North Dakota has set the stage for a major legal showdown by considering a resolution addressing the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic 2015 decision on same-sex marriage.
Quick Takes
- North Dakota Senate committee sends same-sex marriage resolution to full Senate without recommendation.
- The resolution aims to overturn the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.
- Majority of testimonies oppose the resolution, spotlighting ongoing nationwide debate.
- The resolution promotes reevaluation of state versus federal authority on marriage laws.
North Dakota’s Legislative Push
The North Dakota legislature is considering a resolution that challenges the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which federally legalized same-sex marriage. On February 6th, the resolution passed the North Dakota House with a 52-40 vote. This resolution aims to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit and overturn its previous ruling on marriage equality. Rep. Bill Tveit, the driving force behind the resolution, argues the decision violated the Tenth Amendment and North Dakota’s Constitution and laws.
Public sentiment has played a significant role in this legislative process. Over 330 individuals provided testimony, the majority of whom oppose the resolution. This proposal has sparked a fervent conversation on LGBTQ+ rights and the balance of power between state and federal governments. With tensions running high, Sen. Janne Myrdal reported receiving hateful messages from both sides of the debate.
Voices of Opposition
Many voices have emerged against the resolution, including several lawmakers. Democratic Sen. Ryan Braunberger, who is gay, expressed concerns about the resolution’s potential harm to North Dakota’s economic growth and community morale. Laura Balliet, a North Dakota National Guard member, articulated her opposition with personal anecdotes, underscoring how the measure made her feel unwelcome in her own state. Similarly, Sen. Diane Larson has reiterated the importance of addressing all legislative bills with fairness and finality. Bradley King, a Bismarck resident, also shared moving stories about his daughter and her wife.
“I don’t know what this resolution does other than to tell people like myself, my friends and my family that we’re not welcome here, and I’m angry about that because I want to be welcome here. This is my home,” expressed Laura Balliet.
Despite the pushback, the resolution managed to pass in the North Dakota House by a slim 52-40 vote. Rep. Matt Ruby, a Republican who initially supported the measure, has since distanced himself, expressing regret over his previous vote. The controversy has shown a clear divide even within political parties. Some states, in contrast, have taken steps to fortify the legal status of same-sex marriage through legislation, including a federal law enacted in 2022.
State vs. Federal Authority
While the resolution does not mark any immediate legal shift in North Dakota’s policies on same-sex marriage, it sets a precedent for examining the balance of power between state governance and federal oversight. MassResistance, labeled an “anti-LGBTQ hate group” by GLAAD, is working to introduce similar resolutions in other states. This highlights a growing movement to challenge federal jurisdiction over marriage laws and to reestablish state dominance.
“The original Supreme Court ruling in 2015 went totally against the Tenth Amendment, went totally against the North Dakota Constitution and North Dakota Century Code (state laws),” said Rep. Tveit.
As the North Dakota Senate prepares to vote on the resolution without a solid recommendation, the potential nationwide implications of this challenge are clear. Should the U.S. Supreme Court choose to reconsider Obergefell v. Hodges, it could open the door for a reassessment of marriage laws across the United States, affecting LGBTQ+ rights. This move encapsulates a broader political sentiment favoring state over federal regulatory power.
