Here’s What The Media Aren’t Telling You About That ‘Gay Marriage’ Case SCOTUS Just Rejected

The Federalist ^ | November 11, 2025 | Shawn Fleetwood

[E. Pluribus Unum]

By now, you’ve probably seen the giddy headlines from America’s propaganda media about the U.S. Supreme Court declining to take up a case that sought to overturn so-called “gay marriage.”

“BREAKING: The Supreme Court rejects a call to overturn its decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide,” an Associated Press tweet with more than 21,000 likes reads.

“Supreme Court rejects challenge to landmark same-sex marriage decision,” a USA Today headline blared.

This “breaking news” is in response to an order list published by the Supreme Court on Monday detailing which cases it will and will not be taking up during its ongoing 2025-2026 term. Among those the court declined to consider is a case (Davis v. Ermold) involving former Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis.

Davis’ legal troubles began following the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that opened the door for so-called “gay marriage” in America.

As described by Liberty Counsel — the Christian group representing Davis — the former clerk “ceased issuing any marriage licenses while she sought an accommodation for her religious beliefs.” “The courts,” the organization said, “then used Obergefell … to deny her a religious accommodation that unconstitutionally forced her to choose between her religious beliefs and her livelihood.”

Davis “was the first victim jailed, sued, and held personally liable post-Obergefell for her sincerely held religious beliefs on marriage,” according to the group.

The average person reading legacy media headlines about the Supreme Court’s denial of Davis’ request is likely to come away with the conclusion that the former clerk’s case represented a serious threat to the precedent established in Obergefell.

But that is simply not accurate.

---

TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: civilrights; freespeech; kentucky; lgbtrights; marriage; politicalprisoners; scotus; tortliability

[newfreep]

In their petition to SCOTUS, Davis’ attorneys took issue with the 6th Circuit’s ruling. They more specifically challenged the appellate court’s conclusion that her actions “are not protected by the First Amendment, regardless of the capacity [individual or state actor] in which the defendant is sued.”

Davis’ attorneys asked the court to address whether “the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause provides an affirmative defense to tort liability based solely on emotional distress damages with no actual damages in the same manner as the Free Speech Clause under” existing SCOTUS precedent, the petition reads.

Davis’ legal team does go on to explain the problems with the court’s Obergefell decision in its petition — and there are many of them. The question of overturning so-called “gay marriage,” however, was never the central issue at play. Rather, it was the tort liability issue.

It’s entirely possible a more direct legal challenge to the Supreme Court’s horrific Obergefell ruling could make its way before the justices in the years to come. But to portray the high court’s rejection of Davis’ case as massive win for “gay marriage” and “LGBT rights,” as the media have done, is totally dishonest.

[Jim W N]

The media, the gov’t, and the Department of Misinformation.

[Honorary Serb]

“Gay marriage” is not marriage!

The “gay married” female “pastor” at University Lutheran Church-Cambridge is a disgrace to all of us who were members there when that church was noble and straight!

[Pontiac]

Fear and Loathing in the Supreme Court.

Obergefell was obviously decided wrongly and knowing that taking up Gay Marriage would spark riots in nearly every major city and non-stop protest outside the USSC building the court simply decides not to docket the case without comment.

[cgbg]

“knowing that taking up Gay Marriage would spark riots in nearly every major city and non-stop protest outside the USSC building the court simply decides not to docket the case without comment.”

Good point.

The downside is that future generations have learned that he who riots the most gets the best results from the Supreme Court.

[Dr. Franklin]

SCOTUS frequently disappoints those expecting it to do justice. SCOTUS desires to set policy, not do justice, or even address lower courts who willfully misapply its precedents.

[Alberta's Child]

Tell me you didn’t read the article without telling me you didn’t read the article. :-P

[lakecumberlandvet]

The Kentucky Constitution historically and explicitly defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. The U.S. Constitution, however, does not explicitly mention marriage. Nonetheless, the US Supreme Court used the much abused 14th Amendment (e.g. birthright citizenship) to guarantee the right to marry for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Kim Davis was upholding her oath of office to support the Kentucky Constitution when she refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

[Navy Patriot]

The last sentence in the article:

But to portray the high court’s rejection of Davis’ case as massive win for “gay marriage” and “LGBT rights,” as the media have done, is totally dishonest.

This aligns with what we already know, the American Media is Totally Dishonest.

[lastchance]

You did not read the article, did you.

[Pontiac]

Okay I won't tell you.

But it does not change my view on what I wrote.

Davis’ legal team does go on to explain the problems with the court’s Obergefell decision in its petition — and there are many of them. The question of overturning so-called “gay marriage,” however, was never the central issue at play. Rather, it was the tort liability issue.

The real problem is that, as in many USSC decisions, the court did not have the power to hand down the decision that they made.

The 14 amendment was written to address the issues of freed slaves. The Equal Protection Clause was to try to guarantee that slaves would not have state laws that treated them differently than White Men.

The issue of marriage has always been a state matter or a matter of the Church and not a federal issue.

The 10th Amendment applies. The USSC should have left it in the States hands. Marriage is outside of the USSC's purview.

