**Supreme Court Declines to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Ruling**
The carefully manufactured conservative majority on the Supreme Court declined on Friday to overturn its landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
Gay Americans and their allies had been on alert since the Court’s conservative majority eliminated the nationwide right to abortion after 50 years, revealing a willingness to undo longstanding legal precedent. In that earlier decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately to urge reconsideration of the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which recognized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Despite these concerns, polls show that same-sex marriage now has broad public support. Reflecting this shift, more than three dozen House Republicans supported legislation in 2022 requiring states and the federal government to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages.
Mary Bonauto, the lawyer who argued the Obergefell case before the Supreme Court, praised the Court’s recent action. “Today, millions of Americans can breathe a sigh of relief for their families, current or hoped for, because all families deserve equal rights under the law,” she said in a statement.
It may be that not even this Court wanted anything to do with plaintiff Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue licenses to same-sex couples, whose moment of national attention peaked two years ago.
As reported by Slate, *Davis v. Ermold* — the case the Supreme Court dismissed on Monday — was always a long-shot appeal. Many Americans may recall Davis, who refused to grant a marriage license to a same-sex couple in the wake of Obergefell, citing “God’s authority.” She was briefly jailed for contempt of court and became a cause célèbre among anti-gay Republicans.
What fewer know is what happened next: one couple discriminated against by Davis sued her for violating their civil rights. A jury ordered her to pay $360,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees. Davis and her lawyers at the fringe-right law firm Liberty Counsel have spent years fighting that award.
That is the crux of *Davis v. Ermold*. Perhaps the Court has decided not to stir this particular hornet’s nest.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett has developed a nuanced argument explaining why overturning *Roe v. Wade* was justified, but why overturning *Obergefell* would not be. Her argument reportedly involves considerations related to children.
At the same time, the Court has demonstrated a willingness to embrace the “religious liberty” arguments that Davis’s case depended upon—a legal stance that continues to complicate the landscape of civil rights protections.
With that in mind, it remains uncertain how secure any rights are in the current judicial climate.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a69365908/same-sex-marraige-supreme-court/
