What did Charlie Kirk say about Obergefell v. Hodges and in what contexts did he use that phrase?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Charlie Kirk publicly attacked the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, calling the ruling a “national takeover of our laws” and framing it as the opening salvo in a broader cultural campaign rather than a settled legal question [1]. He used that language in opinion pieces and conservative-organized events and media, and his rhetoric prompted public backlash and a later clarifying statement, with critics and allied conservative writers treating Obergefell as emblematic of deeper cultural and legal grievances [1] [2] [3].
1. What Kirk actually said: the quoted phrase and nearby claims
Publicly attributed remarks state that Kirk called Obergefell “a national takeover of our laws,” a phrase embedded in his broader critique that conservatives had mistakenly believed same-sex marriage would be the end of the issue and that, in his words, “they are not happy just having marriage” and instead “want to corrupt your children” [1]. In a 2021 op‑ed titled “Sexual Anarchy,” Kirk went further, asserting categorical statements about gender and transgenderism — saying “there are only two genders” and that gender fluidity “are lies that hurt people and abuse kids” — placing his Obergefell criticism within a wider attack on LGBTQ rights and transgender identities [1].
2. Contexts where he deployed the phrase: publications, events, and media appearances
Kirk used the Obergefell characterization in both written and spoken platforms tied to conservative media and organizations: the specific line appears in reporting tied to his written op‑ed for The American Mind and was echoed in speeches and Turning Point USA events aimed at young conservatives [1]. He also faced social media backlash after related remarks at TPUSA events, and subsequently published an expanded statement on the Claremont Institute website to reiterate and expand his remarks, showing a pattern of saying provocative things in activist and media settings and then responding to criticism in conservative intellectual fora [1].
3. How allies and critics picked up the line
Conservative outlets and commentators have used Obergefell as a shorthand for grievances about judicial authority and cultural change; writers sympathetic to Kirk’s perspective argued that the decision overrode religion and state constitutions, urging it be “reevaluated” or reversed — a view presented in commentary in outlets such as The Federalist and opinion pages that echo Kirk’s framing [3] [4]. Conversely, mainstream coverage and LGBTQ outlets treat such rhetoric as part of sustained attacks on marriage equality and trans rights; reporting on Kirk’s rhetoric often situates it within a broader pattern of anti‑LGBTQ activism rather than as isolated legal critique [1] [5].
4. The political aim and implicit agenda behind the wording
Kirk’s framing of Obergefell as a “national takeover” fits a larger conservative narrative that views certain Supreme Court decisions as illegitimate impositions on local law and religious liberty, and it functions rhetorically to mobilize constituency outrage and cultural defense — a strategy visible in both his op‑eds and in speeches intended to galvanize Turning Point USA’s audience [1] [6]. That same rhetorical posture aligns with other conservative calls for re‑litigation or legislative rollback of Obergefell’s effects documented in op‑eds and state‑level activism [3].
5. Pushback, clarification, and the limits of available reporting
Reporting shows Kirk elicited significant backlash for his language and later issued an expanded statement on a conservative think‑tank site, but the available sources do not quote that later statement in full nor comprehensively catalog every instance he repeated the phrase [1]. Media analyses and think‑tank commentary reflect both amplification and contestation of his line: some conservative writers amplify the idea that Obergefell should be rethought, while civil‑rights advocates and mainstream outlets treat Kirk’s claims as part of a broader campaign against LGBTQ equality [3] [6].