On Jun. 26, 2015, love won. What about now?

The landmark Supreme Court decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, overturned Baker v. Nelson and legalized same-sex marriage throughout the U.S. and its territories—a change that former President Obama deemed “a victory for America.” While Obergefell was a triumph in the battle for LGBTQ equality, this verdict set by the highest court in the nation is still being challenged. States and religious freedom advocates dispute whether it can uphold its strength in the face of numerous judicial clashes and shifts in the Supreme Court.

In the case of Pavan v. Smith, marriage equality triumphed over state bias—but only with the intervention of the SCOTUS. Last December, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that same-sex spouses could not both be listed on their child’s birth certificate, based on the Arkansas Department of Health’s argument that birth certificates are a biological indicator. Yet, the plaintiffs pointed out the double-standard: in an opposite-sex marriage, a mother’s husband would be listed as the father on a birth certificate, even if he was not the biological father. He would still be given legal recognition by the state as a parent of the child, giving him rights involving his child’s school enrollment and medical treatment. On Jun. 26, upon reviewing the case, SCOTUS stepped in and overturned the state court ruling with a 6-3 vote, with Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito Jr. dissenting. In an unsigned opinion, the majority stated that the Arkansas Supreme Court had failed to apply the principles of Obergefell to this case, as “the Constitution entitles same-sex couples to civil marriage ‘on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.’”

While Pavan demonstrated a major win for marriage equality, the newest Supreme Court justice appointed by President Trump, Neil Gorsuch, may be an obstacle in future efforts. Gorsuch’s dissenting opinion on the case suggests that he may be reluctant to expand LGBTQ rights and instead favors a limited interpretation of the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling. Gorsuch claimed that the Arkansas court’s decision was valid, arguing that “nothing in Obergefell indicates that a birth registration regime based on biology...offends the Constitution,” despite different standards for opposite-sex marriages as stated above. While his conservative background made him a fit replacement for the late Justice Scalia, Gorsuch had never ruled on an LGBTQ case previously and had avoided voicing an explicit opinion during his Senate confirmation hearing. But now, his thoughts on the impact and application of Obergefell ring loud and clear.

Each Supreme Court justice will play a vital role in the upcoming and highly controversial case pitting religious liberty against LGBTQ rights: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Cake artist Jack Phillips argues that his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion create legal justification for his refusal to create same-sex wedding cakes, stemming from a complaint made by couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins. The verdict of this case (which will be heard in October) will determine whether religious views of businesses and public services are justified reasons for discriminating between clients.This opens up yet another can of worms of what some perceive as an excuse for discrimination—could a same-sex couple be rejected from delivering their child at a religiously-affiliated hospital? The Economist poses the question: if today is a wedding cake, could tomorrow be the caterer or the photographer?

While Gorsuch seems to have joined Thomas and Alito as conservative anchors on SCOTUS, Chief Justice John Roberts may become a swing vote in Masterpiece. Although Roberts dissented in Obergefell, he did join the majority opinion in Pavan, indicating adherence to the earlier precedent. As long as the crucial 5-4 balance is maintained, the legacy of Obergefell will prevail in Masterpiece and ensure a civil marketplace of coexistence.

However, rumors have been swirling of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s potential retirement within the next few months or years. Kennedy, the swing vote and author of the majority opinion in Obergefell, is now 81 years old and currently the longest-serving justice on the Supreme Court. Elizabeth Wydra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, described to CNN that Kennedy was “at the center of the institution’s ideological balance.” Should Kennedy retire during the Trump administration, he would most likely be replaced by a conservative-leaning appointee, thus disrupting the balance of SCOTUS. This would majorly jeopardize marriage equality, allowing conservatives to chip away at the necessary social advancements of Obergefell in favor of states’ rights and religious liberty.

In fact, it’s already been happening. LGBTQ rights were severely undermined on Jun. 30, when the Texas Supreme Court unanimously ruled that cities are not required to extend their spousal benefits program to married same-sex couples, a privilege typically given to government employees. In Pidgeon v. Turner, the Texas Supreme Court contested that while Obergefell required states to license and recognize same-sex marriages, it “did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons.” The court further pointed to SCOTUS’s decision to hear the Masterpiece case. The Texas Supreme Court reasoned that if SCOTUS was planning to consider Masterpiece, then it was proof that Obergefell and Pavan were not substantial enough to clarify to what extent marriage equality would entail. Religious groups have heavily backed this decision, echoing a 2013 lawsuit in which a bloc of social conservative and religious organizations sued the city of Houston for offering spousal benefits to same-sex couples. They perceive the ruling as a lawful defense of taxpayers with religious views against same-sex marriage. There is no sign yet as to whether SCOTUS will step in and reverse this ruling.

Two years ago, our country moved mountains by finally recognizing the authenticity of love regardless of gender. In the majority opinion of Obergefell, Justice Kennedy wrote that the hope of the LGBTQ community “is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”

In marriage, two individuals promise to love and honor one another. Hopefully, our judicial system will remember to also honor the promise we have made to equality.

Two Years After Obergefell

November 2017 Newsletter

October 2017 Newsletter

September 2017 Newsletter

Navigating a Nuclear North Korea

Betsy Goes to College

One Voluntourist Selfie a Day Keeps the Poverty Away

August 2017 Newsletter

Help.

The Hidden Implications of Concealed Carry