A former Kentucky county clerk, Kim Davis, has requested the Supreme Court to overturn the landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized the right to same-sex marriage. This petition has drawn immediate attention from various media outlets and progressive politicians, stirring concern and reactions, with some describing it as “like a horror movie,” as per a headline from USA TODAY.
However, it’s important to clarify that this petition does not guarantee a formal hearing. Every year, the Supreme Court receives over 7,000 such requests, but only about 1% actually go to review. It requires four justices to agree to hear a case for it to make the docket. Last year, only 59 cases were fully reviewed.
There are many petitions that go nowhere, including one from MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell concerning election fraud, which the Supreme Court merely “considers” without implying any serious traction. In Davis’s case, the underlying issue isn’t directly about same-sex marriage; rather, it’s about her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples post-Obergefell, citing her religious beliefs. After facing legal consequences, she was held liable and required to pay damages to several couples.
Now, what Davis is asking the court to examine is whether the First Amendment can shield her from that liability, with her lawyer suggesting Obergefell should be overturned. As noted in Newsweek, the key question revolves around whether Davis can use religious freedom as a defense against accusations of discrimination. The conservative block of justices—two appointed by Trump—has already indicated hesitations regarding this path.
Additionally, the Respect for Marriage Act, passed in 2022 with bipartisan support, affirms federal recognition of same-sex marriages, maintaining strong public backing for marriage equality. There’s little likelihood that Congress will revoke this law.
The crux of the matter seems to be that the Supreme Court has little inclination to revisit the issue. Justice John Roberts and others have previously expressed support for same-sex marriage rights, with some justices emphasizing their importance and the need for dignity for all individuals. The conservative majority may not overtly oppose Obergefell, but it’s evident that tackling it isn’t a priority. Like any institution, the Court must choose its battles carefully.
Despite Davis’s push, the narrative that her case poses a threat to same-sex marriage has gained momentum. Various sources, including outlets like ABC, have reported on her appeal in ways that suggest the rights established by Obergefell are in jeopardy. Yet, such representations can mislead the public, many of whom may lack a clear understanding of the Supreme Court’s processes and procedures.
Interestingly, even those who follow politics closely might assume that a conservative court would easily favor conservative rulings. However, the reality is that the Supreme Court operates within a framework that requires careful consideration, not in a strictly partisan manner.
In summary, Obergefell has not sparked a major Republican effort to undermine its legitimacy. Davis’s appeal, while it raises some questions, does not alter the broader context. The real discussion here might be less about the fate of same-sex marriage and more about how narratives can shape public perception of threats to rights that are, for the most part, secure.
