Supreme Court Declines to Revisit Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has decid­ed not to take up an appeal that could have reopened debate over the 2015 Oberge­fell v. Hodges rul­ing, which required every state in the nation to rec­og­nize same-sex mar­riage. The brief order leaves that deci­sion intact — and leaves many Amer­i­cans still wrestling with what the rede­f­i­n­i­tion of mar­riage has meant for faith, fam­i­ly, and the role of gov­ern­ment.

The appeal came from Kim Davis, the for­mer Ken­tucky coun­ty clerk who became a sym­bol of con­science in 2015 when she declined to sign mar­riage licens­es for same-sex cou­ples, say­ing that to do so would vio­late her reli­gious beliefs. Her stand land­ed her briefly in jail and set off a nation­al dis­cus­sion about the lim­its of reli­gious lib­er­ty.

This month the jus­tices turned away her peti­tion, which had asked them to recon­sid­er whether the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment should have the pow­er to over­ride state mar­riage laws and com­pel offi­cials of faith to act against their con­vic­tions.

DECLINED VIDEO

A Nation Still Divided on Definition

When Oberge­fell was decid­ed ten years ago, it passed by a sin­gle vote — five to four. Chief Jus­tice John Roberts warned in his dis­sent that “five lawyers have ordered every state to change their def­i­n­i­tion of mar­riage,” ques­tion­ing whether such sweep­ing cul­tur­al change should come from the courts rather than the peo­ple.

That con­cern con­tin­ues today. Many cit­i­zens hold that mar­riage, under­stood for cen­turies as the union of a man and a woman, is foun­da­tion­al to soci­ety and best pro­tect­ed when defined through demo­c­ra­t­ic debate, not judi­cial decree. Oth­ers believe the deci­sion brought long-over­due legal recog­ni­tion to same-sex cou­ples. The ten­sion between these two views has nev­er ful­ly set­tled.

The Case of Kim Davis

After refus­ing to issue mar­riage licens­es fol­low­ing the Oberge­fell rul­ing, Davis was sued by a same-sex cou­ple and ordered to pay dam­ages and legal fees total­ing more than $360,000. Her lawyers argued that she was pun­ished not for break­ing the law, but for hold­ing to her faith — the same faith that guid­ed count­less pub­lic ser­vants before her.

They appealed to the Supreme Court, say­ing that “if ever a case deserved review, it is the case of the first indi­vid­ual jailed for seek­ing accom­mo­da­tion for her reli­gious beliefs.”

The Court declined.

Faith, Freedom, and the Future

Although the Court now holds a 6–3 con­ser­v­a­tive major­i­ty, there has been no sign of renewed will­ing­ness to revis­it Oberge­fell. In 2020, Jus­tice Clarence Thomas called Davis’s case a “stark reminder of the con­se­quences” of that rul­ing, cau­tion­ing that it has allowed gov­ern­ment to “brand peo­ple of faith as big­ots sim­ply for adher­ing to tra­di­tion­al beliefs.”

Accord­ing to recent esti­mates, rough­ly 823,000 same-sex cou­ples are now mar­ried in the Unit­ed States. Sup­port­ers of Oberge­fell call the sta­bil­i­ty it pro­vides a social good. Yet for many Amer­i­cans of faith, the ques­tion remains whether true equal­i­ty can exist if con­science itself is no longer pro­tect­ed.

A Question That Endures

Near­ly a decade lat­er, Oberge­fell v. Hodges con­tin­ues to shape the nation’s moral land­scape. The Supreme Court’s silence this week ensures that same-sex mar­riage will remain the law of the land — but it also ensures that the debate over who defines mar­riage, and how far gov­ern­ment pow­er should reach into mat­ters of faith, will not soon fade.