Advocates of marriage equality breathed a sigh of relief last week when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up a request that it consider overturning its 2015 landmark decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the court ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples under the Constitution.
The Obergefell decision, which was decided by a narrow 5-4 majority, requires all 50 states (plus the District of Columbia) to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples equally with the marriages of opposite-sex couples.
Prior to the court’s Obergefell ruling, it had been left up to each state to determine whether to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples (Massachusetts was the first state to do so in 2006). However, those marriages were not recognized federally, which meant that couples could not file joint federal tax returns or enjoy any of the other rights and privileges of marriage.
The majority opinion in Obergefell, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, put it very simply: “Marriage is a keystone of our social order and there is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle.”
However, the make-up of the Supreme Court has changed greatly over the past 10 years. Judge Kennedy has retired and the three judges appointed by President Trump during his first term, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh, all had expressed opposition to legalizing gay marriage throughout their legal careers prior to their appointments to the Supreme Court.
Given those changes, marriage equality advocates had feared that the court might reconsider its ruling in Obergefell. In addition, Justice Clarence Thomas had suggested in his concurring opinion in the Dobbs case (which overturned Roe v. Wade) that Obergefell also should be scrutinized.
The case that came up to the court was a petition filed by the former Kentucky county clerk who gained national attention in 2015 when she defied a court order and refused to issue same-sex licenses because of her religious beliefs.
She had asked the Supreme Court to reverse an order that required her to pay more than $300,000 in attorney’s fees to a couple for whom she had denied a marriage license and to overturn the Obergefell decision.
At least four of the nine justices were needed to vote to hear the case and revisit the same-sex marriage precedent. However, the court refused to take it up, thereby allowing a lower court ruling that had dismissed the former clerk’s case to stand.
Although the former county clerk’s attorney said in a statement that he would continue his efforts to overturn Obergefell, it seems clear that marriage equality, which today enjoys broad public support, is here to stay — and that’s good news for all Americans.