Despite the fact Donald Trump is the first presidential candidate, and president, to have supported gay marriage. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden -- all of whom were against gay marriage until it became politically advantageous to flip-flop.
The reason is pretty clear: for a while, opposing gay marriage was a view held by a significant portion of the electorate. In 2008, California voters passed Prop. 8 by a solid majority. Prop. 8 defined marriage as between one man, one woman.
But the Left -- those tireless defenders of democracy -- didn't like that. At all.
Rather than respect the democratic will of the California voters and work to change the hearts and minds of those voters, they took the issue to the courts.
In 2015, they got their way when a more liberal-leaning Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Recommended
In the decade since that ruling, the make up of the Supreme Court has changed. It now has a 6-3 largely conservative majority.
And the Left is realizing that maybe it was a bad idea to put such big issues in the hands of a body that can have such ideological shifts:
FAKE NEWS: CNN aired a segment arguing gay couples are correct in worrying a second Trump term and the Supreme Court could ban gay marriage and gays from becoming parents
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 6, 2024
Tinfoil-hat stuff.
Pamela Brown then brought in a GLAD Law official to double down on this BlueAnon claim. pic.twitter.com/grl3Atg02r
I highly doubt this Supreme Court, even with its conservative majority, would rule to overturn gay marriage.
However, back when the Supreme Court ruled on abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Lefties caught onto something Justice Clarence Thomas said in his opinion, and we wrote about it at the time, noting (emphasis original):
Make of all that what you will—but don’t fall for the widespread panic porn about how this decision means other rights, like the Obergefell v. Hodges case enshrining gay marriage nationwide, are on the chopping block next.
It is true that one justice, Clarence Thomas, specifically calls for the legal basis of Obergefell to be revisited. It’s complicated, but it seems likely that Thomas would probably support overturning gay marriage.
But Thomas is alone in this call, not joined by any of the other justices. In fact, several others are quick to distance themselves from this rhetoric.
Thomas is right, but not necessarily for the reason the Left thinks. In October 2020, Thomas and Samuel Alito issued a statement when the Supreme Court decided to let a ruling against Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis to stand (Kim Davis had refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples), and Thomas wrote:
'It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law...But it is quite another when the Court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch.'
I will admit the Left is, by and large, good at playing the political long game. They have their agenda and they tirelessly pursue that agenda until they get their way.
(The Right could learn a thing or to from them, frankly, but I digress).
They often resort to the courts to legislate that agenda when they're unable to pass it through normal democratic means.
And despite the Left's rabid pursuit of its agenda, it forgets that they won't always control the institutions of power. Democrats won't always hold the White House and both chambers of Congress.
The Supreme Court won't always have a favorable majority.
So when they use the courts to push their ideology, they risk having that ideology undone by a subsequent court.
And -- as CNN demonstrates -- they're only realizing now that this could spell disaster for them and the things they argued are 'rights.'
