Two Republican lawmakers in Oklahoma, Senator Dusty Deevers and Representative Jim Olsen, have introduced a resolution calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges — the landmark 2015 ruling that legalised same-sex marriage nationwide.
The proposal, Senate Concurrent Resolution 8, echoes similar efforts in at least five other U.S. states. While the resolution is largely symbolic and non-binding, it represents a growing push by conservative lawmakers to challenge established LGBTQ+ rights.
The resolution argues that the Supreme Court overstepped its constitutional role, describing the Obergefell decision as an “unwarranted governmental intrusion” and claiming it conflicts with “the original meaning” of the Constitution, American founding principles, and historical interpretations of marriage.
It also asserts that the ruling improperly used the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to establish what it calls “fabricated” rights and claims the decision has undermined the civil liberties of states to regulate marriage.
A Call to Return to “Traditional” Definitions of Marriage
“For millennia marriage has been understood, both in biblical teaching and in the Anglo-American common-law tradition, as the lifelong covenant union of one man and one woman,” the resolution states.
It also criticises Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan for not recusing themselves from the case due to their past officiating of same-sex weddings. The document claims that the ruling has led to legal actions against Christian business owners and portrays Christians as being unfairly vilified for their beliefs.
Further, it draws a controversial link between same-sex marriage and the erosion of gender distinctions, claiming the decision “played a role in erasing biological distinctions… threatening women’s privacy, safety, and athletic opportunities.”
If approved by Oklahoma lawmakers, the resolution will be sent to the Supreme Court, congressional leaders, the state’s attorney general, and others.
Legal Experts Point to Misinterpretations
Legal scholars and LGBTQ+ advocates argue the resolution relies on flawed legal reasoning. The Supreme Court’s 2015 decision invoked Loving v. Virginia (1967), which struck down bans on interracial marriage, to affirm that the right to marry is fundamental and must be applied equally.
The court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution. It emphasised that such bans imposed legal instability, denied key family protections, and lacked any legitimate government justification.
While lawsuits have occurred involving Christian-owned businesses refusing service to same-sex couples, those cases have centred on whether such refusals breach state anti-discrimination laws—not on marriage rights directly.
Senator Deevers’s Broader Anti-LGBTQ+ Stance
Speaking on Washington Watch with Family Research Council president Tony Perkins—whose organisation is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center—Senator Deevers declared:
“There is just no right to gay marriage in the Constitution.”
“Ultimately, marriage is not the state’s institution, it’s God’s institution. No Supreme Court ruling that redefines a God-ordained institution is ever truly settled: not morally or culturally, and even constitutionally.”
Deevers’s campaign platform is openly anti-LGBTQ+, attacking everything from drag story hours to the inclusion of LGBTQ+ topics in public schools and universities.
“It is outrageous that drag queens are permitted to dance and twerk for children at pride parades and story hours,” his website states.
“It is outrageous that… public schools have exposed elementary and middle school children to LGBTQ+ propaganda… I promise to support legislation to put a stop to all of this.”
While the resolution is unlikely to directly impact federal law, it signals a continued effort from conservative lawmakers to challenge LGBTQ+ rights at state and national levels.
