amendment to their civil registry once the aforementioned medical report is approved.
Individuals with genetic or hormonal disorders would be the only ones exempt from the proposed regulations.
Medical professionals who perform gender affirming surgery without going through the aforementioned archaic steps could face three to seven years in prison and fines.
In addition to severely limiting trans people’s accessibility to gender affirming care, the proposed reforms target same-sex couples.
If a couple is caught having an engagement or wedding ceremony, they can face between one and a half to four years in prison.
The penalty for “public sexual acts or exhibitionism” would also increase from six months to a year to one to three years.
As for the stated purpose for introducing the hateful amendments, the document claims that it’s “to ensure the upbringing of physically and mentally healthy individuals and to protect the family institution and social structure, per Türkiye Today.
While homosexuality is not banned in Turkey, and despite the country being home to numerous LGBTQIA+ associations, homophobia is widespread and anti-discrimination laws are nonexistent.
Over the last decade, events for the community – like Pride marches and other queer-focused gatherings – have faced censorship by government authorities. The conservative country has even opted out of competing in Eurovision due to the inclusion of LGBTQIA+ contestants.
The Japanese government has granted more protections to same-sex couples.
According to The Japan Times, the government have decided to recognise same-sex couples as being in “de facto marriages” under nine more laws, including the Disaster Condolence Grant law.
The recent development comes months after the government determined that 24 laws – including the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, Land and House Lease Act, Child Abuse Prevention Act, and Public Housing Act – would apply to same-sex couples, per asahi.com.
Over the last few years, the local LGBTQIA+ community in Japan have been embroiled in a battle for marriage equality.
Currently, the country’s constitution defines marriage as “mutual consent between both sexes” and doesn’t recognise marriage equality.
“From the perspective of individual dignity, it can be said that it is necessary to realise the benefits of same-sex couples being publicly recognised through official recognition,” the court said on 20 June.
“Public debate on what kind of system is appropriate for this has not been thoroughly carried out.”
A few months later, a Tokyo court upheld the aforementioned ruling.
However, despite the court doubling down on its stance, the presiding judge also stated that the lack of a legal system and protections for same-sex couples infringes on their human rights (per CNN).
While the marriage equality movement in Japan has suffered a handful of setbacks, it has also seen a few notable wins over the last three years.
Hillary Clinton has shared her grim prediction on the future of same-sex marriage in the US.
On 15 August, the former Secretary of State stopped by the Raging Moderates podcast to discuss some of the most “pressing challenges of our time”, including Donald Trump’s volatile presidency, the future of democracy in the US and the economy.
In addition to the aforementioned topics, Clinton shared her candid thoughts on the recent petition formally asking the US Supreme Court to overturn the Obergefell v. Hodges rulling.
In 2015, the landmark 5-4 decision legalised same sex marriage in all 50 states.
While some legal experts have expressed doubt that the Court will hear the case, Clinton didn’t share the same sentiment.
“American voters and, to some extent, the American media don’t understand how many years the Republicans have been working in order to get us to this point,” she explained.
“It took 50 years to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court will hear a case about gay marriage. My prediction is they will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion. They will send it back to the states.”
Clinton went on to encourage LGBTQIA+ couples to consider getting married in the meantime.
“I don’t think they’ll undo existing marriages, but I fear that they will undo the national right. And so fewer than half the states will recognise gay marriage,” she continued.
Elsewhere in her interview, the former First Lady and presidential candidate shed light on the Republican Party’s political game plan regarding the 2026 midterm elections.
“There are going to be real world consequences, but a lot of them are not likely to hit with the velocity and intensity until after the 2026 election. So they’re trying to set it up so that they can win that election and dump all of this other bad news on the American people,” she explained.
“And they’re doing state capture of capitalism. State capture of institutions. The courts are doing their best, but, you know, it’s a slow process. And the Supreme Court gave Trump a big victory when they say no nationwide injunctions to stop allegedly illegal activity.
“So, I think that in an election we have a better fighting chance, but we’re going to be fighting with maybe one or even two hands tied behind us if Texas does what it wants to do, if other states do what Trump tells them to do because they don’t want a fair fight. They don’t want to have a fight about the issues. They want to distract and divert attention away from all of their problems.”
As previously mentioned, former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis – who made headlines in 2015 when she refused to issue marriage licenses to LGBTQIA+ couples – filed a petition in July, urging the US Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges.
In the filing, she described the ruling as being “grounded entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process” and further claimed that it forced her to choose “between her religious beliefs and her job.”
For more information about the petition and expert opinions on whether the Court will hear the case, click here.
