Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015. National support for same-sex marriage has since held between roughly 68% and 71% in major polling, a remarkably flat line for a contested social question. Hundreds of thousands of marriages have been performed, creating the kind of settled expectations around property, inheritance, and parenting that courts normally treat as reliance interests.
In November 2025 the Supreme Court declined to hear a petition asking it to revisit the ruling. The denial came without comment, which supporters read as the Court leaving a settled question alone and critics read as leaving the door open.
Gallup polling in 2026 put Republican support for same-sex marriage at roughly 41%, its lowest in about a decade and down from a peak near 55% in 2021 and 2022. National support stayed near 70% over the same period, because movement in one party was offset elsewhere.
Analysts disagree about the cause, pointing variously to partisan sorting, backlash to adjacent debates over gender identity, or shifts in how the question is being read. Those urging reconsideration treat it as evidence the consensus is softening. Defenders note the national figure has not moved and that the decline is concentrated in a single party.
It is worth separating two claims that often get merged. One is that public opinion is shifting, which the Republican trend line supports. The other is that the legal question is reopening, which requires four Supreme Court justices to vote to hear a challenge and five to overturn a decade-old precedent with substantial reliance interests attached. Movement in polling is real, but it is not the same thing as movement in the law, and conflating them tends to make both sides argue past each other.
The unresolved question is no longer who may marry but whether someone can be fired, evicted, or refused service. According to the Human Rights Campaign, as of mid-2025 twenty-nine states still lacked comprehensive statutes barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations.
Where state law is silent, protection depends on federal interpretation, which has shifted between administrations. Advocates argue this means identical conduct is lawful in one state and actionable across a border. Opponents argue that federalism is designed to permit exactly that variation, and that local majorities should set local rules.
Signed in December 2022 with bipartisan support, the Respect for Marriage Act requires federal and interstate recognition of marriages that were validly performed. It does not require any state to issue a license. That distinction is the practical crux: if Obergefell were ever overturned, existing marriages would still be recognized everywhere, but couples in some states could be forced to travel to marry.
In November 2024, voters in California, Colorado, and Hawaii approved measures striking defunct language defining marriage as between one man and one woman from their state constitutions, each by wide margins. Supporters read those results as durable public consensus. Skeptics note all three states lean strongly Democratic.
The left generally argues that a decade of stable support and settled reliance interests make this closed, that a patchwork of state protections leaves practical rights depending on geography, and that broad religious exemptions can make a nominal right unusable. The right generally argues that marriage law was historically a state matter decided by courts rather than legislatures, that religious institutions want assurance they will not be penalized for acting on doctrine, and that the Respect for Marriage Act already addresses the practical consequences.
The sharpest disagreement is over scope rather than principle. The proposed Equality Act is broadly popular in its core, but bundles that with contested provisions on single-sex spaces, athletics, and faith-based employment, which poll very differently from marriage itself.
Want the core arguments from both sides, side by side?
See the Left vs. Right Breakdown on LGBTQ Protections →