This article is written by a student writer from the Her Campus at Jefferson chapter and does not reflect the views of Her Campus.

Ever since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June of 2022, progressive thinkers have become anxious over the fate of other rights they hold dear, particularly gay marriage. Even as recently as February 2025, some conservative lawmakers have declared their attempts to revoke the right to same-sex marriage and overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling published on June 26, 2015, that solidified the rights to gay marriage.

the lawmakers involved

Josh Schriver, a conservative Michigan state representative, says the Obergefell ruling “is at odds with the sanctity of marriage, the Michigan Constitution, and principles upon which the country was established.” What principles does he think he’s talking about? This is objectively false. He seems to be putting his religious values over those of America. America was founded on immigrants, the separation of church and state, and individuality, which is everything these lawmakers tend to stand against. When arguing against topics such as abortion or now gay marriage, these lawmakers say, “It’s not in the constitution,” implying that anything not explicitly stated in the Constitution is not worthy of protection. This inclination to take the written word literally is sourced from their religious text. To generalize, the right-leaning lawmakers do not care for what the Constitution says. They only care about what their religious texts say and use the Constitution to support their confirmation bias. There’s nothing wrong with religion and how it influences one’s morality and political opinions; however, when lawmakers press their religious views onto the public, ignoring our laws that separate church and state, it becomes negligent to millions of American people. Schriver refused even to answer questions at his conference when he announced his legal proposition, demonstrating his lack of knowledge and empathy concerning the lives of citizens. He also had no proof of same-sex marriage causing any harm to the community, making his claims baseless. What makes Schriver’s arguments more idiotic is that he has a Master’s of Science in psychology, yet refuses to acknowledge how his actions are unjust and damaging to others.

Despite this, conservative Supreme Court justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas fully support Schriver. They have recently voiced their opinions on overturning the Obergefell ruling, even though the justices should be impartial before making an official decision. Clarence Thomas has said, “Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.” This statement is the epitome of hypocrisy. As a justice, he should understand that freedom is our ability to have choices, especially in deciding who we can marry, but he simply doesn’t care. Our nation was built on religious freedom, so what gives Thomas the right to attempt to impose his religious views onto us? This especially doesn’t make sense when you consider that 42% of the LGBTQ+ community identifies as being Christian.

what to expect

Similarly to how abortion laws are handled currently being up to the states, I could see gay marriage following the same path if Obergefell gets overturned. When it came to abortion, leaving the rights up to the states allowed for all of the right-leaning states to suppress healthcare access. The same would likely happen for gay marriage, allowing the right-leaning states to suppress fundamental rights for the public. The point of conservatism is not to let the federal government impose on individual freedom, so I find it ironic that they are in support of legislation that takes away the recognition of gay marriage. Whether or not it is recognized by law, people in the LGBTQ+ community will continue to get married.

Additionally, if conservative lawmakers are so happy with delegating the responsibility of dictating personal liberty to the states, why not keep going with this ideology? Why not allow every township to dictate these freedoms? Or better yet, why not just give every individual the right to make their own choices- which is effectively indistinguishable from legalizing individual freedoms?

what you can do

As young people, we tend to be more politically active, especially since many of us feel responsible for our future since we will be the ones living in it. However, it’s okay not to be as active as we would wish. Since we’re college students, most of us didn’t come to school to be political activists. However, we did come to school to become educated toward a career path, and it’s perfectly acceptable to spend most of our energy doing that. Becoming a well-rounded and educated individual is also important and worth being proud of, especially since our careers will contribute to society. Obviously, staying politically active is still important, but it is also understandable to focus most of your energy on your education- at least for now.