Revisiting Obergefell: Dynamic implications according to Sedgwick (Part 2)
By Alexandra Evans
In this three part series, the key findings from the landmark court case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) were laid out in Part 1. Here in Part 2, the modern day court challenges are laid out. Finally, in part 3, a close reading of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s Tendencies reveals what threats to LGBTQ+ rights could mean for queer community members.
As aforementioned, each dissenting judge authored their own opinion, which foreshadows the push back that Obergefell would receive over the next ten years, especially in the context of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) overturning Roe v. Wade’s (1973) just a few years back.
Though the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles’s Law School reports that public opinion polls have shown majority approval and support for same-sex marriages, there is still a persistent opposition. As indicated, this opposition reached a boiling point in 2022 when Justice Clarence Thomas authored his Dobbs concurring opinion.
While his concurrence does not necessarily take issue with the nature of the Obergefell ruling, he takes issue with the constitutional modality used to reach that conclusion: substantive due process. This is a method of constitutional interpretation that is concerned with whether or not the government provided a compelling enough substantive reason to deprive liberty, or whether the right is so fundamental that it cannot be deprived. This doctrine is derived from the 14th amendment and allows for certain rights that are not enumerated in the constitution to be recognized. For instance, the right to privacy in Roe was believed to be “so fundamental” that it may not be deprived, at least, until Dobbs overturned it.
Thomas writes, “we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” In taking issue with the underlying substantive due process element of these legislations, Thomas’s stance on same-sex marriage reveals itself. If he believed that same-sex marriage was “so fundamental that it could not be deprived,” he would not be bringing this legislation up for consideration.
While Thomas’s concurrence promotes skepticism towards the Obergefell ruling, Justice Samuel Alito, authored the opinion of the court in Dobbs and reflected a different opinion. Alito argues that the opposition to their ruling believes that the overturning of Roe could cause bring Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell into question, when in reality, “[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Again, these four cases are brought into question because of the substantive due process they rely on.
It is important to recognize both Justice Thomas and Alito’s opinions because they reflect differences within a single party, as they were both appointed by President George W. Bush and tend to rule more conservatively. The key takeaway is that there are key leaders with great policy making power who are opposed to Obergefell, even if within a decision there are varying perspectives.
Over this summer, the Supreme Court of the United States further expressed its opinion on LGBTQ+ rights in general through the case United States v. Skrmetti (2025). The decision upheld a ban on gender affirming care for trans youth in Tennessee. Laws like these can be found in 25 total states, impacting roughly 112,000 transgender youths according to the Williams Institute.
In addition to the court’s actions, President Donald Trump and his administration have ordered new legislation that places bans on trans accessibility to sports, the military and bathrooms, as well as an order that there are only two sexes.
Dangerous implications come with attitudes like these, especially when they come from the powerful leaders in our countries. The importance of protecting LGBTQ+ freedoms and rejecting the aforementioned legislation is laid out in the following Part 3.
Works Cited
“Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2021/19-1392.
Uhl, Jordan, and Elvert Barnes. “A decade after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, marriage equality endures risky
terrain.” UCLA Law, 25 June 2025,
https://law.ucla.edu/news/decade-after-supreme-courts-obergefell-decision-marriage-equality-endures-risky-terrain.
