TheBlaze's Allie Beth Stuckey says Obergefell created a “slippery slope” that “was way more slippery than any of us could have ever thought”
Stuckey: “Some people were afraid when Roe v. Wade was overturned that that might also mean that Obergefell is overturned. And I don't know. That is something that could possibly happen.”
Published
Citation
From the June 1, 2026, edition of TheBlaze's Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey
ALLIE BETH STUCKEY (HOST): When we think back to 2014 — doesn't seem like that long ago, graduated from college in 2014, and yet I remember distinctly a conversation that I had with some friends at school about whether gay marriage, so called, would ever be legalized. And I remember us talking about the implications of that and the consequences of that. And, you know, a few years later people would have thought that our conversations sounded like a bunch of cavemen, of talking about ancient Rome and how Rome fell and all of that, and that would never happen.
Well, the slippery slope was way more slippery than any of us could have ever thought. I mean that conversation that we were having in college was actually true, but there was no way we could have foreseen in 2014 the consequences of redefining marriage. But of course, it makes sense. When you say a husband can become a wife, or a wife can become a husband, essentially what you're saying is that men and women are interchangeable, that they're essentially the same.
And so, if you're saying a husband can become a wife and vice versa, then why can't a man become a woman? And there are some people who will say, “OK, I'm OK, the LGBT or the LGB all make sense, but it's without the T.” It's the same math. If a husband can become a wife, a man can become a woman and vice versa. But if there is a distinction between man and woman, there's a distinction between husband and wife, and there's distinction between mother and father. But when we redefined marriage, we redefined gender, we redefined parenting, and that has implications not only on our perception of reality, has implications for women's rights, women's spaces, women's scholarships. It has implications for children. It has implications for how we create children, how we parent children.
And I don't think the Supreme Court understood that at the time, but that slope, I mean, we slid down it really quickly. It was a 5-4 decision, so pretty close, that ruled that the 14th Amendment guarantees same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry and required all states to both license and recognize those marriages.
Now, if you are perceptive, you might think, “Gosh, the 14th Amendment has been used to create a lot of rights out of thin air, like abortion.” It was the same thing with Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade was overturned and so, some people were afraid when Roe v. Wade was overturned that that might also mean that Obergefell is overturned. And I don't know. That is something that could possibly happen. Now, the Supreme Court would never rule on whether or not it is moral for two men to marry each other. That's not their job. Their job is to rule whether or not something is constitutional, and many people would argue, as Clarence Thomas would argue, and did argue, this is not constitutional.