LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – Michigan Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel, who is a lesbian, is warning that same-sex marriage could be on shaky ground in Michigan. She points to the state’s old 2004 constitutional ban – still technically on the books – and the possibility that a future U.S. Supreme Court could overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court decision that made same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.
Just like using abortion as a driving issue in the 2022 midterm elections that helped Democrats secure key statewide victories, it appears they may now be looking to same-sex marriage as their next rallying point to energize their base heading into 2026. The November 2026 elections will decide the state’s next governor, a new U.S. senator, and control of the Michigan Legislature – outcomes that will shape the direction of the state for years to come.
Nessel warns Michigan must act.
MORE NEWS: Michigan Lawmakers Want Abortion Reporting Back
Nessel made the accusation of same-sex marriages in Michigan being in jeopardy after the Supreme Court recently denied hearing a challenge to Obergefell. She said, “I am relieved for today’s decision reaffirming same-sex couples’ continued right to dignity and protection under the law, but we cannot take those protections for granted. Members of this Supreme Court have already told us they are willing to overturn Obergefell. It’s only a matter of time before they do. Today’s victory allows us a reprieve, an opportunity to bring our state Constitution into alignment with the protections our residents are entitled to and have enjoyed for more than a decade. Now is the time to act.”
Misreading the court.
Many reports have claimed the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision not to hear the case is a sweeping affirmation of same-sex marriage rights, but that interpretation misses the point. Other outlets, including in the Federalist, a conservative online news and opinion magazine, say that the case actually revolved around state-law tort liability and first-amendment questions – not the broader question of overturning Obergefell v. Hodges.
Treating the court’s refusal to grant review as a medal for “marriage equality” conflates what the litigation was about. And treating it as a siren for concern by Nessel appears both political and disingenuous. Fear mongering the Democratic base and suggesting couples should brace for imminent upheaval leans more toward political theatrics than measured legal assessment by Nessel.
Old ban still on the books but federal law and the Supreme Court keeps same-sex marriage protected.
Same-sex marriage has been fully legal in Michigan for a decade, and that remains true today. The old state ban, known as the Michigan Marriage Amendment, is unenforceable under current Supreme Court precedent under Obergefell v. Hodges which held that state-level bans on same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
On top of that, the federal Respect for Marriage Act that was passed by Congress in 2022 requires interstate recognition of out-of-state marriages, even if the U.S. Supreme Court were ever to overturn Obergefell.
AG Democratic rhetoric.
Echoing Nessel’s warnings about same-sex marriages potentially being threatened in Michigan is Senator Jeremy Moss (D–Bloomfield Township), who is gay, and recently introduced Joint Resolution F of 2025. The proposal mirrors a House measure introduced in March and would update Michigan’s constitutional language, which currently defines marriage as between “one man and one woman.” Moss’s resolution replaces that phrase with gender-neutral wording and calls for a statewide vote at the next general election to make the change permanent. To make it onto the ballot, the resolution must first pass both chambers with a two-thirds majority vote.
But more than any imminent threat from the Supreme Court, this push coming from the Democrats looks more like political strategy. It keeps Democrats on offense heading into 2026 – rallying voters, reframing the narrative, and waving the banner of “protecting rights” that are, in truth, already secured under both federal law and existing Supreme Court precedent. Whether the resolution advances or not, the timing and tone in describing the issue appears more about election momentum instead of legal necessity.
