Conservative activist Katy Faust has urged churches and voters in the United States to prepare for a fresh legal campaign against same-sex marriage, arguing that children’s family relationships should sit at the centre of the debate. Her comments have reignited questions about Obergefell, public opinion and where America’s marriage politics may go next.

Essential Takeaways

  • A renewed legal campaign: Faust says Obergefell v. Hodges should become the next major Supreme Court precedent challenged.
  • Children at the centre: Her advocacy group, Them Before Us, frames marriage policy around children’s relationships with their biological parents.
  • A major precedent: The 2015 ruling required states to recognise same-sex marriages nationwide.
  • Public opinion remains important: Polling still shows majority support for same-sex marriage, although figures vary between surveys.
  • Churches are being recruited: Faust says Protestant and Catholic communities will be given materials to support the campaign.

Faust puts Obergefell in the political crosshairs

The strongest message from Katy Faust’s speech was blunt: the legal fight over same-sex marriage isn't finished. Speaking at the Family Research Council’s Pray Vote Stand Summit in Virginia, the conservative activist said Obergefell v. Hodges should be treated as the next major target for reversal.

Obergefell is the 2015 Supreme Court decision that found same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The ruling required states both to licence same-sex marriages and recognise those performed elsewhere, making it one of the defining social decisions of the modern court. Cornell Law School’s case record sets out the legal question and the court’s ruling in full. [4]

Faust’s argument is rooted in a child-centred view of marriage. She says removing husband-and-wife language from marriage law has also weakened the traditional legal emphasis on mothers and fathers, a position that has made her a prominent figure among socially conservative family campaigners. Background profiles identify her as the founder of Them Before Us, an organisation focused on children in debates about family structure. [3]

Why the 2015 ruling still matters

For supporters of Obergefell, the decision represented equal treatment under the law and recognition of same-sex couples’ families. For opponents such as Faust, it crossed a line by treating the traditional male-female structure of marriage as legally interchangeable with other arrangements.

That clash is more than a symbolic disagreement. It affects marriage licences, adoption, parental recognition, birth certificates and the way public institutions describe family relationships. The Supreme Court’s decision established a nationwide constitutional framework, which is why any attempt to undo it would be a legal and political undertaking rather than a simple change of wording. [4]

The argument also arrives in a country where same-sex marriage has become part of everyday life for many families. The Associated Press has reported on the continuing political significance of marriage rights and the broader debate over how courts and lawmakers handle LGBTQ+ equality. [5]

The public may be harder to persuade

Faust acknowledged that changing court precedent isn't enough. Any long-term campaign would also need to persuade ordinary Americans that reversing Obergefell was desirable, and that's a considerably steeper hill to climb.

National polling has generally found majority support for same-sex marriage, although the precise figure depends on the pollster, wording and timing. Recent surveys cited in the debate have shown support remaining above half, while some results have recorded a modest softening from previous highs. That gives opponents an opening to point to shifting attitudes, but it doesn't amount to majority backing for repeal. [6]

This is where the campaign's planned alliance with Protestant and Catholic voices becomes significant. Faust says religious organisations could help reshape the conversation around children, parenthood and natural law. In practical terms, the strategy appears designed to move the issue away from adult equality alone and towards questions about who should be recognised as a parent.

A child-centred message, and its sharp edges

Faust’s central question is whether children benefit from being raised by their own mother and father, or whether the state can treat other arrangements as equivalent. Her answer is firmly no, and she presents marriage as a social institution intended primarily to protect children rather than simply validate adult relationships.

That framing will resonate with opponents of surrogacy and same-sex marriage, but it is also highly contested. Supporters of same-sex families argue that loving parents can provide secure homes regardless of gender or sexual orientation, and that legal recognition protects children who already live in those families. The AP has covered the wider US culture-war dispute over LGBTQ+ rights, family policy and the role of courts in settling it. [5]

The language matters, too. Battles over terms such as “mother”, “father”, “gestating parent” and “nongestating parent” aren't merely administrative squabbles. They reflect competing ideas about whether family law should prioritise biology, caregiving, marital status or equal recognition. That makes the issue especially combustible, because a birth certificate can become a miniature battleground over national values.

What could happen next?

Faust says her coalition, Greater Than, is working on a judicial strategy that would advance child-focused challenges through the courts. The approach would likely involve testing narrower policies first, then using those cases to build a broader argument about parental rights and marriage law.

Even so, overturning Obergefell would face formidable obstacles. The decision has been in force for more than a decade, same-sex couples have married across the country, and the court would have to confront the practical consequences for established families and legal records. Cornell’s published decision shows just how deeply the ruling rests on constitutional reasoning about liberty and equality. [7]

There’s also a political reality. A campaign to reverse same-sex marriage would require more than lawyers and religious organisations; it would need sustained public support, sympathetic elected officials and a Supreme Court willing to revisit one of its most consequential modern rulings. For now, Faust’s speech looks less like an immediate legal action than a declaration of intent.

The debate is likely to remain fierce, personal and unusually resistant to compromise. For couples and parents watching from the sidelines, that means the language of constitutional law may continue to shape very practical questions about family life.

It’s a long campaign, and the next battle may be fought as much in public opinion as in court.

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: