Southern Baptists' call for the US Supreme Court to overturn its same-sex marriage decision is part of a long history of opposing women's and LGBTQ+ people's rights

The Southern Baptist Convention has lost 3.6 million members over the past two decades and faces an ongoing sexual abuse crisis. At its June 2025 annual meeting, however, neither of those issues took up as much time as controversial social issues, including the denomination's stance on same-sex marriage.
The group called for the overturning of Obergefell v. Hodges – the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage – and the creation of laws that 'affirm marriage between one man and one woman.'
Messengers – Southern Baptists' word for delegates from local churches – also asked for laws that would 'reflect the moral order revealed in Scripture and nature.'
They also decried declining fertility rates, commercial surrogacy, Planned Parenthood, 'willful childlessness,' the normalization of 'transgender ideology,' and gender-affirming medical care.
This detailed list targeting women's and LGBTQ+ rights was justified by an appeal to a God-ordained created order, as defined by Southern Baptists' interpretation of the Bible.
In this created order, sex and gender are synonymous and are irrevocably defined by biology. The heterosexual nuclear family is the foundational institution of this order, with the father dominant over his wife and children – and children are a necessity if husbands and wives are to be faithful to God's design for the family.
The resolution, On Restoring Moral Clarity through God's Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family, passed easily in a denomination that was taken over from more moderate Southern Baptists by fundamentalists in the early 1990s, largely in response to women's progress in society and in the denomination.
Southern Baptists were always conservative on issues of gender and sexuality. As I was entering a Southern Baptist seminary in the early 1980s, the denomination seemed poised to embrace social progress. I watched the takeover firsthand as a student and then as a professor of women and gender studies who studies Southern Baptists. This new resolution is the latest in a long history of Southern Baptist opposition to the progress of women and LGBTQ+ people.
Throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, many Southern Baptists began to embrace the women's movement. Women started to attend Southern Baptist seminaries in record numbers, many claiming a call to serve as pastors. While Southern Baptist acceptance of LGBTQ+ people lagged far behind its nascent embrace of women's rights, progress did seem possible.
Then in 1979, a group of Southern Baptist fundamentalists organized to wrest control of the denomination from the moderates who had led it for decades.
Any hope for progress on changes regarding LGBTQ+ rights in the denomination quickly died. Across the next two decades, advances made by women, such as being ordained and serving as senior pastors, eroded and disappeared.
The SBC had passed anti-gay resolutions in the 1970s defining homosexuality as 'deviant' and a 'sin.' But under the new fundamentalist rule, the SBC became even more vehemently anti-gay and anti-trans.
In 1988, the SBC called homosexuality a 'perversion of divine standards,' 'a violation of nature and natural affections,' 'not a normal lifestyle,' and 'an abomination in the eyes of God.'
In 1991, they decried government funding for the National Lesbian and Gay Health Conference as a violation of 'the proper role and responsibility of government' because of its encouragement of 'sexual immorality.'
Predictably, across the years, the convention spoke out against every effort to advance LGBTQ+ rights. This included supporting the Boy Scouts' ban of gay scouts, opposing military service by LGBTQ+ people, boycotting Disney for its support of LGBTQ+ people, calling on businesses to deny LGBTQ+ people domestic partner benefits and employment nondiscrimination to protect LGBTQ+ people, and supporting the Defense of Marriage Act that limited marriage to a woman and a man.
The gender and sexuality topic, however, that has received the most attention from the convention has been marriage equality. Since 1980, the SBC has passed 22 resolutions that touch on same-sex marriage.
The SBC passed its first resolution against same-sex marriage in 1996 after the Hawaii Supreme Court indicated the possibility it could rule in favor of same-sex marriage. The court never decided the issue because Hawaii's Legislature passed a bill defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
In 1998, the convention amended its faith statement, the Baptist Faith and Message, to define marriage as 'the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment.'
The denomination passed its next resolution in 2003 in response to the Vermont General Assembly's establishment of civil unions. The resolution opposed any efforts to validate same-sex marriages or partnerships, whether legislative, judicial or religious.
In 2004, after the Massachusetts Supreme Court allowed same-sex marriages in that state, the convention called for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It reiterated this call in 2006.
When the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, the SBC passed another resolution in 2008 warning of the dire consequences of allowing lesbians and gay men to marry, as people from other states would marry in California and return home to challenge their states' marriage bans.
In 2011, the convention offered its support for the Defense of Marriage Act, followed in 2012 by a denunciation of the use of civil rights language to argue for marriage equality.
The resolution argues that homosexuality 'does not qualify as a class meriting special protections, like race and gender.'
When Obergefell was before the Supreme Court, the SBC called on the court to deny marriage equality. After Obergefell was decided in favor of same-sex marriage, the convention asked for Congress to pass the First Amendment Defense Act, which would have prohibited the federal government from discriminating against people based on their opposition to same-sex marriage. That same resolution also offers its support to state attorneys general challenging transgender rights.
This was not the first time the SBC had spoken about transgender issues. As early as 2007, the denomination expressed its opposition to allowing transgender people to constitute a protected class in hate crimes legislation.
In 2014, the convention stated its belief that gender is fixed and binary and subsequently that trans people should not be allowed gender-affirming care and that government officials should not validate transgender identity.
In 2016, the denomination opposed access for transgender people to bathrooms matching their gender identities. In 2021, the convention invoked women's rights – in a denomination famous for its resistance to women's equality – as a reason to undermine trans rights.
In its resolution opposing the proposed Equality Act, which would have added sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classifications, the SBC argued, 'The Equality Act would undermine decades of hard-fought civil rights protections for women and girls by threatening competition in sports and disregarding the privacy concerns women rightly have about sharing sleeping quarters and intimate facilities with members of the opposite sex.'
This most recent resolution from June 2025 returns to the themes of fixed and binary gender, a divinely sanctioned hierarchical ordering of gender, and marriage as an institution limited to one woman and one man. While claiming these beliefs are 'universal truths,' the resolution argues that Obergefell is a 'legal fiction' because it denies the biological reality of male and female.
Going further, this resolution claims that U.S. law on gender and sexuality should be based on the Bible. The duty of lawmakers, it states, is to 'pass laws that reflect the truth of creation and natural law – about marriage, sex, human life, and family – and to oppose any law that denies or undermines what God has made plain through nature and Scripture.'
By taking no action on sexual abuse while focusing its efforts on issues of gender and sexuality, the convention affirmed its decades-long conservative trajectory. It also underlined its willingness to encourage lawmakers to impose these standards on the rest of the nation.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Susan M. Shaw, Oregon State University
Read more:
Data on sexual orientation and gender is critical to public health – without it, health crises continue unnoticed
Southern Baptist Convention votes to expel two churches with female pastors – a religion scholar explains how far back these battles go
How women in the Southern Baptist Convention have fought for decades to be ordained
Susan M. Shaw does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Associated Press

