WorldNetDaily spent a good part of 2025 rooting for the end of same-sex marriage as a legal right. Bob Unruh declared in a Jan. 7 article:
The infamous, and faulty, Roe v. Wade decision that created out of essentially nothing a federal “right” to an abortion remained the controlling standard in America for nearly five decades before it was banished to the ashcan of corrupted legal ideologies.
Campaigners are hoping that it doesn’t take that long to get rid of Obergefell, the ruling from just a few years back that even Supreme Court justices admitted was unrelated to anything in the Constitution in its political campaign to promote the LGBT lifestyle choices by legitimizing same-sex “marriage.”
There’s already a legal case that the constitutional experts at Liberty Counsel are suggesting could be the basis for a reversal.
Unruh followed up in a March 7 article:
The court fight that could end up being the vehicle through which the egregious Obergefell ruling from the Supreme Court, which fabricated the “right” to same-sex marriage like Roe fabricated a federal “right” to abortion, is one step closer to the Supreme Court.
That’s after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unleashed a ruling in Kim Davis’ appeal.
The former Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk withheld marriage licenses from everyone for a short time after the Obergefell opinion, which Supreme Court justices themselves admitted was unrelated to the U.S. Constitution, fabricated same-sex “marriage” all across America.
That ruling infringed on her religious beliefs and a biased federal judge, while Davis was working to obtain recognition of a religious exemption to the processing of those licenses, put her in jail.
She later was sued by two same-sex duos for “damages” when she didn’t immediately grant them licenses.
Unruh offered no evidence that the judge who jailed Davis was “biased.” He harraumphed in a June 11 article:
A resolution has been adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant group in America, that seeks the reversal of the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in which a single-vote majority created without a link to the U.S. Constitution the “right” to same-sex marriage across the nation.
A resolution, “On Restoring Moral Clarity through God’s Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family,” calls for the overturning of “laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God’s design for marriage and family.”
Unruh returned to cheer in an article the next day:
Just a day after America’s largest Protestant group, the Southern Baptists, called for the Supreme Court to overturn the same-sex marriage “right”-creating Obergefell decision, the legal team already working on that project issued a statement that the ruling, biased because at the time two justices had publicly advocated for the creation, is “vulnerable.”
The decision, unleashed on Americans in 2015, had no connection to, or foundation in, the U.S. Constitution, the dissent from the bare 5-4 majority said. In fact, although it cites the 14th Amendment, that doesn’t mention marriage. The Constitution doesn’t mention marriage, meaning that the issue legally needs to be left to the states, under the 10th Amendment.
It is lawyers with Liberty Counsel who have fought for years already against the imposition of the leftist, radical, and anti-Christian ideology.
Unruh added his usual tirade against his home state of Colorado:
The dissent to Obergefell had warned it would be used to attack the religious rights of Americans, and it has.
For example, officials in just one state, Colorado, have gone to the Supreme Court twice already trying to impose a state-adopted religious belief, which is anti-Christian, on its residents.
Officials there, led by homosexual Gov. Jared Polis, first tried to punish a Christian baker for declining to promote anti-Christian beliefs with his work. The state lost at the Supreme Court, and got scolded for its “hostility” to Christianity. The same thing happened when Colorado officials tried to force a Christian web designer to promote anti-Christian religious beliefs with her work.
Incredibly, officials in that state, after costing taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees for their ideological warfare, have gone to the Supreme Court yet a third time, this time trying to impose their religious beliefs on every counselor in the state.
Unruh used a July 24 article to gush that the Supreme Court was being given an opportunity to reverse its alleged error:
A legal fight in Kentucky that erupted when same-sex marriage activists demanded a Christian clerk violate state law and grant them a “marriage” license just hours after the Supreme Court created that status in America, now has returned to the Supreme Court.
The case is asking the justices to reverse their decision from 10 years ago, and it uses the same arguments used several years back to successfully overturn Roe v. Wade, that longstanding, and error-loaded, ruling from 1973 that created an abortion right.
The Syracuse Law Review has explained that the arguments used to overturn Roe also could be used against “same-sex marriage.” Neither abortion nor marriage actually is in the U.S. Constitution, so justices over the years have manufactured reasons to support both “rights.”
Unruh went on to huff in an Aug. 26 article:
When the U.S. Supreme Court, with the extremist liberal votes of several justices no longer there, fabricated “same-sex marriage” for all of American in 2015, there were warnings about how the ruling would be used against people of faith, those the values of family that have endured for millennia, and more.
All of those warnings were rejected by progressives and other leftists as likely not to exist, or be extremely rare.
Now that those observations have been proven wrong, there is a new movement, a new sentiment, that the precedent fabricated in Obergefell, a precedent that even dissenters on the Supreme Court warned was unrelated to the Constitution, should be overturned.
It’s in a report in the Federalist that experts now confirm, “We can either recognize gay marriage or recognize children’s right to their mother or father. We can’t have both.”
That’s according to Katy Faust, of Them Before Us, an organization that advocates for the right of children to their biological parents.
[…]Faust is going to be part of a panel explicitly calling for the overturn of Obergefell at National Conservatism’s fifth annual conference in September, the report said.
She will be joined by Claremont Institute senior fellow and constitutional lawyer Dr. John Eastman and Hale Institute Director Jeffrey Shafer.
The fight already has been pending at the Supreme Court, where several justices have pointedly noted the precedent should be reviewed.
So Faust is an activist, not a mere opinion-pusher.
Well, the rehearing didn’t go WND’s way — but it failed to report on that part, nor on the hearing itself that brought about the upholding of Obergefell. Weird that WND would ignore that part.