On Nov. 10, Kentucky former county clerk Kim Davis put pressure on the Supreme Court to revisit Obergefell v. Hodges and overturn it. This case, which was upheld, legalized same-sex marriage back in 2015.
Davis was arrested and jailed for contempt of court in 2015 for refusing to certify marriage licenses in objection to same sex marriage being legalized.
Davis argued that same-sex marriage defies what “real marriage” should all entail, and that it inevitably goes against her religious beliefs. However, in terms of following traditional marriage Davis is probably not someone to hold up in those terms, as she has been divorced three separate times.
So while the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold gay marriage was a win all around, it was very shocking.
During Donald Trump’s presidential campaign during 2024, a big concern was his likelihood to enforce Project 2025, a proposal from the Heritage Foundation, that among other things aimed to ban same-sex marriage.
With a rise in Christian nationalism and the protection of multi-millionaires and billionaires, it seemed as though Project 2025 was coming to life. People in the LGBTQ+ community were fearful of their right to be able to get married.
When Davis brought her case to the Supreme Court many people were convinced that the court would side with her, seeing as three of the justices on the court were appointed by Trump. Surprisingly, the court denied her without comment.
This is a good sign not only for folks in the LGBTQ+ community, but for everyone. If the court overturned Obergefell v. Hodges, one of the most prominent targets in Project 2025, other agenda items could be close to follow.
Even though we saw success in the uphold of Obergefell v. Hodges, there is worry that the battle for rights is ongoing.
Chuck Anziulewicz • Nov 19, 2025 at 6:02 am
I suspect the Supreme Court isn’t going to revisit Obergefell v. Hodges. You would have to prove that same-sex couples marrying harms anyone, and there is no evidence of that. Fact is, marriage equality for same-sex couples shouldn’t have taken as long as it did. There was never any constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same right to marry that Straight couples have always taken for granted. What more legal reasoning do you need?
Churches have never been forced to provide weddings for anyone, and it’s a moot point anyway, since the legal benefits of marriage don’t come from the church, they come from the federal government. Procreation and parenting are irrelevant also, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the ability or even desire to make babies a prerequisite for a marriage license.
According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) there are 1,138 legal protections, regulations, and responsibilities that pertain specifically to married couples. Much of this has to do with Social Security, inheritance, healthcare, etc. If the government wanted to get out of the marriage business altogether, it would be a legal quagmire.
Some would also suggest that marriage should be left up to individual states, but the point would be moot since a marriage honored in one state is honored across state lines. Marriage is fundamentally a contractual agreement between two adults. Any couple can fly off to Las Vegas for the weekend, get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage is automatically honored back home, thanks to the “Full Faith and Credit” clause.
Maybe I’m being overly optimistic, but I don’t think SCOTUS will reconsider the issue. Frankly, they wouldn’t DARE.