The landscape has dramatically shifted in just a few months. Before Donald Trump’s return to the presidency in January, same-sex marriage was largely considered a settled legal matter in the United States. It had, after all, been only a decade since the U.S. Supreme Court established gay marriage as a constitutionally protected right through its seminal ruling on . However, a series of executive orders targeting the LGBTQ community now casts significant doubt on the future of gay marriage.
On January 25, his initial day in office, Trump that asserted: “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.” Shortly thereafter, Trump transgender women from participating in female sports and the Pentagon transgender individuals from serving openly in the military. Subsequently, U.S. park services from national landmarks like Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, a historic site for early gay rights activism. The Trump Administration then followed up by that funded research into LGBTQ health and a national suicide hotline specifically for LGBTQ youth.
So, how vulnerable is gay marriage under the Trump administration? Advocates for gay marriage and their supporters find reassurance in the strong public endorsement for same-sex unions among Americans. A poll from May indicates that over two-thirds of Americans support it, with nearly the same number deeming gay or lesbian relationships morally acceptable. Gallup also noted that most Americans have supported gay marriage since the early 2010s.
This widespread sentiment is underscored by the U.S. Congress’s with extensive bipartisan backing. This legislation formally acknowledges the legality of gay marriage for federal purposes, such as enabling same-sex couples to file joint tax returns. It also mandates that states honor same-sex marriage licenses issued by other states.
Nonetheless, neither these safeguards nor the poll numbers should lead to complacency. Public support for gay marriage in the U.S. is on a decline, not an ascent. The 69% support registered in May is lower than the 71% recorded in both 2022 and 2023. Furthermore, a majority of Republicans once again oppose gay marriage, with their support having dropped 14 points since 2022.
Contrary to common belief, the RMFA did not legally enshrine Obergefell. The RMFA primarily ensures federal recognition of gay marriage by the controversial Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was enacted in 1996 amidst intense moral alarm over gay marriage, largely fueled by the Christian right. DOMA had prevented federal recognition of gay marriage, even if a marriage was legally performed in a state where it was allowed.
Consequently, should Obergefell be invalidated, the RMFA would safeguard federal recognition of gay marriage. However, it would not prevent the re-activation of that existed across the U.S. before 2015, many of which remain on the books. Nor would the RMFA stop states from creating new legal obstacles. In fact, the law includes an exemption for nonprofit religious organizations, allowing them to refuse “any services, facilities, or goods for the solemnization or celebration of marriage.” All these factors explain why the RMFA received a among gay rights advocates.
The anti-gay marriage movement, which had been largely inactive until recently, is now showing signs of renewed vigor. It has been energized by , the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ended 50 years of legal abortion in America. In remarks that pleased opponents of gay marriage and alarmed its proponents, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested the Court should also previous decisions on same-sex marriage and contraception.
Just this month, the annual convention of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, for an end to gay marriage. This action mirrors ongoing efforts by to undermine same-sex marriage.
Yet, other states are taking defensive action. Democratic lawmakers in and Oregon are working to repeal existing laws and constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage, which could theoretically be revived if Obergefell were overturned.
Meanwhile, the renewed debate surrounding gay marriage provides an opportunity to reframe the discussion. In the 1990s, gay marriage advocates adopted a civil rights perspective, highlighting the approximately 1,000 marriage benefits exclusively available to heterosexual couples. However, this approach backfired, appearing overly legalistic and materialistic. Following several setbacks, notably California’s in 2008, gay activists shifted to a new narrative of “love and commitment.” While this framing increased support for gay marriage, its limited scope meant a significant chance was missed to profoundly alter societal attitudes toward LGBTQ individuals.
Moving forward, gay activists should present gay marriage as inherently moral and intrinsically beneficial. For one, the dire predictions made by social conservatives about gay marriage—ranging from a new Civil War to the disappearance of heterosexual children to the collapse of marriage itself—never materialized. Additionally, there is now a that underscores the advantages of gay marriage for both the gay community and society at large.
In the decade since Obergefell became federal law, it is evident that gay marriage has positively impacted the American gay community, and arguably, the broader American society even more so. Its potential revocation would represent a national disgrace and a substantial setback for LGBTQ equality.