We Should All Be Paying Attention to Obergefell and The Supreme Court
Image courtesy Win McNamee via Getty Images
The day is Monday, October 5th. This day marks the first day of a new term for the United States Supreme Court. Amidst the chaos of a devastated nation that is desperate for repose of security in the tormented year that is 2020, the leading court decided to take a Louisville Slugger to the headlights of human rights.
Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito spoke against the decisions made in the 2015 case of Obergefell v. Hodges, which famously declared the right to marriage applicable to same-sex couples under the constitution. The topic of gay marriage was revisited by the courts on their first day back in session following the presentation of Kim Davis’ case to the Supreme Court.
Kim Davis gained controversial fame when she made headlines for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in 2015. Davis cited her actions as falling under her protections of religious freedom. She filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court but was ordered by the court to issue marriage licenses in accordance with the law. She continued to deny marriage licenses and was ultimately jailed for contempt of court. Although she argued that her actions were justified “under God’s authority,” she served five days in jail. Kim Davis would go on to be the subject of national debate, and ultimately lost her run for reelection in 2018.
Fast forward to 2020, Davis’ case was presented to the Supreme Court, but the court decided that the petition for a writ of certiorari would be denied. However, they did not do so without a written opinion from Justices Thomas and Alito. Thomas and Alito are notably two conservative-leaning judges on the court, and both dissented in the 2015 Obergefell case.
Justice Alito | Photo via Charles Dharapak via AP
Justice Thomas wrote a condemnation in the statement given after the decision to not take up Davis’ case was announced. While many things of note were mentioned, the key takeaways are that Thomas and Alito are displeased with the precedent that the Supreme Court has set. Thomas writes that “Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty,” and openly expressed his disapproval for the effects of the ruling. He goes on to claim, “since Obergefell, parties have continually attempted to label people of good will as bigots merely for refusing to alter their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy,” and emphasizes that, “Davis may have been one of the first victims of this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last.”
Hidden behind the legal terminology of his opinion, what the justice is trying to say is that he feels that the court’s decision has infringed on the rights and abilities of religious citizens. Moreover, they feel that the court’s decision has labeled anyone who disagrees with gay marriage as a bigot, and forces a hegemony of morals over the country that has weakened equality overall.
There is a lot to unpack in today’s statement. There is also a conversation to be had about both sides of the Justices’ argument. On one hand, The Supreme Court controlling everyone’s worldview is a bad thing, but adversely, allowing religion to govern human rights in a country based on religious freedom is also a bad thing.
Kim Davis was in the wrong with her actions in 2015. A person’s religious beliefs do not give them the ability to undermine the existence of their fellow man. Marriage equality is not a threat to the viability of Christianity. The union of two adults has no effect on your ability to practice your religion, and any attempt to block the rights of others is rooted in a desire for power and control over a free nation. Gay marriage is the law of the land. People’s right to marry the person they love is not an inconvenience to the comfort of precedent, but instead a powerful step forward to a better America that holds the sanctity of equality in high regard.
Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the original 2015 court case, holding a photo of his husband, John Arthur, who died in 2013. Photo via Alex Wong courtesy Getty Images
Justice Thomas’ opinion would have been a key point in debate and conversation if he had not included this statement: “By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem that only it can fix.” The final words of “only it can fix” has an immediate connotation that Obergefell needs to be revisited in court. Following this sentiment, there is concern that there are at least two judges on the court that would be in favor of overturning Obergefell v. Hodges if presented the opportunity. This presents a dangerous threat to the rights of LGBTQ+ Americans and brings up new concerns as we are just days away from the confirmation hearings of a new Supreme Court judge.
Amy Coney Barret brings a world of controversy with her nomination to the court. If confirmed, she would fill the seat left vacant by the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ginsburg notably voted in favor of same-sex marriage in 2015, but Barret’s history of opinion has many concerned that she would join Thomas and Alito in overturning that decision if given the opportunity.
While we await the hearings of Amy Coney Barret and the possibility of a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court, Americans must educate themselves on what is happening in our government. Amidst an election, many things will slip through the cracks of media headlines, but today’s statements from the court should set off alarms that the future is not guaranteed and that ignorance is not bliss. Small waves like today’s opinions from Thomas and Alito turn into tidal waves that erase the rights of millions of Americans.
No matter what your political affiliation is, voting is the most powerful tool you have to make sure your leaders and officials are representing the will of the people they serve. Research your candidates up and down the ballot, write to your officials on how you think they should vote in the upcoming hearings for Amy Coney Barret, and never give in to the idea that your vote doesn’t matter. Your future is in your vote—make sure it counts.
Same-sex marriage was legalized just five years ago, and it is getting ready to face its biggest threat. This court will be hearing cases this year regarding religious liberty and how it interacts with same-sex couples. The opinion heard today from Justice Thomas must be paid attention to. There is a future where each person is entitled to their own beliefs, and there is harmony among opposing groups, but the overturning of gay marriage is not how we get there. We have entrusted the Supreme Court to fairly uphold the laws of this land, and we must not fall into oblivion as we move towards our new future.
Register to vote here.
Thumbnail Image Courtesy David Ake via Getty Images