(Photo
by
Ted
Eytan
/
Flickr)
If
you’ve
been
paying
attention,
you
know
the
Supreme
Court
is
gunning
for
Obergefell,
the
landmark
case
that
held
there
is
a
federal
constitutional
right
to
same-sex
marriage.
And
it’s
not
a
matter
of
tea
leaf
reading
that
leads
to
that
conclusion.
It’s
Samuel
Alito’s
unhinged
dissent
in
the
case
—
that
he
still
can’t
let
go
of.
And
Alito’s
majority
opinion
overturning
established
precedent
guaranteeing
the
right
to
reproductive
freedom
in
Dobbs
that
creates
parallels
between
the
right
established
in Obergefell
v.
Hodges
as
similar
to
reproductive
freedom
as
they’re
not
“deeply
rooted
in
history.”
Plus
there’s
the
concurrence
written
by
Clarence
Thomas
that
explicitly
says
the
Court
should
“reconsider”
its
jurisprudence
on
marriage
equality
(as
well
as
the
Court’s
holdings
on
consensual
sexual
contact
and
contraception).
And
what
we’ve
learned
from
the
current
Court
is,
they’re
totally
chill
with
shredding
precedent
and
issuing
decisions
wildly
out
of
line
with
what
the
majority
of
Americans
believe
as
long
as
it
fits
*their*
vision
of
what
the
country
should
be.
So,
yeah.
Even
though
69%
of
Americans
support
gay
marriage,
we
should
absolutely
be
worried
about
the
rights
enshrined
in
Obergefell.
Now
some
states
are
trying
to
get
ahead
of
the
Supreme
Court’s
remaking
of
the
country.
This
election
day
in
California,
Colorado,
and
Hawaii,
voters
will
have
the
opportunity
to
undo
some
problematic
language
in
the
states’
constitutions
from
the
aughts.
All
three
states,
at
one
point,
codified
a
narrow
version
of
marriage
that
excluded
same-sex
couples.
And
activists
would
really
like
them
off
the
books,
just
in
case
the
Court
makes
good
on
its
thinly
veiled
threat
to
overturn
Obergefell.
As
reported
by
HuffPost:
California’s
Proposition
3
would
repeal
and
overwrite
the
state’s
ban
on
same-sex
marriage
that’s
still
in
California’s
constitution.
In
2008,
the
voters
in
the
state
approved
Proposition
8,
which
defined
marriage
as
between
a
man
and
a
woman
and
banned
the
state
from
recognizing
same-sex
marriage.
It
was
made
void
after
the
Supreme
Court’s
2013
decision
in
Hollingsworth
v.
Perry
and
allowed
the
state
to
resume
same-sex
marriages.Colorado’s
Amendment
J
similarly
seeks
to
remove
this
narrow
definition
of
marriage
from
the
state
constitution.
And
in
Hawaii,
voters
will
answer
Question
1,
which
asks
if
voters
want
to
remove
language
from
the
state
constitution
that
gives
Hawaii
lawmakers
the
authority
to
reserve
marriage
only
for
“opposite-sex
couples.”“As
someone
who
fought
to
establish
and
protect
marriage
equality
in
Hawaii
for
more
than
a
quarter
of
a
century,
I
refuse
to
stand
by
and
watch
this
Court
take
a
hatchet
to
rights
won
that
had
previously
been
denied,”
wrote
Rep.
Jill
Tokuda
(D-Hawaii),
in
support
of
Hawaii’s
amendment.
“If
this
Court
follows
through
on
its
threat
to
revisit
Obergefell,
we
could
easily
see
nationwide
rights
to
same-sex
marriage
restricted
again.”
Cleaning
up
state
laws
that
were
rendered
moot
by
Obergefell
stops
the
threat
of
zombie
laws
coming
back
to
haunt
folks
in
California,
Colorado,
and
Hawaii.
But
there’s
still
a
lot
at
risk,
particularly
for
those
in
red
states,
if
the
Court
turns
back
the
clock
on
gay
rights.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].