By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, leaving the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision intact. This decision comes amidst concerns from LGBTQ advocates about the conservative court potentially revisiting the 2015 same-sex marriage ruling, especially after the overturning of Roe v. Wade. While the court did not explain its reasoning, the denial of the appeal maintains the constitutional right to same-sex marriage, leading to relief among LGBTQ+ advocates. The case focused on technical questions regarding religious protections, but the primary concern was whether the court would reconsider the Obergefell decision.
Read the original article here
Supreme Court declines to revisit landmark same-sex marriage precedent, and it’s a bit of a surprise, but a welcome one! Many of us were genuinely bracing for the opposite outcome, so this feels like a positive development. It’s a relief to see some form of progress maintained, especially given concerns about the direction the court might take.
The potential legal and logistical chaos of dismantling same-sex marriage, the inevitable cascade of estate issues, and the complexities surrounding spousal rights in the wake of such a decision probably served as a deterrent. The potential headache of such a scenario is enough to make anyone pause. It is a time for taking the wins, even if it’s frustrating to celebrate upholding the status quo.
The fact that the court isn’t revisiting Obergefell is good news, even if some of us would have preferred a clear reaffirmation rather than a refusal to hear the case. We need to remember that the Pride flag means everyone. It always has, and that’s the point. It is great to see the court making this decision after other recent unfavorable rulings.
Now we can breathe a sigh of relief. While the court has made some truly questionable decisions over the years, preserving some of our civil liberties is something to be thankful for. We should be grateful.
Kim Davis’s case wasn’t the vehicle through which they would reverse Obergefell. It was never the likely route. Her case has been effectively over for years, and it seems the court recognized this. The court probably sees her case as lacking merit due to her multiple divorces. They may be waiting for a plaintiff without the same baggage.
The potential for a massive Democratic turnout in future elections if same-sex marriage were put at risk is another factor. Some people are surprised, but others have the more cynical view that maybe they don’t want to get involved with the headache. The Supreme Court’s decision shows that checks and balances can, indeed, work.
It’s tempting to see a deliberate strategy at play, with this decision potentially acting as a buffer in the news cycle, shielding other controversial moves. Ultimately, this isn’t a case. Justice Thomas’s concerns about someone challenging Loving v. Virginia is probably part of the reasoning.
The fear-mongering about the court “coming for the gays” was overblown, and thankfully, that fear didn’t come to fruition. A few of the conservative justices have made it clear they wouldn’t touch this under Davis’ case. It’s an issue that would mobilize a significant portion of the population, specifically centrist white people, who have a vested interest in the outcome.
The reality is that people tend to fight for issues that directly impact their families and loved ones. Gay marriage isn’t the controversial debate it was fifteen years ago.
The court’s stance reflects an understanding of how voters will react to certain issues. Civic employees need to follow rules because they work on the taxpayer’s dollar. The Supreme Court only cares about whether a legal action is indeed legal. They shouldn’t have opinions about whether gay marriage is good or not. The impact on white middle class voters and their families is a major factor.
The court’s reluctance may also be due to the potential fallout. A future MAGA Congress and Supreme Court could still enact laws banning it. They have many cases that they do not have time for. The Supreme Court’s reluctance may also stem from concerns about the work required to dismantle this and the lack of popular backing, and the justices could be swayed by that.