The Supreme Court wrapped up its term last week, and true to form, the right-wing majority went out of its way to prove that they think their job is to give Donald Trump and Christian nationalists as much power as possible. That the Courts radical decisions coincided with the tenth anniversary of the Obergefell ruling, which legalized marriage equality, should give one pause as to where the future of marriage may be headed.In perhaps the most shocking ruling, the six conservative justices did away with the national injunctions prohibiting Trump from ignoring birthright citizenship. The fact that birthright citizenship is as solid a constitutional construct as can be imagined it has more than 100 years of rulings to support it didnt figure into the justices reasoning. They looked at a technical issue, which is whether district courts can make a decision that applies nationwide, and decided the courts cannot. Related The Skrmetti ruling proved once & for all the Supreme Court believes ideology comes before the law The majority on the Supreme Court are just Project 2025 enablers in black robes. Birthright citizenship is such a basic issue that the ruling blessed Trumps lawlessness. If Trump decided that slavery wasnt, in fact, illegal, courts couldnt issue a nationwide injunction saying otherwise. Instead, cases would have to wend their way through the system before they would end up at the Supreme Court. The conservatives also may be hinting that theyre okay with doing away with birthright citizenship, which would be an extreme act. Dive deeper every day Join our newsletter for thought-provoking commentary that goes beyond the surface of LGBTQ+ issues Subscribe to our Newsletter today What makes the ruling all the more reprehensible is that when Joe Biden was president, he was subjected to multiple nationwide injunctions from Trump-appointed judges. The Supreme Court didnt have any issue with those injunctions. It was only when Trump resumed office that the justices suddenly found the problem to be a burden.In another ruling, the majority decided that parents can pull their children from school rather than let them learn that LGBTQ+ people exist by reading some sweet storybooks. The storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.This is just the most recent example of the right-wing justices favoring the rights of religious conservatives above anyone elses. The fact that Alito wrote the decision is not surprising. The decision is laced with thinly disguised homophobia. Alito frets about young impressionable children, as if they might be recruited to be LGBTQ+. He talks about people who are apparently transgender, dismissing their reality. He shudders at the idea that the books present same-sex weddings as cause for celebration.As a reminder, Alito has made it abundantly clear that he would like nothing more than to overturn Obergefell. Justice Clarence Thomas would like to as well. Theres a lot of anxiety about the stability of marriage equality. Jim Obergefell, whose effort to have his marriage recognized after his husband John Arthur died from ALS led to the case and ruling, has said the Supreme Court could very well overturn marriage equality.For many experts, that seems unlikely. GLAD Laws Mary Bonauto, who represented Obergefell before the Supreme Court, says the Court doesnt have the appetite for such a drastic move.The Court understands this issue is about the foundational importance of family, she told The New York Times. Thats why it has described marriage as the most important relation in life, a basic liberty, essential to the pursuit of happiness. A lot of others agree. However, these are not normal times. And this is definitely not a normal Court. It has already demonstrated its disdain for precedent and public opinion in overturning a womans right to choose to have an abortion. Moreover, this term, the conservative majority has gone out of its way to pave the way for the kind of changes that Project 2025 has put in writing. That includes enshrining marriage as only being between a man and a woman the very thing that the majority in last weeks ruling was letting parents ensure their children would experience.Perhaps overturning Obergefell outright would be too much (although thats a gamble). But the justices could erode it. They could let the Kim Davises of the country opt out of providing marriage licenses on religious freedom grounds, thus creating marriage deserts. Davis is appealing her case up to the Supreme Court, and her attorney, Mat Staver of the anti-LGBTQ+ legal group Liberty Counsel, would like nothing more than to land a blow against marriage equality.The current majority on the Court has made it clear that its folly to try to argue with them about accepted legal precepts. They pretty much figure out what their ideological interests are and then justify them with legal word salad. Logically, there is no reason for the Court to revisit Obergefell. But in the Trump era, logic is in short supply, while raw power is all the rage.Subscribe to theLGBTQ Nation newsletterand be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.