Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Your
cat
loves me
more
cat
loves me
more
I
got
your
nose
I got
your
nose
got
your
nose
I got
your
nose
Give me all
of your
giggles!
Give me
all of your
cookies!
Now!
of your
giggles!
Give me
all of your
cookies!
Now!
Something
pithy
this way
comes
Fuck
that
noise
pithy
this way
comes
Fuck
that
noise
You do not
want to
know
what I
think about
want to
know
what I
think about
Is
TACO
Dead
Yet?
TACO
Dead
Yet?
Check out
all the stickies
on Grovelbot's
Big Board!
all the stickies
on Grovelbot's
Big Board!
Will the Supreme Court revisit its ruling on same-sex marriage?
SCOTUS FOCUS
Will the Supreme Court revisit its ruling on same-sex marriage?
By Amy Howe
on Aug 13, 2025
In 2015, shortly after the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, a local county clerk from Kentucky made national headlines when she refused on religious grounds to issue a marriage license to a gay couple, David Moore and David Ermold. That clerk, Kim Davis, is back in the news again this summer, this time because she has asked the justices to overturn their 2015 decision. Although, as a statistical matter, Davis may face tough odds on convincing the Supreme Court to grant review, the real question is whether there are four votes to revisit Obergefell (and five to overrule it).
In 2015, Davis was the clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. Her job description included issuing licenses – such as marriage licenses – to county residents. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell, Kentucky’s governor at the time, Steve Beshear, sent a letter to the clerks in all of the state’s counties, directing them to “license and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples.”
Although a county attorney told Davis that she would be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Davis opted instead to stop issuing marriage licenses to anyone – gay or straight. While this moratorium was in effect, Davis refused to issue a marriage license to Moore and Ermold. She told the couple that she was acting “under God’s authority” and that they could get a marriage license in a different county.
{snip}
Earlier this year, the 6th Circuit rejected Davis’ appeal. It reasoned that Davis is protected by the First Amendment when she is a private citizen, but she was acting on behalf of the government when she denied Moore and Ermold’s marriage license – an action that was not protected by the First Amendment. The court of appeals acknowledged that in Obergefell the Supreme Court observed that “many people ‘deem same-sex marriage to be wrong’ based on ‘religious or philosophical premises.’” “But those opposed to same-sex marriage,” the court of appeals wrote, “do not have a right to transform their ‘personal opposition’ into ‘enacted law and public policy.’” “The Bill of Rights,” the court stated, “would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates.”
{snip}
Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Will the Supreme Court revisit its ruling on same-sex marriage?, SCOTUSblog (Aug. 13, 2025, 1:19 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/08/will-the-supreme-court-revisit-its-ruling-on-same-sex-marriage/
Will the Supreme Court revisit its ruling on same-sex marriage?
By Amy Howe
on Aug 13, 2025
In 2015, shortly after the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, a local county clerk from Kentucky made national headlines when she refused on religious grounds to issue a marriage license to a gay couple, David Moore and David Ermold. That clerk, Kim Davis, is back in the news again this summer, this time because she has asked the justices to overturn their 2015 decision. Although, as a statistical matter, Davis may face tough odds on convincing the Supreme Court to grant review, the real question is whether there are four votes to revisit Obergefell (and five to overrule it).
In 2015, Davis was the clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. Her job description included issuing licenses – such as marriage licenses – to county residents. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell, Kentucky’s governor at the time, Steve Beshear, sent a letter to the clerks in all of the state’s counties, directing them to “license and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples.”
Although a county attorney told Davis that she would be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Davis opted instead to stop issuing marriage licenses to anyone – gay or straight. While this moratorium was in effect, Davis refused to issue a marriage license to Moore and Ermold. She told the couple that she was acting “under God’s authority” and that they could get a marriage license in a different county.
