samesex

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.

In the suit, he challenged the State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s now-withdrawn 2019 sanction of a Waco, Texas judge who refused to marry gay couples, despite still marrying heterosexual couples.

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 US Supreme Court has set a date on 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 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 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 with The 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.

In November 2024, Turkish authorities banned the screening of Luca Guadagnino’s drama Queer at Mubi Fest Istanbul, leading the organisation to cancel the event altogether.

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.

In March 2021, the Sapporo District Court ruled that the government’s refusal to recognise same-sex marriage was unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Japanese constitution, which bans discrimination based on “race, creed, sex, social status or family origin.”

While the historic ruling offered a sign of hope for LGBTQIA+ equality, the community was hit with a major setback the following year.

In June 2022, a district court in Osaka ruled against three LGBTQ+ couples and their call for same-sex marriage.

“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.

In May 2023, the Japanese government faced renewed pressure when the Nagoya District Court ruled the country’s same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional.

Then, in 2024, the Tokyo High Court and the Sapporo High Court issued separate rulings marking the ban as unconstitutional.

Lastly, Japan’s Osaka High Court and Nagoya High Court delivered similar decisions in March 2025.

This is a developing story. 

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.”

Lastly, ABC News legal analyst Sarah Isgur stated that “there is no world in which the Court takes the case as a straight gay marriage case.”

“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.