BISMARCK, N.D. — North Dakota is on the brink of potentially becoming the first U.S. state to urge the Supreme Court to reverse its landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide almost a decade ago. This initiative, which emerged from several states this year, would not exert direct influence over the Supreme Court but reflects ongoing legislative efforts. The resolution gained the approval of the Republican-majority House in February yet awaits final passage through the Senate, which remains uncertain.
Republican Rep. Bill Tveit, who introduced the resolution, critiques the 2015 Supreme Court ruling for allegedly contradicting the Tenth Amendment alongside North Dakota’s Constitution and state laws. Declaring his commitment to uphold both the U.S. and state constitutions, Tveit emphasizes the necessity of this legislative action.
The measure’s introduction prompted concerns among residents like Laura Balliet, an attorney and North Dakota National Guard member. Married since 2020, Balliet voiced feelings of exclusion and judgment due to the implication of the resolution, underscoring her desire to be welcome in her home state. Her testimony before the Senate panel forms part of a broader opposition from numerous individuals.
The advocacy group MassResistance, known for its staunch pro-family stance but labeled an “anti-LGBTQ hate group” by GLAAD, is championing the resolution across various states. While Massachusetts pioneered state recognition of same-sex marriage as early as 2004, it took until 2015 for the nationwide ruling. In other states such as Idaho and North Dakota, the resolution has seen limited progression comparatively.
Despite these efforts, many states have introduced protective measures for same-sex marriage. Federal legislation in 2022 reinforced these rights, and several states, including California and Colorado, have dismantled outdated amendments restricting marriage definitions. Virginia is possibly next in line for a similar legislative update by 2026.
The North Dakota proposal asserts a rejection of the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, urging a Supreme Court reversal to redefine marriage explicitly as a union between one biological male and one biological female. This echoes Justice Clarence Thomas’s 2022 suggestions for reconsidering past marriage and related rulings.
After the initial passage of the resolution in the House, some Republican representatives retracted their affirmative votes, expressing regret. Rep. Matt Ruby expressed discontent with the notion that it invalidates marriages and conveys unwelcome sentiments, affirming his support for same-sex unions. Rep. Dwight Kiefert, meanwhile, stated his vote reflected his Christian belief in marriage as depicted biblically.
Sen. Ryan Braunberger, who is openly gay and partakes in the Senate panel discussions, expressed that such a measure insultingly undermines North Dakotans committed to enriching their state. He warns the proposal sends perilous messages, particularly as North Dakota looks to bolster its demographic and economic prospects.
Advocacy Manager Cody Schuler from the ACLU of North Dakota argues that the measure’s portrayal of marriage risks infringing on the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause. Equating marriage strictly as a heterosexual union represents a specific religious stance, which not all religious or non-religious entities share. Schuler warns of the potential legislative implications should lawmakers formalize this view beyond a nonbinding resolution.