{snip}
Earlier this year, the 6th Circuit rejected Davis’ appeal. It reasoned that Davis is protected by the First Amendment when she is a private citizen, but she was acting on behalf of the government when she denied Moore and Ermold’s marriage license – an action that was not protected by the First Amendment. The court of appeals acknowledged that in Obergefell the Supreme Court observed that “many people ‘deem same-sex marriage to be wrong’ based on ‘religious or philosophical premises.’” “But those opposed to same-sex marriage,” the court of appeals wrote, “do not have a right to transform their ‘personal opposition’ into ‘enacted law and public policy.’” “The Bill of Rights,” the court stated, “would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates.”
{snip}
Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Will the Supreme Court revisit its ruling on same-sex marriage?, SCOTUSblog (Aug. 13, 2025, 1:19 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/08/will-the-supreme-court-revisit-its-ruling-on-same-sex-marriage/
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
JURISPRUDENCE
The Sudden Panic That SCOTUS Might Overturn Marriage Equality Misses the Real Threat
BY MARK JOSEPH STERN
AUG 13, 2025v2:56 PM
Kim Davis and the Supreme Court building.
Kim Davis has filed a petition. Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Ida Mae Astute/Disney General Entertainment Content via Getty Images and Andrew Harnik/Getty Images.
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.
Over the past few days, a long-shot request for the Supreme Court to overturn marriage equality has snowballed into a major news story. Influential media outlets have covered it closely, and prominent politicians have seized upon it to warn that same-sex marriage is still under attack. It is certainly true that no one should take this hard-won right for granted. But any panic about this particular challenge—brought by former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis—is unwarranted. There is essentially no chance that the court will entertain Davis’ plea to abolish gay people’s constitutional right to marry; the odds round down to zero. And although apprehension about the justices’ hostility toward LGBTQ+ equality is justified, marriage does not yet appear to be in their crosshairs.
The most important thing to understand about Davis’ appeal is that it has a small likelihood of being taken up in the first place. Her lawyers have merely asked the court to consider it, filing what’s known as a petition for certiorari. (They did so in July, and it’s unclear why the request is garnering so much attention now.) SCOTUS receives about 8,000 of these petitions every year and grants just a tiny number of them—in recent years, fewer than 70. Anyone can ask the court to hear their appeal. And while it is technically accurate to say that the justices will consider her request, that does not mean they will resolve it on the merits. It simply indicates that they will have the opportunity to take it up, an opportunity that they are unlikely to accept.
{snip}
The Sudden Panic That SCOTUS Might Overturn Marriage Equality Misses the Real Threat
BY MARK JOSEPH STERN
AUG 13, 2025v2:56 PM
Kim Davis and the Supreme Court building.
Kim Davis has filed a petition. Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Ida Mae Astute/Disney General Entertainment Content via Getty Images and Andrew Harnik/Getty Images.
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.
Over the past few days, a long-shot request for the Supreme Court to overturn marriage equality has snowballed into a major news story. Influential media outlets have covered it closely, and prominent politicians have seized upon it to warn that same-sex marriage is still under attack. It is certainly true that no one should take this hard-won right for granted. But any panic about this particular challenge—brought by former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis—is unwarranted. There is essentially no chance that the court will entertain Davis’ plea to abolish gay people’s constitutional right to marry; the odds round down to zero. And although apprehension about the justices’ hostility toward LGBTQ+ equality is justified, marriage does not yet appear to be in their crosshairs.
The most important thing to understand about Davis’ appeal is that it has a small likelihood of being taken up in the first place. Her lawyers have merely asked the court to consider it, filing what’s known as a petition for certiorari. (They did so in July, and it’s unclear why the request is garnering so much attention now.) SCOTUS receives about 8,000 of these petitions every year and grants just a tiny number of them—in recent years, fewer than 70. Anyone can ask the court to hear their appeal. And while it is technically accurate to say that the justices will consider her request, that does not mean they will resolve it on the merits. It simply indicates that they will have the opportunity to take it up, an opportunity that they are unlikely to accept.
{snip}
The RWNJ thuglicans always always want to be up in other peoples lives and business. They really sux...imo