an hour ago

• Associated Press

DEA Judge Mulrooney's MMJ Marijuana Ruling May Be DEA's Last Stand Before the Constitution Strikes Back

Judge Mulrooney's decision may have handed MMJ BioPharma Cultivation a defeat inside the DEA's walls, but in doing so, he may have handed MMJ a powerful victory in federal court. The record of constitutional violations and DEA violations is now preserved - the 'Axon-Jarkesy defense' is primed - and the very administrative law judge system the DEA clings to may not survive scrutiny. WASHINGTON, D.C. / ACCESS Newswire / June 22, 2025 / In a move that now appears both unconstitutional and strategically reckless, the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) Chief Administrative Law Judge John J. Mulrooney II has ruled against MMJ BioPharma Cultivation - not by adjudicating evidence, but by canceling the hearing altogether, shutting the courtroom door before any facts could be presented. This denial of due process is not just procedural misconduct. It stands in direct violation of recent Supreme Court precedent - namely, Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC (2023) and Jarkesy v. SEC (2024) - which fundamentally altered the authority of federal agencies to conduct internal administrative hearings shielded from constitutional scrutiny. Why DEA's ALJ System is Constitutionally Cracked In Axon v. FTC, the Supreme Court held that constitutional challenges to federal administrative adjudication systems need not wait until after the agency's internal process is complete. The ruling opened the door for early judicial review - precisely to prevent agencies like the DEA from causing irreparable harm to regulated parties before a federal court can weigh in. Justice Gorsuch put it plainly: 'A proceeding that has already happened cannot be undone.' But that is exactly what happened to MMJ BioPharma Cultivation. Despite spending seven years pursuing a legally sound registration to grow marijuana for FDA-sanctioned clinical trials, MMJ was denied the chance to be heard. Judge Mulrooney ruled - without trial - that the case could be decided on the papers, ignoring contested facts, ignoring ex parte communications concerns, and ignoring the constitutional structure of justice itself. Jarkesy and the Death Knell for DEA's Shadow Court The Supreme Court's decision in Jarkesy v. SEC went even further. The Court ruled that administrative adjudications violate the Constitution on multiple fronts: The DEA's administrative system which allowed Judge Mulrooney to operate unchecked, issue rulings without testimony, and sabotage a life sciences company without judicial oversight - now sits squarely in the crosshairs of both Axon and Jarkesy. MMJ BioPharma Cultivation: The Victim of an Unconstitutional Machine MMJ BioPharma Cultivation is not a fringe operation. It is the only DEA applicant actively pursuing pharmaceutical-grade cannabinoid therapies under FDA Investigational New Drug (IND) protocols, including a manufactured softgel formulation for Huntington's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis. Despite this, Judge Mulrooney's June 2025 ruling canceled a long-scheduled hearing without any opportunity for MMJ to introduce its DEA-compliant facility documentation, binding supply agreements, or evidence of DEA ex parte interference. Even worse, the company was never formally noticed of the pretrial decision - a basic requirement of any fair proceeding. Instead of adjudicating facts, Mulrooney rubber-stamped DEA's bureaucratic inertia. What's Next? The Courts Must Clean Up the DEA's Mess The Supreme Court has been crystal clear: agencies like the DEA do not have unreviewable authority over people's rights, livelihoods, or innovations. Congress did not create 'mini-courts' within executive agencies to bypass the Constitution. Judge Mulrooney's decision may have handed MMJ a defeat inside the DEA's walls, but in doing so, he may have handed MMJ a powerful victory in federal court. The record of constitutional violations is now preserved - the 'Axon Side-Step' is primed - and the very administrative law judge system the DEA clings to may not survive scrutiny. If MMJ's case advances to the D.C. Circuit or even the Supreme Court, it may well be the case that dismantles the DEA's internal adjudication regime once and for all. In the end, the question is no longer whether MMJ BioPharma has been mistreated. The question is whether the DEA's system can survive the Constitution. MMJ is represented by attorney Megan Sheehan. CONTACT: Madison Hisey [email protected] 203-231-8583 SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings press release

