This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Just a day after America's largest Protestant group, the Southern Baptists, called for the Supreme Court to overturn the same-sex marriage "right"-creating Obergefell decision, the legal team already working on that project issued a statement that the ruling, biased because at the time two justices had publicly advocated for the creation, is "vulnerable."
The decision, unleashed on Americans in 2015, had no connection to, or foundation in, the U.S. Constitution, the dissent from the bare 5-4 majority said. In fact, although it cites the 14th Amendment, that doesn't mention marriage. The Constitution doesn't mention marriage, meaning that the issue legally needs to be left to the states, under the 10th Amendment.
It is lawyers with Liberty Counsel who have fought for years already against the imposition of the leftist, radical, and anti-Christian ideology.
"As the 10th anniversary of the 2015 Obergefell opinion approaches on June 26, 2025, where 'five lawyers' on the U.S. Supreme Court abused their duty to interpret the Constitution and invented a so-called 'right' to 'same-sex marriage,' there is one legal case that could challenge it," the team explained.
The case involves former Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis, the first victim of this disastrous opinion, who was sent to prison for six days for refusing to issue marriage licenses while waiting for a religious accommodation.
The organization said besides the Southern Baptists' actions, there already is a growing consensus to overturn the opinion, even support from the high court.
"In his concurring opinion in Dobbs that overturned Roe, Justice Thomas stated that the rationale the High Court used to reverse abortion rights should be the same in overturning other court-established rights, such as 'same-sex marriage,'" Liberty Counsel said.
And lawmakers in at least four states have introduced resolutions calling for Obergefell to be overturned.
Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver said, "The U.S. Constitution provides no foundation for 'same-sex marriage.' Obergefell was wrongly decided whereby the Court created a right that is nowhere to be found in the text. We will petition the U.S. Supreme Court because Kim Davis' case underscores why the High Court should overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. Obergefell threatens the religious liberty of Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman."
Liberty Counsel's case is Davis v. Ermold, in which Davis, a former Rowan County Kentucky clerk has been held personally liable for not issuing a "marriage" license to David Ermold and David Moore.
On release of the radical Supreme Court ruling, Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses, instead referring same-sex duos to other locations, and never blocked any person from getting such a document.
Since the ruling violated her personal religious beliefs, she was awaiting a procedure that would protect her constitutional rights with an accommodation.
"However, she became Obergefell's first victim serving six days in jail, and now has a $100,000 jury verdict levied against her personally. Adding to that amount, the judge tacked on $260,000 in attorney's fees and costs, for a total of $360,000," Liberty Counsel said.
The ruling from the 6th Circuit denied her request to throw out the verdict, but it cited the dispute as a case of "first impression," "meaning that Davis presents a novel or unique question of law which the courts have not settled," a question Liberty Counsel now is presenting to the Supreme Court.
In fact, does the First Amendment protect Davis from liability for damages for "hurt feelings" that erupted as state laws abruptly were trashed without any guidance on procedural changes.
"By taking the case, SCOTUS can do two things – affirm religious freedom for all people and also correct the Obergefell mistake by overruling the 2015 opinion. SCOTUS can return the religious and governmental institution of marriage back to the states in similar fashion as it did when it found no right to an abortion in the Constitution in the 2022 Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade," Liberty Counsel said.
It was Chief Justice John Roberts who wrote, at the time: "Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent."
And Justice Samuel Alito said, "To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has [previously] held that 'liberty' under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.' And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights."
Justice Clarence Thomas said, "In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court read a right to same-sex marriage into the Fourteenth Amendment, even though that right is found nowhere in the text. Several Members of the Court noted that the Court's decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. The Court has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have 'ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'"
Liberty Counsel pointed out that a majority of those leftists who fabricated same-sex marriage, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, no longer are on the court.
The SBC resolution is, On Restoring Moral Clarity through God's Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family," calls for the overturning of "laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God's design for marriage and family."
It seeks "laws that affirm marriage between one man and one woman, recognize the biological reality of male and female, protect children's innocence against sexual predation, affirm and strengthen parental rights in education and healthcare, incentivize family formation in life-affirming ways, and ensure safety and fairness in athletic competition."
The dissent to Obergefell had warned it would be used to attack the religious rights of Americans, and it has.
For example, officials in just one state, Colorado, have gone to the Supreme Court twice already trying to impose a state-adopted religious belief, which is anti-Christian, on its residents.
Officials there, led by homosexual Gov. Jared Polis, first tried to punish a Christian baker for declining to promote anti-Christian beliefs with his work. The state lost at the Supreme Court, and got scolded for its "hostility" to Christianity. The same thing happened when Colorado officials tried to force a Christian web designer to promote anti-Christian religious beliefs with her work.
Incredibly, officials in that state, after costing taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees for their ideological warfare, have gone to the Supreme Court yet a third time, this time trying to impose their religious beliefs on every counselor in the state.
At the time of the Obergefell ruling, same-sex marriage was illegal in many states.
The pro-marriage Mass Resistance organization said, "The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was passed by a slim 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices. It has caused immense societal havoc across the country. States have been forced to ignore their legitimate laws and constitutional amendments regarding marriage. Governments, businesses, and even schoolchildren have been forced to accept same-sex 'marriage' – and by extension homosexual behavior – as normal, under pain of punishments, fines, and even imprisonment."
The problem with that ruling?
"The First Amendment guarantees free speech, freedom of assembly, religious liberty, and the right to petition government for redress of grievance. By forcing same-sex 'marriage' on the country in this way, Obergefell challenged all those rights," the group reported.
"In order to invent a previously unknown constitutional 'right' to same-sex marriage, the 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices used a strategy concocted by the LGBT lawyers. They redefined the Fourteenth Amendment to allow them to effectively change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to 'two people who love each other,'" the group reported.
But the 14th Amendment actually states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," and does not mention marriage.
The Obergefell promoters at the time also cited "substantive due process," which is not in the Constitution.
The decision was biased because two justices, Ruth Ginsberg and Elena Kagan, who joined in creating the new right, already had officiated at same-sex weddings, indicating they had a clear bias in favor.
