North Dakota Lawmakers Push Resolution Urging Supreme Court to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
A growing movement seeks to challenge LGBTQ+ rights—while advocates fight back
North Dakota is on the verge of becoming the first state to formally request that the U.S. Supreme Court overturn its 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
While this resolution would hold no direct legal authority over the courts, similar efforts have been introduced in several other states this year. The measure passed the Republican-led North Dakota House in February but still awaits a vote in the Senate, where approval is not guaranteed.
A Challenge to Federal Authority
Republican Rep. Bill Tveit, who sponsored the resolution, argues that the Supreme Court overstepped its authority in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized same-sex marriage as a constitutional right.
“The original Supreme Court ruling in 2015 went totally against the Tenth Amendment, went totally against the North Dakota Constitution and North Dakota Century Code,” Tveit said. “Why did I introduce it? Every one of us in this building took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the state.”
However, for some North Dakotans, the measure is seen as an attack on their rights and a direct rejection of their place in the state.
Laura Balliet, an attorney and member of the North Dakota National Guard, testified that the resolution makes her feel “unwanted, unwelcome, and judged” because of her identity.
“I don’t know what this resolution does other than to tell people like myself, my friends, and my family that we’re not welcome here, and I’m angry about that because I want to be welcome here. This is my home,” said Balliet, who married her wife in 2020.
She was one of many opponents who testified before the Senate panel on Wednesday, arguing against the resolution’s message and implications.
A Nationwide Push to Reverse Marriage Equality
The resolution is part of a broader push by MassResistance, a Massachusetts-based group that describes itself as an “international pro-family group” but has been labeled an “anti-LGBTQ hate group” by the advocacy organization GLAAD.
Massachusetts was the first state to recognize same-sex marriage in 2004, and over the next decade, the movement gained traction across the country. By the time the Supreme Court ruled on Obergefell v. Hodges, most states had already legalized same-sex marriage through legislation, court decisions, or ballot measures.
Despite efforts like North Dakota’s, the national legal landscape has continued shifting in favor of protections for same-sex couples. In 2022, Congress passed federal legislation reinforcing marriage equality. Since 2020, several states—including California, Colorado, Hawaii, and Nevada—have repealed old constitutional amendments restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. Virginia lawmakers are considering a similar measure that could go before voters in 2026.
Although North Dakota and Idaho have advanced resolutions challenging Obergefell, similar measures have made little progress in other states, according to legislative data compiled by Plural, a bill-tracking service.
BEFORE YOU CONTINUE!
Stand with the LGBTQ+ Community—Take Action Today!
As North Dakota moves forward with this harmful resolution, it’s more important than ever to stand up for equality. We are committed to amplifying LGBTQ+ voices in North Dakota and beyond, but we can’t do it alone.
Join us in this fight by upgrading to our annual plan today. As a free subscriber, you can now take advantage of an exclusive 50% discount on our annual membership. Your support will help us continue our work in exposing attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, providing a platform for underrepresented voices, and advocating for a more inclusive future.
Click on the offer button below to upgrade today and stand with the LGBTQ+ community!
Divided Views Within North Dakota
The resolution explicitly states that the North Dakota Legislature “rejects” the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling and urges the justices to “overturn the decision and leave unaddressed the natural definition of marriage as a union between one man, a biological male, and one woman, a biological female.”
The issue gained renewed attention in 2022 when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. In that decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the court should reconsider past rulings, including Obergefell, sparking concern among LGBTQ+ advocates.
However, even within North Dakota’s Republican-dominated Legislature, some lawmakers have expressed regret over supporting the resolution.
Shortly after the measure passed the state House, several Republican representatives stated that they either had meant to vote against it or now regret their vote.
Rep. Matt Ruby, a Republican who voted in favor, later said he had misunderstood the resolution’s intent.
“The vote sent a bad message—that your marriage isn’t valid and you’re not welcome,” Ruby said. “That’s not what I support.”
Others, like Republican Rep. Dwight Kiefert, stood by their votes on religious grounds. Kiefert said his Christian faith guided his decision, citing the biblical story of Adam and Eve as the foundation of marriage.
Concerns Over Economic and Social Impact
Democratic Sen. Ryan Braunberger, who is openly gay and serves on the Senate panel reviewing the measure, called the resolution a “slap in the face” to LGBTQ+ North Dakotans.
“This sends a dangerous message at a time when North Dakota is trying to grow its population and strengthen its economy,” Braunberger said. “We want to make sure we attract the best talent from all backgrounds—different races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of North Dakota also raised concerns that the resolution promotes a religious viewpoint, which could conflict with the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
“Marriage defined as ‘one man, one woman’ is a particular religious belief,” said Cody Schuler, advocacy manager for the ACLU’s North Dakota chapter. “It’s not universally held across all religions, societies, or among nonreligious people. Making such a statement puts legislators on record in a way that could influence future binding laws.”
What Comes Next?
With the resolution now awaiting a vote in the North Dakota Senate, its passage is uncertain. But regardless of the outcome, the debate underscores the ongoing divide in the state—and the nation—over marriage equality and LGBTQ+ rights.
BEFORE YOU WALK AWAY!
Stand with the LGBTQ+ Community—Take Action Today!
As North Dakota moves forward with this harmful resolution, it’s more important than ever to stand up for equality. We are committed to amplifying LGBTQ+ voices in North Dakota and beyond, but we can’t do it alone.
Join us in this fight by upgrading to our annual plan today. As a free subscriber, you can now take advantage of an exclusive 50% discount on our annual membership. Your support will help us continue our work in exposing attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, providing a platform for underrepresented voices, and advocating for a more inclusive future.
Click on the offer button below to upgrade today and stand with the LGBTQ+ community!
This HCR did get voted down today on the Senate floor. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s shameful it was brought forward in the first place. We are better than this!!
I found the Adam and Eve argument particularly interesting. I have a few questions about that.
In the beginning there was Adam and then God said hmm now what? So he made Eve. Okay so no more clay people made by god, they can reproduce on their own.
Eve gives birth to two sons, Cain and Able. So where did the rest of the population come from? There is only one female in the story, the only one capable of becoming pregnant and giving birth. So does that mean that Eve had sex with Cain or Able? Or both? So does that mean that the law maker is okay with incest? Should the Supreme Court make incest legal? And since it’s in the Bible perhaps it should become law.
Personally I prefer the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
In simple terms it goes like this:
If you are opposed to same sex marriage by all means marry someone who is the opposite sex. Think about it, if the majority of married people were of the same sex would you want a law made that doesn’t allow you to marry someone of the opposite sex?
If you are against abortion, don’t have one. But unless you are willing to take on the work expense and upbringing of that child from conception through college mind your own business.
Our society is turning into not our brothers keeper but more like our brothers enforcer. Why not look for ways to make life better for everyone? Why go through life angry because people don’t think like you, don’t look like you? Don’t believe the same things you believe? That’s got to be exhausting. And which one of us is the ideal candidate to make everyone else exactly the same?