When Love and Justice Meet: The Legacy of Obergefell

Source: Republican Watch

The fight for marriage equality goes back decades, well before Kim Davis was unlawfully denying marriage licenses to same sex couples in 2015, after the Supreme Court made same-sex marriage a federally recognized right. In 1971, the Supreme Court dismissed Baker v. Nelson, a case brought by a male-male couple seeking the right to marry, stating it lacked a “substantial federal question.”

In the 1990s, Hawaii’s courts briefly allowed same-sex marriage, however, this prompted Congress to pass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage federally as a union between one man and one woman. DOMA denied same-sex couples access to over a thousand federal benefits.

The legal tide began to shift in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated sodomy and, essentially, stated consenting adults are free to engage in intimate, sexual activities of their choosing in the privacy of their own homes without government interference.

In 2004, Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage and other states began to follow suit, though not without considerable setbacks. California’s Proposition 8 banned same-sex marriage in 2008 until it was then overturned in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which held that only permitting opposite sex couples to marry violated the California Constitution. The same year, the Supreme Court struck down critical parts of DOMA in United States v. Windsor, recognizing the legitimacy of same-sex marriages under federal law.

Obergefell v. Hodges: A Constitutional Landmark

The Supreme Court, in June 2015,  issued its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, stating that excluding same-sex marriage as a federally protected right violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In a 5–4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court affirmed that same-sex couples have the same constitutional right to marry as opposite-sex couples. The ruling required all states to license and recognize same-sex marriages, reshaping the legal landscape for LGBTQ+ Americans.

While the decision was celebrated by many, dissenting Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito expressed concern about judicial overreach. Justice Thomas also made statements about needing to “revisit” such decisions after the Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

Kim Davis and the Legal Fallout

Shortly after the Obergefell decision, Kim Davis simply refused to issue any marriage licenses to gay couples in Rowan County, Kentucky, citing that doing so would go against her religious beliefs. This prompted couples whom she had denied, including David Ermold and David Moore, to file suit against her.  Additionally, as a result of her illegal refusal, she was jailed for contempt of court.

According to USA Today, in 2023, a jury awarded David E. and David M. $100,000 in damages, and Davis was ordered to pay over $260,000 in attorneys’ fees. Her legal team, backed by the conservative Liberty Counsel, appealed the decision, arguing Davis’s First Amendment rights should shield her from any liability. They went even further and asked the Supreme Court to reconsider Obergefell.

Supreme Court Declines Case

On November 10, 2025, the Supreme Court denied Davis’s petition and made no further statements on the matter, which is typically standard practice when declining to hear a case. The decision leaves Obergefell firmly intact and reaffirms its constitutional protections.

As USA Today reported, for LGBTQIA+ advocates, the ruling was a sigh of relief. “The Supreme Court made clear today that refusing to respect the constitutional rights of others does not come without consequences,” said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign. Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff of the 2015 case, explained, “The Court did the right thing in denying cert, and people across our nation can breathe a little easier today.”

Legal Protections Still Under Scrutiny

Significant concerns remain despite the Court’s refusal to reconsider the Obergefell decision. According to The New York Times, the conservative majority of the Court raises considerable doubts about the long-term stability of marriage equality.

It’s also worth noting that 35 states have constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, which could be enforced should Obergefell ever be overturned. The Respect for Marriage Act, which was passed in 2022, made it a requirement for states to recognize out-of-state marriages, but doesn’t guarantee the right to marry in every state.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear Davis’s appeal reinforces the legal standing of marriage equality in the U.S. But as Jim Obergefell noted, “We must not assume marriage, or any rights enjoyed by or due to any marginalized community, is safe.” The legal framework supporting LGBTQIA+ rights remains susceptible to changes in judicial philosophy and political climate.

For now, the right to marry will endure… only as long as we continue to defend it.