 in red states across the US have been pushing a slew of anti- measures targeting same-sex marriages with an aim of ultimately securing a  ban on the federally protected right.

The recent wave of Republican-led bills targeting same-sex marriage comes amid a second  presidency in which his administration has taken on more emboldened attacks against LGBTQ+ communities across the country, as seen through a flurry of  he signed, .

Numerous Republican lawmakers across red states have followed suit in both rhetoric and the introduction of bills, sparking concerns across LGBTQ+ and civil rights organizations over their social and political effects.

In Oklahoma in January, a day after Trump’s inauguration, the Republican state senator Dusty Deevers  a series of bills targeting LGBTQ+ rights, among them the Promote Child Thriving act.

The Promote Child Thriving act establishes a $500 tax credit per child for a mother and father filing jointly and is escalated to $1,000 if the child was born after the marriage of the parents.

Describing the bill, Deevers : “There is no greater factor in the wellbeing and future success of a child than whether they grew up in a two-parent household with their mother and father. It’s not even close.”

He added: “I know that not everyone benefits from this act, but everyone should support what is good for kids, and growing up with one’s mother and father is, in the vast majority of cases, the most important factor in a child’s wellbeing.”

In response to Deevers’s bill, the Tulsa-based pastor Randy Lewis of the All Souls Unitarian church  News Channel 8: “I have a non-traditional family – my partner’s kids are not mine, so it would be one of those situations. My kids aren’t biologically my partner’s. We’d be one of those situations  we’re eliminated from the grant process.”

Another Republican  state senator, David Bullard, introduced a similar bill that would offer a $2,000 child tax credit per child only for married couples with biological children from the marriage.

 the bill to Jenna Ellis, a former lawyer for Trump, Bullard  it was introduced to challenge the supreme court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v Hodges that  same-sex marriages as legal across the US.

“Really what we want to do is challenge that concept and see if we can get to Obergefell,” Bullard said. “And I think that’s kind of what we’re pushing at all the way around the board with a bill like this, is to actually go straight at Obergefell and say: ‘No, the constitution protects my right, my freedom of speech, my freedom of expression, my freedom of religion to disagree with same-sex marriage.’”

“The reality is we have to push back on Obergefell,” Bullard added.

In response to the introduction of such bills, Sean Meloy, vice-president of political programs at LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, said: “These attacks on fundamental rights for LGBTQ+ Americans, including marriage equality – which was already decided by the highest court and codified into federal law – are hateful distractions from the core issues that Americans want their government to resolve.”

“Stripping away marriage rights for LGBTQ+ couples will not lower food prices, stop corruption or increase economic opportunities,” Meloy continued.

In Idaho, Republican state lawmakers  a legislative petition last month in which they called on the supreme court to reverse its same-sex marriage ruling. Voting 46-24, the Idaho house passed House Joint Memorial 1,  the supreme court to “restore the natural definition of marriage, a union of one man and one woman”.

During her floor debate, the bill’s sponsor, the Republican representative Heather Scott, said: “I would ask you to substitute any other issue and ask yourself: ‘Do I want the federal government creating rights for us, for Idahoans" adding: “Christians across the nation are being targeted,” the Idaho Capital Sun .



Sign up to Headlines US

Free newsletter

Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning

Enter your email address

Sign up

**Privacy Notice:** Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our . We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google  and  apply.

After newsletter promotion

In response to Scott, the Idaho House minority leader, Ilana Rubel, : “It’s deeply upsetting to some of those folks and it makes them not want to live here … These are good, law-abiding people who are feeling like their legislature doesn’t want them here and doesn’t want them to be able to live the full rights that everybody else can.”

Rebecca De León, the communications director of the American Civil Liberties Union of , said: “Far-right extremists know that Idaho is their playground for stripping away people’s rights because resistance isn’t strong here. Let us be clear: the rights of same-sex couples to marry is settled legal precedent that continues to be affirmed by courts across the country. This unnecessary and bigoted memorial is a glaring example of how the Idaho legislature is set on eroding civil liberties.”

In Michigan, the Republican state lawmaker Josh Schriver prompted widespread backlash when he introduced a  to “condemn” the supreme court’s 2015 landmark decision. The resolution states: “Marriage … has been defined through time by people of varying cultures and faiths as a union between one man and one woman. Obergefell arbitrarily and unjustly rejected this historical definition of marriage.”

“This is a biological necessity to preserve and grow our human race,” Schriver said about the resolution, BridgeMichigan .

In  to Schriver’s resolution, the Michigan attorney general, Dana Nessel, who is the first out LGBTQ+ person elected to state office in Michigan, took to Instagram and wrote: “Come and get it.”

Condemning the resolution as part of a “long line of strategy of certain politicians who would like to erase the existence of LGBTQ+ people”, Jay Kaplan, the LGBTQ+ project attorney of the ACLU of , said: “It is a distraction from their apparent inability to introduce legislation or policies that address real issues that people are facing … I think we need to call it out for the stunt that it is. It’s an empty stunt.”

Kaplan added: “Let’s look at the reality with the marriage equality decision. No church, temple or mosque has to perform any religious marriage ceremony. We have a thing called separation of church and state … They are not obligated to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples if they choose not to do so. So that’s not happening, despite what these politicians might be trying to say.

“But, when you decide that you can open a business and you can keep it open to the public, you have to serve the public, and that’s a choice you make … you have to comply with a lot of things, including civil rights laws,” Kaplan said.
```