Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“The Supreme Court on Monday morning turned down a request from Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky, to reconsider its 2015 decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In a brief, unsigned order, the justices rejected Davis’ petition for review of a ruling by a federal appeals court upholding an award of $100,000 to a gay couple to whom she had refused to issue a marriage license. That petition had also asked the justices to overrule the 2015 decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, arguing that a right to same-sex marriage ‘had no basis in the Constitution.’” SCOTUSblog
Many on both sides are skeptical that the Court will revisit same-sex marriage in the near future:
“[Justices] Thomas and Alito may still be gunning for Obergefell. But the other Republican appointees appear uninterested in killing it. Even Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently noted that the ruling has created ‘very concrete reliance interests’ for same-sex couples that the court would not lightly disturb—contrasting it with Roe v. Wade, whose reliance interests she dismissed as illegitimate…
“If this Supreme Court were considering the issue for the very first time today, it would almost certainly hold that the Constitution does not protect same-sex marriage by a 6–3 vote. But now that Obergefell is entrenched as precedent, and widely supported by Americans, they’ve shown no appetite for spending down their political capital to issue an unpopular ruling that could only hurt the Republican Party.”
Mark Joseph Stern, Slate
“Nearly ever since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in Obergefell, Democrats have used the case to claim that Donald Trump would work to overturn it. Never mind that Trump has never suggested that he viewed same-sex marriage as an issue to oppose; never mind that Trump had served a full term without attempting to disturb the 2015 ruling. Every single election, Democrats trot out the ‘Trump is a danger to same-sex marriage’ argument…
“There is almost no societal pressure to rethink same-sex marriage at this point, which means that challenges to it have all but evaporated. This one case is a relic from the immediate aftermath of Obergefell. There will be few, if any, occasions to revisit that ruling in the future. In other words, this has been a moot topic for three years -- except for Democrat demagogues who keep it alive as a fundraising and organizing message.”
Ed Morrissey, Hot Air
Other opinions below.
“A massive 2024 report from RAND collated [existing] research and tracked marriage’s many positive outcomes, including for children, health, financial well-being and relationship stability. The researchers thoughtfully examined opponents’ theories about whether marriage equality has harmed the institution of marriage, but they found ‘no empirical basis for concerns that allowing same-sex couples to marry has negatively affected different-sex couples and families.’”
Marc Solomon, USA Today
“Here we are, a decade later, and none of the horrors that conservatives had predicted have arrived, like people being forced-gay married, and everybody marrying the dogs and marrying the cats and the sanctity of marriage going to hell. The divorce rate actually went down over the past decade even as the marriage rate stayed about the same… And nearly 70 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage rights.”
Marcie Jones, Wonkette
Some note, “In framing arguments that Obergefell damaged democracy by removing the question of whether to allow marriage equality from the people and their representatives, conservatives are building on the strategy they used to successfully overturn Roe. Like the anti-abortion crusade, the effort to end marriage equality is a long game…
“Legislators in nine states have sponsored laws designed to limit or roll back same-sex couples’ right to marry. Several of the bills explicitly call on the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell. Others seek to carve out a special kind of marriage called ‘covenant marriage,’ which would be restricted to one man and one woman… The right’s campaign to overturn [Obergefell] is not over.”
Austin Sarat, Salon
“[Obergefell] barely even pretended to have anything to do with the text of the Constitution, let alone how that text was understood by the American people when they ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868… [Yet] there are weighty factors making it unlikely that the Court will return to the question…
“While the Court forced the political system to accept same-sex marriage at a time when the public was deeply divided, it has set down political roots as a result of the Court’s action. While a lot of Americans never really bought the case for same-sex marriage, they have accepted it as fact…
“There’s a reason why this case, Davis v. David, did not arise from a state or even a county trying to enact or enforce a law against same-sex marriage… Without a serious political movement, the Court just won’t see the prudence of reconsidering its decision.”
Dan McLaughlin, National Review
Some note, “While it’s true that Davis’ petition to SCOTUS asked the justices to consider whether Obergefell should be overturned, there were many more prominent factors central to her case that made it highly unlikely the court would use it as a vehicle to revisit its ill-fated 2015 decision. The most notable is that Davis’ case primarily dealt with legal questions surrounding the First Amendment and tort liability…
“It’s entirely possible a more direct legal challenge to the Supreme Court’s horrific Obergefell ruling could make its way before the justices in the years to come. But to portray the high court’s rejection of Davis’ case as a massive win for ‘gay marriage’ and ‘LGBT rights,’ as the media have done, is totally dishonest.”
Shawn Fleetwood, The Federalist