When will the US Supreme Court make a decision on whether it will hear the case?
As of now, no date has been set for when the US Supreme Court will make its decision. According to the Court’s website, the case will be considered by the nine justices during their 29 September conference, with a decision potentially coming in October. However, it could take longer, as the Court sometimes “re-lists particularly controversial cases,” meaning they may be discussed at multiple conferences, per Forbes.
What are legal experts saying about the petition and the likelihood of same-sex marriage being overturned?
Many legal experts doubt that the US Supreme Court will (1) hear Kim Davis’ case or (2) overturn Obergefell v. Hodges.
In an interview with Newsweek, Northeastern University law professor Daniel Urman said it was “very unlikely” the Court would take on the case, despite the current conservative majority on the bench.
“There’s a chance that a conservative majority could use the case to expand the rights of religious objectors to same-sex marriage. But that’s not the same as overturning the right itself, and I don’t see a majority of the Court ready to do that,” Urman told the outlet.
“Culturally, same-sex marriage has become embedded in American life, and it is still popular in public opinion polls.”
Carl Esbeck, a religious liberty expert at the University of Missouri School of Law, and Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, expressed similar views in statements to USA Today.
“It would be a useless act to overturn Obergefell. The politics have simly moved on from same-sex marriage, even for conservative religious people,” Esbeck said.
Stone noted that while some Supreme Court justices may disagree with the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, they are unlikely to overturn it given the public’s support for marriage equality and a desire to “avoid the appearance of interpreting the Constitution in a manner that conforms to their own personal views.” He added: “Even some of the conservative justices might not vote to overrule Obergefell.”
“Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett seem wildly uninterested. Maybe Justice Neil Gorsuch, too,” she continued. “It would have to come up as a lower court holding that Obergefell binds judges to accept some other kind of non-traditional marital arrangement.”
What will happen if same-sex marriage is overturned? Is there current legislation to combat the decision?
If marriage equality were overturned, the US would likely revert to the pre-Obergefell v. Hodges system, leaving the decision to each state. However, existing same-sex couples would still be protected under a 2022 law signed by former US President Joe Biden.
On 13 December, he enacted the Respect for Marriage Act, which requires the federal government — and all US states and territories — to recognise same-sex and interracial marriages performed in other states. For example, if a gay couple from Arkansas — where marriage equality would be banned if Obergefell were overturned — married in California, Arkansas would still be required to honour their union.
Is Kim Davis the only one targeting marriage equality through legal means?
No, Kim Davis isn’t the only conservative figure targeting same-sex marriage. According to a February report from NBC News, lawmakers in at least nine states — including Michigan, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota — have sought to reverse the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. Meanwhile, lawmakers in Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have introduced proposals to create a new category of marriage, called a “covenant marriage,” which would be reserved for one man and one woman.
PUT-IN-BAY, Ohio — Nearly 10 years after he changed the lives of every queer person in America, Jim Obergefell sat in a crowded bar on a small island in Lake Erie, watching the close-knit local community celebrate its third annual Pride.
Jim, 58, made history as the lead plaintiff in the landmark legal case Obergefell vs. Hodges, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 26, 2015, that same-sex couples nationwide have a constitutional right to marry.
The last decade has diminished the familiarity of his face, once everywhere on cable news, and he appeared to sit anonymously now, sipping a beer in a booth. But Jim’s legacy still resonates deeply with LGBTQ+ people all over the country, in both red and blue states and in little purplish outposts like Put-in-Bay, too — as Molly Kearney, the queer comedian on stage, would soon make clear.
Kearney spent years working at island bars and restaurants before making it big and landing a gig as the first nonbinary cast member of “Saturday Night Live.” They are something of a legend on the island about three miles off the Ohio coast, and the crowd was loving their set — which was chock full of stories about getting drunk at local watering holes and navigating life and family as a young queer person.
Then Kearney brought up Jim’s case.
The day the Supreme Court issued its decision, Kearney was working at a restaurant called The Forge alongside co-owner Marc Wright, who is gay and one of the organizers of Put-in-Bay Pride. Wright immediately told the LGBTQ+ staff their work day was done.
“I just remember that day so vividly,” Kearney said. “He’s like, ‘All right, all the straight people have to work. All the gay people, leave work — we’re going out on the town!’”
A large Pride flag is held by supporters in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on April 28, 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 26, 2015, that same-sex couples nationwide have a constitutional right to marry.
(Allison Shelley / The Washington Post via Getty Images)
The crowd erupted in laughter and cheers, and in apparent approval for Wright, the emcee who had just introduced Kearney.
