By Dr. Mark Creech
Return America
When Kentucky clerk Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, she was mocked, jailed, and thrust into the national spotlight. Nearly a decade later, her case, Ermold v. Davis, is inching closer to the Supreme Court. The Court is scheduled to consider whether to grant certiorari at the end of September this year. If accepted, oral arguments could occur in the spring of 2026, with a decision expected by June of the same year. Should the Court take the case, Obergefell itself could be reconsidered, and North Carolina’s constitutional marriage amendment could again take effect, restoring marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
That possibility has ignited much speculation because we have seen this before. For decades, Roe v. Wade was considered “settled law,” only to be overturned in 2022 by Dobbs v. Jackson, restoring to the people the right to govern themselves on the abortion question. Obergefell is cut from the same cloth: a judicial invention, not a constitutional right.
As Executive Director of the Christian Action League, I was in the vanguard of securing a Marriage Amendment on the ballot, lobbying lawmakers for over a decade, rallying churches, and traveling the state, urging citizens to defend marriage. Alongside these efforts, Return America mobilized the grassroots with massive rallies in Raleigh: 12,000 in 2007, 5,000 in 2009, 5,000 in 2011, and 8,000 in 2012. These twin labors, legislative advocacy and grassroots mobilization, culminated in a resounding victory. In May 2012, at the ballot box, more than 61% of North Carolinians overwhelmingly defined marriage in our constitution as the union of one man and one woman.
But that hard-won victory was stolen. In October 2014, U.S. District Judge Max Cogburn struck down North Carolina’s constitutional marriage amendment in General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Reisinger, tossing aside the will of over 2 million voters, citing the Fourth Circuit’s ruling against Virginia. Days later, Judge William L. Osteen Jr., in the Middle District, issued a similar ruling in Fisher-Borne v. Smith, striking another deadly blow. Less than a year later, Obergefell delivered the final strike, trampling the will of North Carolinians and redefining marriage nationwide.
If Obergefell is overturned, North Carolina’s marriage amendment would immediately spring back into effect. The will of the people, written into our highest law, would be restored. That is precisely why the left scrambled to pass the so-called Respect for Marriage Act (RMA) in 2022. Don’t be fooled by the name of that legislation. The RMA disrespected marriage as God designed it, ignored the votes of North Carolinians, and enshrined Obergefell into federal statute, tying the hands of states like our own. Even if Obergefell were reversed, the RMA would still compel every state, as well as the federal government, to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere. In practical terms, this would mean North Carolina could once again define marriage as only between one man and one woman, refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses here. Yet, our state would remain bound to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states where it is legal.
Tragically, one of the leading figures who helped secure passage of the RMA was North Carolina’s own Senator Thom Tillis. Not only did he vote for the bill, but he also helped negotiate its terms and whip votes to ensure its success. Tillis has described the RMA as a “compromise,” claiming it both preserves same-sex marriage and safeguards religious liberty. But this is deeply misleading. A true compromise requires mutual give-and-take; in this case, Congress imposed a sweeping federal mandate that overrode the clearly expressed will of millions of voters in North Carolina and across the nation. Tillis helped cement Obergefell more firmly than ever into federal law. To call that a compromise is to strip the word of its meaning.
Nor do the RMA’s so-called religious liberty protections offer any real safety. Churches and some religious institutions may be shielded on paper, but pastors, families, and business owners remain vulnerable. Courts and agencies can still penalize those who act according to their convictions. These hollow promises are illusions, not protections. Worse still, framing marriage as a compromise assumes the federal government has authority to redefine an institution that predates the state itself. Marriage, as affirmed in North Carolina’s constitution, is not merely a policy preference but an unchanging universal moral truth. To treat it as a bargaining chip trivializes both the voice of the people and the sanctity of marriage.
What would the overturning of Obergefell mean for North Carolina? It would mean vindication. It would mean the return of self-government. It would mean that the hard-fought victory for the Marriage Amendment – the people’s voice – would no longer be denied. Marriage as one man and one woman would once again be the law of this state, just as North Carolinians insisted.
The future of marriage in America could once again hang in the balance. The possibility of Obergefell’s fall should drive us to our knees in prayer. Just as Return America once rallied thousands to defend marriage in Raleigh, we must now rally in the Spirit, calling on God to move in the hearts of the Justices and praying for those who will defend marriage before the High Court. Our churches should make this a regular matter of prayer: that the Supreme Court would take up this case and that, by God’s mercy, the institution of marriage as He ordered it might be restored in law, with even greater urgency than before.
God hasten the day!
