Supreme Court Declines Case That Could Have Challenged Same-Sex Marriage

The Supreme Court declined to hear a case this week that could have reopened debate over same-sex marriage rights in the United States. Arizona Representative Greg Stanton responded to the decision by reaffirming his support for marriage equality.

"Obergefell is settled law. Our Respect for Marriage Act codified it. Marriage equality is the law of the land. Period," Stanton posted on X following the announcement.

The case involved Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. 

Background of Case

Davis cited her religious beliefs as the reason for her refusal. Her actions then drew national attention when she continued denying licenses despite court orders. 

A federal judge then held her in contempt of Court and briefly jailed her in September 2015. She was released after her staff began issuing licenses without her name. Kentucky later changed its law to remove all county clerks' names from marriage licenses.

Davis now faces financial penalties and legal fees for her refusal to comply with the court's ruling. 

Her lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, hoping the Court might reconsider the Obergefell decision.

The Court rejected Davis's appeal without comment, leaving the 2015 marriage equality ruling intact. Justice Clarence Thomas is the only current justice among the nine who has publicly stated that the Court should overturn Obergefell. 

Arizona's History

Same-sex couples have been able to marry since October 2014 in Arizona, when U.S. District Court Judge Sedwick ruled in favor of marriage rights. 

Moreover, Stanton's statement referenced the Respect for Marriage Act, a 2022 federal law that provides additional protections for same-sex marriages beyond those offered by the Obergefell decision.

For Arizona and other states where marriage equality has been recognized for years, the Supreme Court's decision reaffirms the legal foundation already in place.