Maybe this is not the case they would choose to overturn Obergerfell but it is a bad decision and it needs correcting.

[Pontiac]

See #12

[DFG]

[DiogenesLamp]

"The Kentucky Constitution historically and explicitly defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. The U.S. Constitution, however, does not explicitly mention marriage. Nonetheless, the US Supreme Court used the much abused 14th Amendment (e.g. birthright citizenship) to guarantee the right to marry for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Kim Davis was upholding her oath of office to support the Kentucky Constitution when she refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses."

Ping to Progressing America. 14th amendment discussion going on.

[DiogenesLamp]

The 14 amendment was written to address the issues of freed slaves. The Equal Protection Clause was to try to guarantee that slaves would not have state laws that treated them differently than White Men.

The 13th, the 14th, and the 15th amendments would not have passed without federal troops occupying Southern states and forcing them to vote for it against their will.

Those amendments are a travesty to Constitutional governance. The framers never intended to force states to vote for amendments because guns were pointed at them.

Federal occupation laws and elections were no more legitimate than Vichy occupation laws and elections in France.

[NorthMountain]

Equal Rights for Ichthyoid-Americans!!!

[Teacher317]

The real problem is that, as in many USSC decisions, the court did not have the power to hand down the decision that they made.

Obergfell was wrongly decided for another very major reason... the SCOTUS precedent is that when two Fundamental Rights are bumping heads, SCOTUS is supposed to make a decision, if at all possible, where neither Fundamental Right is impacted. In Obergfell, that could have very easily been accomplished, by simply directing the government to stop treating married and single people differently. No need to step on Religious Freedom, and no need to step on Equal Protection. Gays can form lifelong Loving (pun intended) commitments to each other, Churches can retain their Sacraments, and nobody of any identity group needs recognition of their love life from a government clerk with forms. That is an incredibly minor sacrifice in control for government to cede, in exchange for not stepping on a Fundamental Right...

But both sides wanted a "win", the government never wants to give away one iota of control, and the media happily ignored SCOTUS precedent so that they could continue to play their culture war games.

[ProgressingAmerica]

In his wonderful book Government by Judiciary, The super scholar Raoul Berger points out that the Fourteenth Amendment is actually a very narrow amendment and was always intended to be very narrow.

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/mcdonald-government-by-judiciary-the-transformation-of-the-fourteenth-amendment

According to Berger, if we all returned to originalism all of our problems(or at least most of them) would be resolved. I myself, can see the obvious strength in 14th-amendment-originalism. Surprising to myself 14th-amendment-originalism is deeply unpopular. I seriously can't figure out why.

What the courts have done since, according to Raoul Berger, is stretch the 14th Amendment out of bounds of its original intent based not just around the text of the amendment itself, but the debates that created the amendment which teach us what the framers' intentions were;

But of course The U.S. Civil War itself. The Civil War was not:

1) Fought because of large streams of illegal aliens coming across the southern border. This is not why 600,000+ Americans ended up dead.
2) Fought because of abortion. This is not why 600,000+ Americans ended up dead.
3) Fought because of prayers in schools. This is not why 600,000+ Americans ended up dead.
4) Fought because of homosexuals seeking to get married. This is not why Lincoln gave a speech at Gettysburg.

And a side note, some argue that the Civil War was not even primarily fought over slavery. I don't care, if you think it was economics you can have it, it is true that slavery was at least a moderately important issue in the 1860s. I focus on what we can agree on. We can all 100% agree, the Civil War was not abortion. It wasn't the pro-lifers firing muskets at pro-abortionists. That's not how it went. We can all 100% agree, the Civil War was not illegal aliens. We can all 100% agree, the Civil War was not about homosexuals. And. We can all 100% agree, the Civil War was not over school prayers. None of these four rationale is why hundreds of thousands died on battle fields. None of this, is what Appomattox was about. Done. Proven. Next.

One of the most brilliant minds ever to be nominated to the Supreme Court, Robert Bork, pointed out that when the framers were building the 14th Amendment, not one of the framers intended for the entire power of the 14th to be handed to the courts. It was always meant to deal with slavery(and its fall out), always meant to be exclusively legislative powers, and always intended to reside peacefully and amicably within the Constitution it was being added to.

Not one of the framers of the 14th Amendment wanted an amendment which would frustrate northern states - which is exactly what the amendment did. The 14th amendment's framers HATED, H.A.T.E.D the Dred Scott decision and every last one of them would be rolling in their graves if they discovered what has been done since. The 14th was meant to get around the courts, not empower it.

I will supply the exact quotes from Bork once I can locate them. Bork also made it fairly clear that the cure to our problems is originalism. Under the original, true 14th Amendment, Obergefell would not stand.

Originalism doesn't stop with the first 10 amendments and the main body of the Constitution. Originalism is for the 14th amendment too.

[Jim W N]

The U.S. Constitution, however, does not explicitly mention marriage.

Then, as the 9th and 10th Amendments clearly say, those things not mentioned in the Constitution belong to the states and the people.

That is why marriage, among many other things, is subject matter outside the legal jurisdiction of the federal Supreme Court.