Posted on 11/10/2025 9:42:30 AM PST by fidelis
The Supreme Court has rejected a call to overturn its landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The justices on Monday turned away an appeal...
WASHINGTON(AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a call to overturn its landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
The justices, without comment, turned away an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky court clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the high court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Davis had been trying to get the court to overturn a lower-court order for her to pay $360,000 in damages and attorney's fees to a couple denied a marriage license.
Her lawyers repeatedly invoked the words of Justice Clarence Thomas, who alone among the nine justices has called for erasing the same-sex marriage ruling.
Thomas was among four dissenting justices in 2015. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito are the other dissenters who are on the court today.
Roberts has been silent on the subject since he wrote a dissenting opinion in the case. Alito has continued to criticize the decision, but he said recently he was not advocating that it be overturned.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was not on the court in 2015, has said that there are times when the court should correct mistakes and overturn decisions, as it did in the 2022 case that ended a constitutional right to abortion.
But Barrett has suggested recently that same-sex marriage might be in a different category than abortion because people have relied on the decision when they married and had children.
Human Rights Campaign president Kelley Robinson praised the justices' decision not to intervene. “The Supreme Court made clear today that refusing to respect the constitutional rights of others does not come without consequences,” Robinson said in a statement.
Davis drew national attention to eastern Kentucky's Rowan County when she turned away same-sex couples, saying her faith prevented her from complying with the high court ruling. She defied court orders to issue the licenses until a federal judge jailed her for contempt of court in September 2015.
She was released after her staff issued the licenses on her behalf but removed her name from the form. The Kentucky legislature later enacted a law removing the names of all county clerks from state marriage licenses.
Davis lost a reelection bid in 2018.
The Federal government has NO SAY on the matter of marriage as it is NOT mentioned in the US Constitution. Therefore it is left “to the states or the people themselves.”
Government should not have any dealings with marriage and that includes the tax code.
Barrett seems to be unclear on the concept of homosexuality.
So when the cases for legalizing Pedophilia and marriage to animals comes up we probably already know how the Supreme Clowns of the US will rule.
ok, so then the Supreme Court should make it clear they never legalized gay marriage, since US Govt has no say in marriage.
Funny how the states and the lower courts can ignore any supreme court decision they want, like when it comes to sending in the national guard. But if the decision benefits the left— then all of a sudden it’s absolute …..
apparently Barrett also thinks just because untruth is being relied upon by people. making decisions, then we shouldn’t change that. Blows all her decisions in all of her cases up. She sounds worse off than the liberal logic spewed in courts.
The Federal government has NO SAY on the matter of marriage as it is NOT mentioned in the US Constitution. Therefore it is left “to the states or the people themselves.”
You’re absolutely right. How is this different than DOMA or Roe?
Agree. People will do what people will do. Always have throughout all of history. People will be good. People will be scum. People choose. GOD judges! Period! That simple.
Recall all, it was one lawyer in a robe who did this.
Some state should pass a law to state marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Let them challenge it.
All states can call their own shots.
This may be a W in disguise for our side.
abominable. but given the 7-2 leftist dominance on this court, always expected, i guess.
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.
“The Federal government has NO SAY on the matter of marriage as it is NOT mentioned in the US Constitution. Therefore it is left “to the states or the people themselves.” Sounds so good until you factor in the Constitutional rule that states respect contracts drawn in any state. A marriage is a legal contract so this argument doesn’t hold water. States where gay “marriage” is not legal would then be free to deny legality to adoptions of children if their laws say only legally married people could adopt.
This is an issue that must be settled federally.
We’re too far gone in decadence…
This issue will be resolved when Islam finally overwhelms the West, including the US.
What a terrible price we’re going to pay for our depravity….
Who is “We’re” and you think God after Jesus is in the smiting business still? You have some confused and mostly crap theology there Son.
A piece of paper says they’re married, but they’re really not.
“until you factor in the Constitutional rule that states respect contracts drawn in any state.”
Let’s apply that to the gun control argument then!
It depends on the specific issue regarding marriage. For example, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional laws banning interracial marriage as such laws violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.