“It was awesome,” Kearney said, recalling how the whole town seemed to come together to celebrate. “It was a magnificent day.”
Jim, caught off guard, was also clearly tickled as he quietly took in the many smiling faces around him.
A lot of people have told him over the last decade how much his case transformed their lives. Many have cried upon meeting him. Some have said his victory gave them the courage to come out to their families and friends, and even to themselves. One told him she was preparing to take her own life until his win.
Still, Kearney’s story might be his “new favorite,” he said.
For starters, it was darn funny, he said. But it also was rooted in queer acceptance in a small community not unlike the coastal town a short ferry ride away, Sandusky, Ohio, where Jim grew up — and now lives again.
It captured something Jim has observed in his own life the last few years in Ohio, something that might be his greatest legacy, especially in light of recent political efforts to push LGBTQ+ rights backward and queer people back into the closet.
Kearney’s story captured people in an average, not especially progressive American community not just accepting their queer neighbors and friends — but celebrating their right to love.
Signs mark the city limits and some of the notable residents of Sandusky.
Murals and paintings seen in downtown on a Sunday in June.
At home in Sandusky
The night before the comedy show, Jim was in Sandusky, hosting a dinner party in his well-appointed and art-adorned apartment with about a dozen of his closest friends, family and neighbors.
He served some of his own wine — he’s a co-founder of Equality Vines out of Guerneville — and ordered a bunch of pizza, including a Sandusky special: sausage and sauerkraut.
There was his older brother and sister-in-law, Chuck and Janice Obergefell, who recalled traveling to D.C. for the Supreme Court arguments. Their kids are also close to Jim.
“The minute we heard you were going to Washington, we just thought, ‘Wow, this is too cool,’” Janice told Jim. “We’re awfully darn proud of you, but you know that.”
Chuck had worked his whole life in local plants, and had known a few gay men there — regular blue-collar guys who also happened to be the “friendliest people I’ve ever met,” he said. So when Jim came out to him in the early 1990s, it didn’t bother him much, though he did worry about HIV/AIDS.
“I just told him, ‘You’re my brother, I love ya, just be careful,’” Chuck said.
“Then he brought John around,” said Janice, of Jim’s late husband John Arthur.
“And I liked John more than Jim!” Chuck said with a wry smile.
There were several of Jim’s oldest and dearest friends, including Kay Hollek, a friend since they were 4; Judi Nath, a friend since 7th grade; Jennifer Arthur, his 1984 prom date; and Betsy Kay, a friend from high school chorus.
There were also newer friends from town, including Marsha Gray Carrington, a photographer and painter whose work adorns Jim’s walls, and from Jim’s “gayborhood,” as he called it — including neighbors Dick Ries and Jim Ervin, a married couple who briefly employed Jim as a Sandusky segway tour guide, and Debbie Braun, a retired Los Angeles teacher who, like Jim, decided to move back to her hometown.
The conversation ranged freely from Jim’s personal legacy to local politics in Sandusky, which is moderate compared to the red rural towns and bigger blue cities nearby. The talk jumped to national politics and recent attacks on the LGBTQ+ community, which have made some of them worry for Jim’s safety as “an icon of a movement,” as his former prom date put it.
An oil painting hangs on the wall of Jim Obergefell’s parents’ home in June.
Ries and Ervin, who started dating about 17 years ago, drew laughs with a story about learning of the Supreme Court decision. Ervin was bawling — tears of joy — when he called Ries, who was driving and immediately thought something horrible had happened.
“I think the house has burned down, he’s wrecked the car, the dog is dead,” Ries said with a chuckle. It wasn’t until he pulled over that he understood the happy news.
The couple had held off having a marriage ceremony because they wanted it to be “real,” including in the eyes of their home state, Ervin said. After the ruling, they quickly made plans, and married less than 8 months later on Feb. 6, 2016.
“To me, it was profound that once and for all, we could all get married,” Ervin said.
Jim Obergefell, left, and John Arthur, right, are married by officiant Paulette Roberts, rear center, in a plane on the tarmac at Baltimore/Washington International Airport in Glen Burnie, Md., in 2013.
(Glenn Hartong / The Cincinnati Enquirer via Associated Press)
The group talked about what kept them in or brought them to Sandusky: family, the low cost of living, small-town friendliness. They talked about the other queer people in their lives, including some of their children. They mentioned how the only gay bar in town recently closed.
In between the heavier discussions, they chatted in the warm, cheeky patterns of old friends catching up over pizza and wine. At one point, Jim and several of his girlfriends gathered in the kitchen to discuss — what else? — Jim’s dating life.
