US Supreme Court rejects challenge to same-sex marriage

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a lawsuit filed by a former Kentucky official seeking to overturn the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage, which was passed in 2015 following a landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. The high court, which has a 6-3 conservative supermajority, dismissed the appeal of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who was sued by a gay couple after refusing to officiate their marriage. “The request for review [of the case] is denied,” the Supreme Court stated. While it did not elaborate on its decision, at least four of the justices dissented from hearing Davis’s case.

For Jim Obergefell, whose lawsuit led to the nationwide approval of same-sex marriage in the United States, Davis’s case is personal. In an interview with The Advocate, he stated that he was “disgusted” that there were fellow citizens who would work against the well-being and happiness of others, using religious freedom as an excuse. “This modern version of religious freedom — this belief that one’s personal religion trumps everything else — is a twisting and perverting of what our founders intended,” he said. Furthermore, Obergefell pointed out that Davis’s refusal to comply with the law was symptomatic of a broader problem: public officials who put their private faith before civic duty. “[Davis] swore an oath to serve all people. And yet she used her government position to persecute others.”

Three years ago, a federal judge, David Bunning, rejected Davis’s arguments, as Reuters recalls: “She cannot use her own constitutional rights as a shield to violate the constitutional rights of others while performing her duties as an elected official.”

Despite the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in all U.S. states, Davis argued that the law conflicted with her religious beliefs. The former official had already litigated in lower courts, which not only rejected her claims but also convicted her of violating fundamental rights (she spent five days in jail and was fined over €300,000). Furthermore, five years ago, the Supreme Court rejected another of Davis’s appeals.

The former official, who worked at the Kentucky Registrar’s Office, was seeking to appeal her convictions before the Supreme Court, as well as to overturn the ruling in the Obergefell case. Josh Rovenger, legal counsel for GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), said these intentions had little chance of success: “It would be truly anomalous for the Supreme Court, with such limited facts, to re-examine Obergefell,” he noted in The Advocate last week.

In 2022, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, which includes three justices appointed by Trump, overturned national protections for abortion, leaving legislation on the matter to individual states. The Supreme Court thus nullified the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion across the United States. Following that ruling, numerous states with conservative governors passed legislation that restricted women’s right to abortion. Now, there were fears that the same thing would happen again.

After the annulment of the protection of the right to abortion, consolidated more than half a century ago, the ultraconservative factions in the United States hoped that the Supreme Court would not only consider the Davis case, but would end up overturning the national protection of same-sex marriage, opening the door to state vetoes.

This year, 616 anti-LGBTQ+ state bills have been introduced (from Idaho to Montana, including Arkansas, Texas, and Iowa), according to the American Civil Rights Union (ACLU). Of these, 71 have become law, while 248 have been rejected and 285 remain in legislative process. Even if many are rejected, the mere proposals fuel LGBTQ+phobia, according to advocacy organizations.

For his part, Davis’s lawyer, Mathew Staver, has stated that Liberty Counsel, the organization to which Davis belongs and which promotes “evangelical Christian values,” will continue working to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, a ruling he describes as “flawed from the start.” “It’s not a question of if, but when the Supreme Court will overturn Obergefell,” he said in a statement.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition