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 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.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
3 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Bloomberg Law: A Winning SCOTUS Term for Trump
Constitutional law expert Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law School, discusses the Supreme Court term which included a number of victories for President Donald Trump and losses for LGBTQ rights. Former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter & English, discusses the jury in the Sean "Diddy" Combs trial saying they are deadlocked on the top charge. June Grasso hosts.


New York Post
4 hours ago
- New York Post
Why Mamdani's rent freeze means disaster for NYC tenants
New York City's rental housing market is teetering on the edge of disaster — with a Mamdani mayoralty poised to push it off the cliff. His success running as a 'freeze the rent' candidate has already moved the Rent Guidelines Board to OK dangerously low hikes for rent-stabilized units: 3% for one-year lease renewals, 4.5% for two-year ones — far less than what RGB staff report those landlords' costs are rising at. Zero and near-zero rent hikes in the de Blasio years — RGB rents are up just 20% these last 12 years, vs. overall inflation of 36% — followed by widespread rent nonpayment during COVID (plus state 'reforms' that make it unaffordable to renovate units vacated by longtime tenants), already has many rent-stabilized landlords, especially smaller ones, on the brink of having to abandon their buildings altogether. Others have no choice but to stint on maintenance, letting buildings and units deteriorate; everyone loses as these apartments grow shabbier and more scarce. If Mamdani wins and sticks to his vow to appoint RGB members who'll freeze rents, the bottom is all too likely to fall out. And the new mayor's fans will have a far tougher time finding a decent apartment in New York. By the way, how many Zohran supporters realize that he can't freeze most rents? The rent-stabilized units that the RGB governs are less than half the city's formal rental market, and at most a third of the full city housing supply, once you count coops and condos (even if sublet) and actual houses. And a shrinking of the rent-controlled market is sure to push up prices of market-rate units, big time, because even more people will be chasing a smaller total supply. Incidentally, this effect explains the 'record landlord profits' that Mamdani ally Brad Lander has been thundering about: It's landlord income from rents the city doesn't control. Small, mom-and-pop landlords, who own about two-thirds of city's rent-stabilized units, are the ones who'll get reamed by the freeze (even though they're the little people that lefties claim to care about). Tens of thousands of units are in dire shape in The Bronx alone. Economists almost universally acknowledge that rent control is ruinous to housing markets; ones on the left mostly just don't talk about it, lest it make it harder for 'their side' to win elections. The rent-freeze advocates have no idea how they're destroying New York's housing market — for the very people most desperate for apartments. They're also likely ignorant about who benefits from below-market rents — i.e., folks who, like Mamdani, scored a rent-stabilized apartment, which is actually easier if you're wealthy (as he is). One more irony here: The Supreme Court last year nixed New York landlords' claim that the rent laws violate the Constitution's 'takings' clause. Thing is, that ruling relied on the assumption that the RGB has real independence — a fiction that will collapse if Mamdani wins on promises platform of 0% hikes and then delivers.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Polish supreme court ratifies nationalist's presidential vote win
Poland's Supreme Court on Tuesday said it had validated the result of last month's presidential election won by the nationalist opposition candidate, despite numerous appeals over the conduct of the vote. In the country's highly polarised political landscape, concerns had also been voiced over the legitimacy of the court chamber which will issue the verdict. Karol Nawrocki, backed by the Law and Justice (PiS) party, scored 51 percent of votes to win the June 1 runoff election, according to official results -- a major blow for the pro-EU government of Prime Minister Donald Tusk and LGBTQ rights campaigners. Warsaw mayor Rafal Trzaskowski, the candidate put forward by the government, lost out by 369,000 votes in the country of 38 million people. "All of the circumstances clearly demonstrate that Karol Tadeusz Nawrocki garnered more votes than Rafał Kazimierz Trzaskowski during the second round of the vote," judge Krzysztof Wiak announced after a hearing, also confirming the election result. Prosecutors had alleged that the vote count was falsified in Nawrocki's favour at some polling stations, fuelling calls for a national recount. PiS dismissed doubts about the vote as an attempt to "steal the election". According to the Polish constitution, the Supreme Court had to validate the ballot before the winner could be sworn in at a joint session of parliament -- a ceremony planned for August 6. However, European courts and legal experts have questioned the legitimacy of the Exceptional Supervision and Public Matters Chamber, the Supreme Court body that issued the ruling on Tuesday. The European Court of Human Rights said in 2023 that the Chamber does not fulfil the definition of "an independent and impartial tribunal established by law". Justice Minister Adam Bodnar, who is also the prosecutor general, had asked in vain for all of the chamber's judges to be excluded. Tusk has criticised the chamber, but recognised on Monday that "it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to rule whether an election is valid or not". "It is not possible... for the Supreme Court to be replaced in this matter... by the prosecutor general or the government," the prime minister said. - 'Paralyse the Supreme Court' - The Supreme Court had received around 56,000 election protests since the second round of voting. Judges have already dismissed, without taking further action, more than 50,000 complaints, many of which were based on protest templates shared on social media. Supreme Court chief justice Malgorzata Manowska criticised the sending of template-based protests as an "operation meant to... paralyse the Supreme Court". Bodnar complained that prosecutors were not given access to all of the 56,000 protests and suggested that the chamber's examination of those could be nothing more than a "facade". Still, the court ordered the results from 13 polling stations to be recounted earlier this month. National prosecutors later said that in some of those polling stations votes were transferred from one candidate to another, mainly in Nawrocki's favour. Government coalition lawmaker Roman Giertych authored one of the protest templates, claiming that votes had been reassigned to Nawrocki and alleging ballot rigging. Giertych and several experts have demanded a national recount and called for the presidential inauguration to be postponed in order to clarify the alleged irregularities. These experts assert that the previous nationalist government and outgoing president Andrzej Duda introduced reforms which have undermined the rule of law in Poland. The reforms have long put Poland at odds with the European Commission, but the victory of a pro-EU coalition in October 2023 parliamentary elections mitigated the conflict. Parliament speaker Szymon Holownia, like other members of the ruling coalition, has so far firmly rejected the idea of postponing the presidential oath ceremony. Independently, Bodnar has ordered a group of prosecutors to examine "irregularities" in the vote counting. "It is the prosecution's role... to inquire everywhere, where there is a suspicion of crime," Tusk said. sw/dt/jhb/bc/giv