By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Jim Obergefell at the U.S. Supreme Court
“I hope the Supreme Court halts further attempts by public officials to use their personal faith to deny others their civil and human rights,” the civil rights icon told The Advocate.
More than a decade after Obergefell v. Hodges made marriage equality the law of the land, the case’s namesake is celebrating another victory — this time, the U.S. Supreme Court’s quiet refusal to reopen a battle many hoped was long settled.
Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate’s email newsletter.
On Monday, the justices declined to hear former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s appeal, rejecting her attempt to overturn lower court rulings that found she violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples when she refused to issue marriage licenses in 2015. Davis, who became a symbol of defiance in the wake of Obergefell, had also asked the court to reconsider the ruling itself.
For Jim Obergefell, the court’s decision is both vindication and warning. “The Court did the right thing in denying cert, and people across our nation can breathe a little easier today,” he told The Advocate. “But threats to marriage equality will likely continue, so we must not assume marriage, or any rights enjoyed by or due to any marginalized community, is safe.”
Davis’s case had been closely watched by LGBTQ+ advocates, who were wary of a court that, in recent years, had rolled back long-standing precedent, like Roe v. Wade in its Dobbs ruling. While the justices did not explain their decision, the outcome leaves marriage equality untouched and underscores that government officials cannot use personal faith as a shield against performing their public duties.
“Kim Davis should have lived up to her oath and duties as a public servant by serving everyone in Rowan County, Kentucky,” Obergefell said. “Instead, she chose to use her faith to persecute others.”
Related: U.S. Supreme Court denies hearing in Kim Davis’s marriage equality challenge
“It is past time for others in our nation to understand that a person’s faith is not harmed by others who are different,” he said. “Someone exercising a civil right does not prevent a believer from continuing to practice their faith at home or in their house of worship.”
Obergefell also cited the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously rejected Davis’s argument that her religious beliefs excused her conduct. “As the Sixth Circuit said when denying Kim Davis’s appeal, the Bill of Rights ‘would serve little purpose if it could be so freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates,’” he said.
For Obergefell, the decision represents a momentary reprieve in a larger struggle over the meaning of equality and the reach of personal conscience. “I hope the Supreme Court halts further attempts by public officials to use their personal faith to deny others their civil and human rights,” he said.
Charlie Kirk DID say stoning gay people was the 'perfect law' — and these other heinous quotes