August 13, 2025 • 5 mins
An Expert Analysis of the Challenge to Obergefell v. Hodges in the Post-Dobbs Jurisprudential Landscape. (yes, We use the word landscape a lot.)
This podcast provides a quick comprehensive analysis of the formal petition to the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 decision that established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage nationwide. The challenge, filed in the wake of the Court's 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, is a pivotal legal development that tests the new jurisprudential methodology espoused by the Court's current conservative majority. The analysis deconstructs the legal arguments underpinning this challenge, contextualizes them within the post-Dobbs legal and political landscape, and evaluates the likelihood of the Court granting a writ of certiorari.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/go-beyond-the-brief--6353252/support.
This podcast provides a quick comprehensive analysis of the formal petition to the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 decision that established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage nationwide. The challenge, filed in the wake of the Court's 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, is a pivotal legal development that tests the new jurisprudential methodology espoused by the Court's current conservative majority. The analysis deconstructs the legal arguments underpinning this challenge, contextualizes them within the post-Dobbs legal and political landscape, and evaluates the likelihood of the Court granting a writ of certiorari.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/go-beyond-the-brief--6353252/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You found Ask Alice, the podcast that takes a deep
dive into the societal currents shaping our lives. I'm your host, Alice,
and together we'll explore the often unseen forces at play.
We'll examine cutting edge research, dissect the data, and most importantly,
if you're seeking to understand what's shaping our society, is the.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
What happens when a really fundamental right, something millions have
built their actual lives around, suddenly looks well vulnerable.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
That's exactly what we're getting into today. We're looking at
the potential for the Supreme Court to revisit ober flv.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Hodges Right, the big twenty fifteen decision, the one that
established a fundamental right to same sex marriage across the
country exactly.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
And our mission here is to really unpack the insights
from the legal analysis, the societal studies to.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Help you understand what's actually at stake here. Because oberga
Fell itself at passed what five to four.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
Super narrow, razor thin, and now, especially after the Dobbs
decision concerning abortion rights, while that precedent feels a lot
less secure.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Okay, so let's start with Obergafel itself. How did they
ground that right.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Initially, well, the majority opinion they based it on the
Thirteenth Amendment, specifically the Due Process and Equal Protection.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Clauses, so fairness and equal treatment under the law pretty much.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
And they really emphasize this idea of dignity, dignity for
all individuals and their relationships.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Okay, but here's where it gets tricky, right, right, because
the Dobbs decision, it didn't just overturn Roe v. Wade.
It set this test, the.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
Deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition tests.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Yeah, and the really crucial point is that Obergafel explicitly
rejected using that kind of historical test for fundamental rights.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
It did so Dobbs in a way, it kind of
laid out a potential roadmap for challenging Obergafell. It's a
clear legal vulnerability.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
And you see echoes of this in the original Obergefel dissents,
don't you.
Speaker 3 (01:57):
Oh absolutely, you had Chief Justice Roberts worried about judicial
activism the court making law, and Justice Thomas had this
very very narrow view of liberty, basically just freedom from
physical restraint, and.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Those arguments that way of thinking, it aligns almost perfectly
with the method used in Dogs, it does.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
And Justice Thomas has actually explicitly called for the Court
to reconsider Obergefel. So the link is pretty direct.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
So there's the legal opening, but then there's stereodocisis right,
the idea of standing by precedent? How does that play in?
Speaker 3 (02:27):
Well, that's the tension. Critics might challenge the let's say
quality of the reasoning in Obergefell, arguing its legal basis
wasn't solid enough according to the Dobbs test.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
But the reliance interests that seems massive, immense.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
You've got millions of same sex couples who have gotten married,
adopted kids, structured their finances, their whole lives based on
this decision being law.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Yeah, you can't just unwind that easily. The human impact would.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Be huge, exactly, and it's not just theoretical disruption. We
actually have data showing Obergefell had a positive effect on
LGBTQ plus well being, like what increased happiness, documented reductions
in things like mood and anxiety disorders. Overturning it risks
reversing those very real gains in people's health and lives.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Wow, And beyond the personal well being, there were the
legal protections tied to marriage.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
Oh absolutely. We're talking over one thousand federal benefits and protections,
things like healthcare access, inheritance rights, social security benefits, taxes
one thousand.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
So if old Bushefell falls, all that just vanishes for
same sex couples.
Speaker 3 (03:33):
It would likely create a chaotic patchwork. Rights would vary
wildly from state to state. Just massive uncertainty and frankly discrimination.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
Which must have economic costs too.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
Right, Definitely, think about increased demand on public health care,
social services, maybe lower tax revenues. You might even see
people moving states to find legal protection. It's not just social,
it's economic.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
It really sounds like it would, as some sources put it,
create a second class of citizens.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
That's the fear. It draws parallels, unfortunately to cases like
Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage.
It's about whether the state gets to dictate who counts,
whose family counts.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
But here's the contrast that's so stark. Great, Well, there's
this clear legal vulnerability we've talked about. Public support for
same sex marriage is actually really strong, now, isn't.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
It overwhelmingly strong? Recent polls put it somewhere between what
sixty eight percent and seventy four percent support. That's a
huge jump even since twenty fifteen.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
So if the Court were to overturn it now, that
would be massively out of step with public opinion. It
could seriously damage trust in the court itself.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
That's a major factor. Yeah, and of course we have
to acknowledge the role of religious objections. That's a key
driver for the opposition.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Sure, that's part of the landscape, but.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
It's also important to remember religious views aren't monolithic on this.