Just the week before, Jim said, he had realized he was “ready to let go” of John’s ashes, to spread them somewhere special as John had requested, and finally ready to date again.
“I’m open,” he said, as his girlfriends’ eyes lit up.
The case that landed Jim before the Supreme Court started during one of the hardest periods of his life, when John was dying from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig’s disease. The couple had been together for decades, and in July 2013, three months before John’s death, exchanged vows in Maryland, one of the states that recognized same-sex marriages at the time.
However, Ohio refused to acknowledge that marriage, meaning that, when John died, Jim would not be listed as the surviving spouse on his state death certificate. So they sued.
For years after John’s death and the subsequent court rulings in their favor, Jim kept busy co-writing a book, traveling the country giving speeches and attending Pride events and LGBTQ+ fundraisers as a guest of honor. He was mourning John, too, of course, but amid so many other draws on his focus and attention, he said.
“It’s almost like you didn’t get to do it right away,” said Betsy. “You had it delayed.”
After living in Cincinnati from 1984 to 2016 — most of that time with John — Jim moved to D.C. for a few years, but “missed Ohio,” he said.
In 2021, as the COVID pandemic raged, he found himself increasingly lonely, he said, so he decided to move back to Sandusky to be closer to family and friends. Since then, he has been happier, rekindling old connections, making some new ones and even running — unsuccessfully — for office.
Betsy, a mother of nine — some queer — and a ball of energy, said it’s wonderful to have Jim back in town. The one catch, she acknowledged, is the gay dating pool in Sandusky, population about 24,000, is not exactly deep.
To make matters worse, Jim is hopelessly oblivious when it comes to flirting, she said. The other women in the kitchen nodded.
Taking the cue, Jim went to his bedroom and returned with a small pin Betsy had given him, which read, “If you’re flirting with me, please let me know. And be extremely specific. Seriously, I’m clueless.”
Jim looked around his apartment, in his hometown, brimming with fiercely loyal friends and family who not only love him, but want him to find love.
Thanks in part to him, it was a scene that lucky, happy queer people might find familiar nationwide.
A “Greetings from Sandusky, Ohio” sign.
The Ceiling Art Company and a row of buildings on West Market Street downtown.
Jim Obergefell holds a button with a message that reads in part, “if you’re flirting with me please let me know.”.
Back on the island
Shortly after Kearney’s set at Put-in-Bay Pride, Kristin Vogel-Campbell, a 45-year-old bisexual educator from nearby Port Clinton, approached Jim at his booth.
Her friend had just pointed Jim out — told her who he was — and she just had to thank him.
“You’ve done so much for our community,” she said. “You put yourself out there, and did the work that was needed to get the job done.”
Jim, not anonymous after all, smiled and thanked her.
A few moments later, Kearney came through the crowd, high-fiving and hugging old friends. When they, too, were told who Jim was, their jaw dropped.
“Are you serious? … Hold on.”
Marc Wright, left, and Molly Kearney snap a picture together at Put-in-Bay Pride on June 9.
(Courtesy of Marc Wright)
Kearney ran over and grabbed Wright out of another conversation and explained who Jim was. Wright’s eyes went wide — then he reached out and touched Jim on the chest, as if to verify he was real.
Kearney, sticking their arms out to show goosebumps, said, “I have the chillies.”
Kearney doesn’t often include the story of the Supreme Court ruling in their sets, they said, but thought the local crowd would get a kick out of it, because they knew that day had meant a lot to so many people.
“That day — thanks to you — was a very big day for me,” Kearney told Jim. “I didn’t feel fully comfortable — I still don’t — so that day was really important, because everyone was, like, cheering!”
Wright nodded along.
He first came to Put-in-Bay from Cleveland when he was 21 — or a “baby gay,” as he put it. And initially, it was intimidating. “It’s easy to feel like an outcast in a small community, because you’re living in a fish bowl,” he said.
Soon enough, however, the town made him one of their own. People on the island “knew I was gay before I knew, and everyone was like, ‘Yeah, it’s OK,’” Wright said.
He said such acceptance, which has only grown on the island since, is thanks to pioneers like Jim — and like Kearney, whose own success has increased understanding of nonbinary people.
“Just to have Molly go out and live their life so unapologetically, it’s so validating,” Wright said.
Introducing Kearney that afternoon, Wright had thanked the crowd — many of them locals — for proving that Put-in-Bay stands for love and equality, especially at such a difficult time for the LGBTQ+ community.
“Put-in-Bay is for everyone — one island, one family,” he said.
Now, as Jim praised the event, saying it was just the sort of thing that’s needed in small towns all across the country, Wright beamed.
