Supreme Court Keeps Same-Sex Marriage Precedent Intact Amid Controversy

Washington, D.C. — The Supreme Court on Monday chose not to overturn its landmark decision recognizing same-sex marriage, rejecting an appeal that caused concern among LGBTQ advocates about the court’s conservative direction.

The court denied an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who faced substantial damages for refusing to issue marriage licenses after the Obergefell v. Hodges decision allowed same-sex couples to marry. Davis’s appeal received significant attention due to the court’s conservative majority and the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Without providing an explanation for its decision, the Supreme Court’s rejection of the appeal eased fears that it might reconsider the Obergefell ruling. Since the court’s composition has shifted significantly since 2015, when Obergefell was decided, concerns among LGBTQ advocates have intensified.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the Obergefell decision, retired in 2018. His replacement, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, along with the later appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett following Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, has altered the court’s landscape. Three justices who were in dissent in Obergefell are currently serving, which has left advocates wary.

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family,” Kennedy wrote in his opinion. The ruling was celebrated by many, including nearly 600,000 same-sex couples who have since married, as noted by the Williams Institute.

However, Davis, who cited her religious beliefs as a reason for withholding marriage licenses, was ordered to pay $360,000 after losing a lawsuit brought by several couples. She also spent time in jail for violating a court order.

Despite much of the attention focused on Davis wanting to overturn Obergefell, her case was primarily about technical legal questions related to her liability for damages. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against her, stating that her First Amendment rights did not protect her from legal consequences.

Previously, some conservative justices indicated a reluctance to revisit Obergefell, with Barrett noting the significant reliance interests tied to same-sex marriage. Alito acknowledged that it is a precedent that deserves respect under the doctrine of stare decisis.

While Monday’s decision does not set a formal precedent, it indicates the court’s current stance on same-sex marriage. Should another case challenging Obergefell arise, it will be reviewed independently.