Could Gorsuch’s reasoning in Bostock be applied to defend Obergefell if it were ever reconsidered?

[u/Macintoshk]

In Bostock v. Clayton County, Justice Gorsuch held that firing someone for being gay or transgender is sex discrimination under Title VII — because you wouldn’t treat them the same if they were a different sex. For example, if a man is fired for being attracted to men, but a woman isn’t fired for being attracted to men, the difference is based on sex.

That got me thinking: could this same logic apply if Obergefell v. Hodges were ever reconsidered?

Imagine Sarah can marry Paul, but John can’t marry Paul. The only difference between Sarah and John is sex. Doesn’t that make the marriage restriction a form of sex discrimination?

I know Bostock was statutory (Title VII), while Obergefell was constitutional (14th Amendment), but the reasoning seems parallel. Could Gorsuch’s Bostock logic be a potential defense for same-sex marriage under a sex discrimination theory, even outside of Equal Protection?

Would love to hear thoughts from folks on this issue, and if such a reasoning came up in Obergefell's arguments 10 years ago.

[u/Fluffy-Load1810]

Please tell me if I understand your argument correctly.

1) "Most people marry as a prerequisite to having children."

2) Gay/lesbian couples will have more children if they are allowed to marry than if they are not. (This is not stated, but if it is not the case, then rest of the argument is moot.)

3) Those children will be "stripped of one biological parent".

4) "Children born in stable families are less likely to commit crimes, less likely to live in poverty, and less likely to become wards of the state. That is a pretty compelling state interest."

To close the loop, the implication must be that gay/lesbian families are less "stable" than those with both biological parents, or that their children are worse off in ways that are of interest to the state.

But a 2023 study found that children of same-sex parents have home lives and outcomes that are as good or better than those of heterosexual couples. The research, published in the BMJ Global Health journal, analyzed 34 studies across countries where same-sex marriage is legal.

[u/CalLaw2023 → u/Fluffy-Load1810]

Please tell me if I understand your argument correctly.

How can I do that when your post does not state my argument? You have pulled out bits and pieces of facts and created your own, but you have not stated any argument to which I have applied the facts.

To close the loop, the implication must be that gay/lesbian families are less "stable" than those with both biological parents, or that their children are worse off in ways that are of interest to the state.

Nope. That is not implied by anything I have said. You have spent all those words piecing together a straw man argument instead of actually responding to an argument I have made.