Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has renewed attention to his opposition to marriage equality through a newly published collection of speeches. In So Ordered, he describes the ruling that established nationwide same-sex marriage rights as “perhaps the decisive point in our nation’s turn against religious liberty.”
The remarks come from a 2018 speech at the Catholic University of America. Their publication in October 2026 brings an older argument back into public debate. Alito portrays the treatment of religious opponents of same-sex marriage as a threat to their participation in public life.
The ruling behind the dispute
In June 2015, the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges by a 5–4 majority. The ruling required states to license marriages between same-sex couples and recognize those lawfully performed elsewhere.
The majority grounded its decision in the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections of liberty and equality. It also acknowledged that religious individuals and organizations could continue advocating their beliefs about marriage.
Alito dissented. He warned that the ruling could stigmatize people who regarded marriage as a union between a man and a woman. His objection therefore concerned both the constitutional basis of the decision and its possible consequences for those who opposed it.
Whose freedom counts?
Alito’s framing places the concerns of religious opponents at the center of the discussion. However, the freedom of same-sex couples deserves the same attention. They also have lives, families, convictions, and an interest in equal treatment.
Civil marriage establishes a legal relationship between people and the state. A religious community’s theological understanding of marriage does not have to match every marriage the government recognizes. That distinction allows different beliefs to coexist within one legal system.
From a secular perspective, recognizing a couple’s marriage should not depend on whether another person’s religion approves. Otherwise, religious objections become a means of limiting the civil rights of people outside that faith.
Belief, speech, and public services
The hardest disputes concern conduct rather than belief alone. Conflicts over wedding services, employment, or participation in public programs can raise questions about religious exercise, expression, and discrimination.
Those disputes require careful attention to the facts. A claim involving compelled artistic expression differs from a general refusal to serve gay customers. Likewise, a religious ceremony differs from a state-issued marriage license.
Nevertheless, disagreement with a religious position does not automatically amount to persecution. Freedom of expression allows believers to criticize same-sex marriage. It also allows others to challenge that criticism and defend the dignity of LGBTQ+ people.
Criticism does not establish an imminent reversal
Alito’s remarks matter because he helps decide constitutional disputes. However, the publication of a speech collection is not a judicial ruling. It does not, by itself, change marriage law.
In 2025, Alito said that although he opposed Obergefell, he was not suggesting that it should be overturned. His continuing criticism should therefore be reported accurately, without presenting the book as an announcement that the Court will abolish marriage equality.
Equality belongs in the definition of freedom
Religious liberty deserves protection, including for unpopular beliefs. Yet a pluralistic society must also protect people whose relationships conflict with those beliefs. Neither concern disappears because the other exists.
The central question is whether religious freedom can coexist with equal civil marriage. A secular democracy should insist that it can. Same-sex couples should not have to surrender their legal equality to reassure others that their faith remains free.
