An attack on Obergefell is an attack on Me
- Matilda Ziegler
- 3 days ago
- 3 min read
Ten years ago, when I was 10 years old, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, by a five-to-four vote, that “states may not bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.” The majority opinion, headed by Justice Kennedy, states that “[I]t is appropriate to observe [that recognition of same sex] marriages would pose no risk of harm to . . . third parties.”
Last week, Kim Davis, a Kentucky clerk who refused to issue a same-sex marriage license, formally asked the Supreme Court to review, and possibly overturn, Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that allowed same-sex couples to marry.
Kennedy’s point is one that has always stuck with me. Even as a child who knew no LGBTQ+ people other than myself, when the right for a man to marry his husband or a woman to marry her wife was recognized by the Supreme Court, I did not understand why so many people in my life who are good and kind and truth-seeking opposed the right of two men or two women to marry. I still don’t.
I understand many religious traditions and interpretations of religious texts forbid two people of the same sex from marrying one another, but what I do not think I will ever understand is the deep-seated belief amongst many otherwise kind, loving and compassionate people that my right to marry a woman somehow diminishes the sanctity of their heterosexual marriage.
The majority opinion states those who think same-sex marriage is morally wrong, whether that be for religious reasons or not, have the right to express that belief under the First Amendment. While this is undoubtedly true, I implore those who believe that gay marriage is morally impermissible to recognize their beliefs alone should not dictate law.
The United States is a nation of religious freedom, not a nation whose laws are solely inspired by the beliefs of conservative Evangelicals and of the Catholic Church.
The same notion of religious freedom gives an atheist the freedom not to attend church, a Christian the freedom not to attend a mosque, and gives me the freedom to marry another woman despite the fact that it is in opposition to many religious traditions.
Throughout the years, I have learned my faith in God and my sexuality are not opposed to one another. I recognize some may believe I have come to the incorrect conclusion, and that is their federally-protected right under the First Amendment. If you fall into this category, I ask you to extend the same level of respect, despite our disagreement, to me that I extend to you. I ask you not to attack my right to marry, to not attack me and my rights by attacking Obergefell.
Queer Americans do not seek to destroy the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, as is commonly argued by those in opposition of same-sex marriage. Rather, it is an institution that we hold dear, even to the point that we are willing to fight in court for our right to participate in it.
I urge the reader, when voting in any election, but especially the 2026 midterms, to keep the following quote from John Adams, one of the few Founders who did not enslave Black people, in mind: “Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker.” Please keep the protection of the liberties of LGBTQ+ people in mind in the voting booth.
Lastly, I urge the reader to consider those around them when they support or oppose gay marriage. Oftentimes, conservative media seeks to portray LGBTQ+ people as “the other,” not as people who are members of your community.
According to Gallup, more than one in five members of Generation Z are a part of the LGBTQ+ community. When you openly attack gay marriage, you are attacking these members of your community. You are attacking your classmates, professors, friends and neighbors. You attack good and kind people who are trying to commit themselves to the person that they love.
When you attack Obergefell, you attack me.
Comentarios