The United States Supreme Court is once again at the center of contentious debates over LGBTQ rights, with two major cases—one from Colorado and another potentially revisiting the national right to same-sex marriage—bringing renewed urgency and anxiety to advocates and opponents on both sides of the aisle. As the nation watches, the outcomes of these cases could reshape the legal landscape for millions of Americans.
On August 20, 2025, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sounded the alarm on the future of marriage equality. Speaking on the podcast "Raging Moderates" with Fox News host Jessica Tarlov and Scott Galloway, Clinton warned that the Supreme Court could soon dismantle its 2015 landmark ruling, Obergefell v. Hodges, which established the right to same-sex marriage nationwide. Her advice to LGBTQ couples was blunt: "Anybody in a committed relationship out there in the LGBTQ community, you ought to consider getting married, because I don’t think they’ll undo existing marriages, but I fear they will undo the national right." According to Fox News, Clinton emphasized the long-term efforts that led to this moment, stating, "American voters, and to some extent the American media, don’t understand how many years the Republicans have been working in order to get us to this point. It took 50 years to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court will hear a case about gay marriage; my prediction is they will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion. They will send it back to the states."
Clinton’s warning comes as the Supreme Court faces a formal request to revisit Obergefell. Last month, Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who made headlines in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, petitioned the Court to overturn the decision. While the Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will take up Davis’s request, the possibility has already sent shockwaves through the LGBTQ community and its allies.
Even if Obergefell were overturned, the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act, signed into law by President Joe Biden, would require the federal government to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages. However, as reported by Fox News, the law does not obligate states to issue new marriage licenses. This means that if Obergefell falls, bans in more than a dozen states could once again be enforced, forcing couples in those states to travel elsewhere to wed. The scenario would mirror the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade, with individual states left to decide whether to permit or prohibit same-sex marriages.
There’s more at stake than just marriage licenses. Justice Clarence Thomas has previously argued that the Court should revisit and potentially overturn decisions that restrict state powers on issues such as same-sex marriage, contraception, and even the legality of certain private consensual sexual activities. He described these earlier rulings as "demonstrably erroneous." The implications of such a move would be far-reaching, potentially rolling back decades of progress on civil rights and privacy.
Public opinion on same-sex marriage remains deeply divided along party lines. A May 2025 Gallup poll found that 88% of Democrats support marriage equality, compared to just 41% of Republicans—the lowest Republican support in a decade. Yet, a separate June 2025 study by three research firms suggested a slimmer majority of Republicans, 56%, still back marriage equality. The numbers reveal a nation still struggling to find consensus, even as legal battles rage on.
Meanwhile, in Colorado, another Supreme Court case is poised to test the boundaries of LGBTQ rights and free speech. On August 19, 2025, the Court set October 7 as the date for oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a case challenging Colorado’s 2019 ban on conversion therapy for minors. The case pits Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor from Colorado Springs, against the state’s Department of Regulatory Agencies. Chiles argues that the law unfairly restricts her First Amendment rights by prohibiting her from providing conversion therapy—a practice aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity—to clients under 18.
According to KDVR, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser filed the state’s merits brief the same day, laying out the argument that the law protects citizens from "substandard care" and does not violate free speech. "This is a broad principle and the principle that we are standing on is states have the police power right to protect our citizens against substandard care," Weiser said during a virtual press conference. He further explained, "Someone who is gay, someone who is a lesbian, being told that what you believe you are is wrong and trying to change who you are, who you love, that is the so-called gay conversion practice that is now discredited."
The case raises thorny questions about where to draw the line between professional conduct and protected speech. As Chiles’s brief puts it, "When Chiles counsels young people with gender dysphoria, Colorado allows her to speak if she helps them embrace a transgender identity. But if those clients choose to align their sense of identity with their sex by growing comfortable with their bodies, Chiles must remain silent or risk losing her license, her livelihood, and the career she loves." The brief challenges whether the law "censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed" and if that constitutes a violation of the Free Speech Clause.
Weiser, for his part, insists that the law is narrowly tailored: "The only thing the law addresses is prohibiting therapists from providing substandard of care that would seek to change a patient’s sexual or gender identity." He also notes that counselors can discuss conversion therapy and legal options with clients; what’s prohibited is actually performing the therapy itself.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority looms large over both cases. Weiser acknowledged that right-leaning justices may not be immediately sympathetic to the state’s arguments, but he remains hopeful that legal precedent will prevail. "In theory, when you talk about being conservative, it means you preserve what is long established and you view change as something that should be done cautiously. In that sense, we have a conservative case to be made," he argued. He also warned that a ruling in Chiles’s favor could have sweeping consequences for healthcare regulation nationwide: "You would de-stabilize and you would undermine all sorts of malpractice regimes or licensing regimes where there is any speech or conversation."
Chiles’s case has already been rejected by both a federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, but the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case signals that the justices see unresolved constitutional questions at play. The Alliance Defending Freedom, representing Chiles, has not responded to requests for comment, according to KDVR.
As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh these pivotal cases, Americans on all sides are bracing for decisions that could upend the status quo. The coming months promise high stakes and heated debate, with the rights of millions hanging in the balance.
Whatever the outcome, the nation’s ongoing struggle to define and defend LGBTQ rights is far from over, and the Supreme Court’s rulings will echo for generations.