There's a lot of diversity there. And you know, some
of the oververfelled dissenters themselves pointed out that courts maybe
can't create the kind of nuanced accommodations a legislature.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
Might the legislative process versus a judicial ruling exactly. Okay,
So wrapping this up, then it seems clear the stability
of Obergefel isn't just some abstract legal debate. It's deeply societal.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Absolutely. It touches on equality, individual liberty, how much people
rely on established law, and really the court's whole role.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
So maybe the thought to leave everyone with is this,
you have this right established less than a decade ago,
with huge public support now and immense personal reliance built
upon it. If that right could be revisited and maybe overturned,
what does that signal about the stability of any rights
we might think are settled. What does that mean for
(05:42):
all of us moving forward,
You found Ask Alice, the podcast that takes a deep
dive into the societal currents shaping our lives. I'm your host, Alice,
and together we'll explore the often unseen forces at play.
We'll examine cutting edge research, dissect the data, and most importantly,
if you're seeking to understand what's shaping our society, is the.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
What happens when a really fundamental right, something millions have
built their actual lives around, suddenly looks well vulnerable.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
That's exactly what we're getting into today. We're looking at
the potential for the Supreme Court to revisit ober flv.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Hodges Right, the big twenty fifteen decision, the one that
established a fundamental right to same sex marriage across the
country exactly.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
And our mission here is to really unpack the insights
from the legal analysis, the societal studies to.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Help you understand what's actually at stake here. Because oberga
Fell itself at passed what five to four.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
Super narrow, razor thin, and now, especially after the Dobbs
decision concerning abortion rights, while that precedent feels a lot
less secure.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Okay, so let's start with Obergafel itself. How did they
ground that right.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Initially, well, the majority opinion they based it on the
Thirteenth Amendment, specifically the Due Process and Equal Protection.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Clauses, so fairness and equal treatment under the law pretty much.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
And they really emphasize this idea of dignity, dignity for
all individuals and their relationships.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Okay, but here's where it gets tricky, right, right, because
the Dobbs decision, it didn't just overturn Roe v. Wade.
It set this test, the.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
Deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition tests.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Yeah, and the really crucial point is that Obergafel explicitly
rejected using that kind of historical test for fundamental rights.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
It did so Dobbs in a way, it kind of
laid out a potential roadmap for challenging Obergafell. It's a
clear legal vulnerability.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
And you see echoes of this in the original Obergefel dissents,
don't you.
Speaker 3 (01:57):
Oh absolutely, you had Chief Justice Roberts worried about judicial
activism the court making law, and Justice Thomas had this
very very narrow view of liberty, basically just freedom from
physical restraint, and.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Those arguments that way of thinking, it aligns almost perfectly
with the method used in Dogs, it does.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
And Justice Thomas has actually explicitly called for the Court
to reconsider Obergefel. So the link is pretty direct.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
So there's the legal opening, but then there's stereodocisis right,
the idea of standing by precedent? How does that play in?
Speaker 3 (02:27):
Well, that's the tension. Critics might challenge the let's say
quality of the reasoning in Obergefell, arguing its legal basis
wasn't solid enough according to the Dobbs test.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
But the reliance interests that seems massive, immense.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
You've got millions of same sex couples who have gotten married,
adopted kids, structured their finances, their whole lives based on
this decision being law.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Yeah, you can't just unwind that easily. The human impact would.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Be huge, exactly, and it's not just theoretical disruption. We
actually have data showing Obergefell had a positive effect on
LGBTQ plus well being, like what increased happiness, documented reductions
in things like mood and anxiety disorders. Overturning it risks
reversing those very real gains in people's health and lives.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Wow, And beyond the personal well being, there were the
legal protections tied to marriage.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
Oh absolutely. We're talking over one thousand federal benefits and protections,
things like healthcare access, inheritance rights, social security benefits, taxes
one thousand.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
So if old Bushefell falls, all that just vanishes for
same sex couples.
Speaker 3 (03:33):
It would likely create a chaotic patchwork. Rights would vary
wildly from state to state. Just massive uncertainty and frankly discrimination.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
Which must have economic costs too.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
Right, Definitely, think about increased demand on public health care,
social services, maybe lower tax revenues. You might even see
people moving states to find legal protection. It's not just social,
it's economic.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
It really sounds like it would, as some sources put it,
create a second class of citizens.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
That's the fear. It draws parallels, unfortunately to cases like
Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage.
It's about whether the state gets to dictate who counts,
whose family counts.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
But here's the contrast that's so stark. Great, Well, there's
this clear legal vulnerability we've talked about. Public support for
same sex marriage is actually really strong, now, isn't.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
It overwhelmingly strong? Recent polls put it somewhere between what
sixty eight percent and seventy four percent support. That's a
huge jump even since twenty fifteen.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
So if the Court were to overturn it now, that
would be massively out of step with public opinion. It
could seriously damage trust in the court itself.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
That's a major factor. Yeah, and of course we have
to acknowledge the role of religious objections. That's a key
driver for the opposition.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Sure, that's part of the landscape, but.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
It's also important to remember religious views aren't monolithic on this.
There's a lot of diversity there. And you know, some
of the oververfelled dissenters themselves pointed out that courts maybe
can't create the kind of nuanced accommodations a legislature.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
Might the legislative process versus a judicial ruling exactly. Okay,
So wrapping this up, then it seems clear the stability
of Obergefel isn't just some abstract legal debate. It's deeply societal.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Absolutely. It touches on equality, individual liberty, how much people
rely on established law, and really the court's whole role.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
So maybe the thought to leave everyone with is this,
you have this right established less than a decade ago,
with huge public support now and immense personal reliance built
upon it. If that right could be revisited and maybe overturned,
what does that signal about the stability of any rights
we might think are settled. What does that mean for
(05:42):
all of us moving forward,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.