New York Post

2 hours ago

• New York Post

SCOTUS' trans ruling: Letters to the Editor — June 23, 2025

The Issue: The Supreme Court upholding Tennessee's ban on gender transition surgery for minors. On the day of the Supreme Court's decision upholding the Tennessee ban on transitions for minors, the mainstream media (especially PBS) was quick to cry out what a 'setback' this ruling was for 'trans' rights ('Trans sense,' June 19). The agonies brought on by impulsive decisions made by addled youngsters were not discussed. Advertisement This ruling is a victory, not a 'setback,' for biological common sense. Twenty seven states now have similar bans as Tennessee. One might ask why the remaining 23 states are so far behind the curve toward sanity? Anthony Parks Advertisement Garden City The only disappointing thing about the SCOTUS gender decision is that it wasn't unanimous. It means that six Justices have common sense, and three don't. Nevertheless, a generation of young boys and girls have been saved from the 'gender-affirming' cultists. By the way, when did the far left change its mind on childhood genital mutilation? It seems like only yesterday the left was firmly against the practice for young girls in certain African countries. Advertisement Dennis Rhodes Naples, Fla. Since minors are considered to be too young to vote or serve in the military, then they are also too young to make these kinds of life-changing decisions. By the time they become adults, they may have changed their minds about all of these choices. Advertisement Ray Starman Albany Thanks to the Supreme Court for ruling against this idiotic ideology of 'gender affirmation.' It reaffirms what scripture tells us: Namely that the creator made two sexes, male and female, and no one should desecrate this. Frank Brady Yonkers The high court ruling to allow banning transgender care for minors is simply common sense. Sometimes kids go through phases. And life-changing decisions for minors could lead to regret and emotional and psychological struggles in later years. Advertisement My only hope is that other states will join the ban. Kids just need to be kids. They should not be allowed to make adult decisions. The legal age to drink is 21. The age to vote is 18 and to drive is 16. Waiting until the age of 18 for trans treatment is not asking too much. In fact, it's smart. Joann Lee Frank Clearwater, Fla. Advertisement The Issue: City Hall's plan to spend $929.1 million to house the homeless and migrants in hotels. Mayor Adams needs to go ('A Fetid $1B Hotel Deal,' Editorial, June 20). He cannot justify spending nearly $1 billion for this cause. How many of the 86,000 who need housing are actually homeless citizens, the ones he should have been taking care of from Day 1? That money could have been divided for other vital services that need to be addressed, such as cleaner streets, an overhaul of the Administration for Children's Services, more cops — because we really don't need more commuters to be stabbed during a Grand Central morning rush hour — or a number of other issues needing urgent attention and upgrades. Advertisement Susan Cienfuegos New Rochelle I really think that New York taxpayers and citizens have had enough of Eric Adams' nonsense. Along with the corruption allegations, he has continued to destroy New Yorkers' quality of life. Now he's planning to spend nearly $1 billion in taxpayer money on shelters for immigrants and homeless. Advertisement When is this gonna stop? Enough already, Adams. Gene O'Brien Whitestone Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@ Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.

Hamilton Spectator

3 hours ago

• Hamilton Spectator

What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Who are James Obergefell and Rick Hodges? Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. What were the legal arguments? The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. How did the country react to the decision? Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018 . She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .