(Photo Credits: Andrey_Popov from Shutterstock)
Nearly a decade after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, the ruling is once again in the spotlight. Recently, the Supreme Court was formally asked to overturn Obergefell, reigniting debates over marriage equality in the United States and raising alarm within the LGBTQ+ community.
The appeal comes from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky clerk who made headlines in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on religious grounds. Her legal team is now arguing that the Obergefell decision violated her First Amendment rights, framing the case as a clash between religious liberty and LGBTQ+ equality. Moreover, while legal experts say it is unlikely that the Court will use this case as a vehicle to directly dismantle marriage equality, the fact that such a challenge has reached the nation’s highest court has stirred deep anxiety among advocates.
In addition, Davis—who became a controversial figure during the heated national debate over marriage equality—has her own legal battles to contend with. She spent six days in jail in 2015 after defying a court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Now, she is appealing a jury’s decision that ordered her to pay $100,000 in emotional damages, along with more than $260,000 in attorneys’ fees. The outcome of this appeal will not only affect Davis personally but could also shape the broader narrative of religious freedom arguments in the context of LGBTQ+ rights.
This renewed focus on Obergefell is happening in a political climate already charged with anxiety. Ever since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, many LGBTQ+ Americans have wondered if marriage equality could one day face the same fate. While some legal scholars argue that Obergefell is safe, recent Supreme Court decisions and rising anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment in certain circles have made the possibility feel more tangible than before. For context, read here and here.
In recent weeks, LGBTQ+ communities online have been buzzing with these very fears. A gay man on Reddit sparked a heartfelt discussion when he posted, “Is anyone else stressed about Obergefell being overturned? I am! I’m posting this video because it brought me some degree of peace of mind.” His words struck a chord, prompting hundreds of replies from men sharing their own hopes, anxieties, and perspectives on the future of marriage equality.
Some took comfort in existing protections. One man reminded others, “Thankfully Biden and the Dems protected same sex marriage with legislation.” He was referring to the Respect for Marriage Act, signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022, which requires states to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. While not a flawless safeguard, it reassures many that their unions won’t simply vanish overnight.
Others, however, were less reassured. “I am, because if something like Roe v Wade could get overturned against overwhelming popular support—any of our civil liberties are at risk,” wrote one gay man, who went on to call for bold political countermeasures. His plea was passionate: expand the Supreme Court, fight gerrymandering, and codify civil liberties into law. His rallying cry—“fight crazy with crazy”—reflected a deep sense of urgency.
Not everyone was as alarmed. Another commenter noted, “From what I’ve read recently that is unlikely to be the case that will do it.” He pointed out that the current lawsuits, including Davis’s, are built on shaky legal arguments. For example, government employees cannot claim First Amendment protection to refuse their official duties, which makes her case less threatening in practice.
Yet some expressed broader concerns. One gay man admitted, “I’m more scared about the decrease of support of LGBT rights in the last 5 years especially in the gen Z.” Others echoed that cultural shifts, not just court rulings, may pose the longer-term risk to LGBTQ+ equality.
There were also glimmers of hope. A few commenters pointed out that contract law and the deep integration of marriage into the economy would make unraveling same-sex unions legally and financially chaotic. “Contract law gives me some hope,” one man wrote, highlighting how businesses, insurers, and banks are unlikely to accept such disruption easily.
Some adopted a more stoic approach. “I think it’s a possibility, but I’ve learned not to stress about things out of my control,” said one guy. But others pushed back hard against that mindset, warning that complacency is dangerous. One reply declared, “We are where we are because people are afraid to stand up against this administration and this court. America needs to wake the fuck up and fight back before it’s too late. Newsom has the energy we all need right now.”
Finally, a few men reminded others that before marriage equality, LGBTQ+ couples found other ways to protect themselves—through contracts, wills, and powers of attorney. While no substitute for full equality, these legal tools offered some protection and could again if necessary. Still, for many, the idea of going back to patchwork solutions feels like an unacceptable step backwards.
So, where does this leave us? While the likelihood of Obergefell being overturned remains slim, the conversation highlights very real anxieties about the direction of the Court, the durability of LGBTQ+ rights, and the shifting tides of public opinion. For many, marriage equality represents not just legal recognition, but dignity, safety, and belonging—things that should never feel at risk.
Having said all that, we’d like to hear from you, Adam4Adam blog readers. Are you stressed about Obergefell being overturned? Do you feel reassured by current protections, or do you believe more political action is needed? Share your thoughts and stories with us in the comments section down below. And if there’s a particular topic you’d like us to cover, feel free to email us at [email protected] or [email protected]—we’d love to hear from you.
It has already been stated within the Public Domain that the lawsuit by Kim Davis is not going to cause The Supreme Court to overturn the right for Gays to Marry. This is rather disingenuous and capricious.
This is shameless fearmongering. The “rights” Gen Z (among others, such as a LOT of Gen X) are not supporting are controversial and hotly debated. Among them is adoption by same-sex couples, which has produced ample proof of ulterior motives, particularly in the light of some high-profile child trafficking rings being exposed as procurement services for pedophile couples posing as “gay parents,” and a great many more reprehensible crimes.
Kim Davis’s case has lost several appeals over the last 10+ years. It’s rare for the US Supreme Court to even hear a case after it’s lost many appeals in the lower courts and even rarer to overturn a civil right and reverse a ruling they made. The court does not need to look at the gay marriage law because it has nothing to do with her or her appeal. The problem here is the audacity of Kim as a civil servant being defiant and trying impose her religious beliefs on anyone for any reason.
agreed! Davis” lawsuit is predicated on Religious Beliefs not on the legality of marriage, regardless of recipients. The media is hypering this not the court. It is a dead issue just as abortion. no political party is going to revisit either gay marriages or abortion. Both are already settled
But Roe v. Wade was not deemed to be “settled law” after 50 years and was overturned. This is a radical right Supreme Court. Expect anything. This isn’t about what either political party wants, it’s about what the highest court in the land thinks about Oberkfell.
No, but even if courts strike it down it would go back to the states like roe vs wade, most states would still legalize it besides a few southern states..
Trump/MAGA won 31 states in 2024. Even if they court sends the legality of same-sex marriage back to the states, most of these will ban same-sex marriage. Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nevada and Pennsylvania might not. That leaves 26 states in which marriage equality will be no more.
What is infuriating is that people against gay marriage can’t tell you why or how two men or two women getting married affects their straight marriage. Kim Davis has been married several times so isn’t she a treat to
Marriage as well?
Davis is a fundamentalist! Reason & Rational are not always abundant if existing. Her objections to Gay Marriages are predicated upon the Bible not common sense as she does not question why that Biblical Quote about Homosexuality was written.
If that is true, then Kim Davis is guilty of adultery according to her “lord” Jesus. She should look in a mirror before judging others.
She should look in the mirror before leaving the house, too! Eeeeewwwwww!
Right on – that FUGLY UGLY FREAKTARD needs to get HIT by a BUS!!!!!!! AGAIN 🙂
I am not stressed or concerned. But I think it is possible: this court doesn’t seem to have much respect for its own precedent. Stare decisis is a dead principle. My bigger concern is people like Kim Davis shoving their hypocritical “religious” “beliefs” into the public sector. Jesus said: whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. She is guilty of adultery with multiple people. If she wants to “defend” the “sanctity of marriage”, then she should not be married. If… Read more »
The Court has been very true to stare decisis. There have only been two major case overturned. One was Roe v. Wade which constitutional law experts across the political spectrum have agreed for decades was one of most poorly written and decided cases in the history of the Court. The second was overturning Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. I’m doing so, the Court curtailed the regulatory overreach of federal agencies.
You are to be applauded for pointing out what the Court has overturned. Both were suspect, initial, were thus over turned.
In the history of the United States and the Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right. The Court isn’t going to head down the slippery slope of overturning opinions to rescind rights. Hysterical gay activists are pushing this narrative to drive contributions to their organizations. Learn history, stay informed and don’t fall into the disinformation trap of greedy propagandists.
Of course it’s at risk; it’s naive to think otherwise. Know what else is at risk? Lawrence v. Texas (sodomy), Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage), and maybe Griswold v. Connecticut (birth control) in the distant future.
This is because religious nuts are now driving the national bus. People keep saying “Republicans will never do X”, then they go and do X. When are y’all going to learn that all constraints have been removed?
Thumbs-up. I call it “Indian giving” it’s one of those “what’s old, is what’s new” in regression.
Bullshite – those cases will never be rescinded and to try to SCARE PEOPLE into believing that crap is retarded!!!! 🙁
There are many “religious nuts” who are Straight and totally support LGTBQ+ friends, family and others.
There are many Republicans who totally support LGTBQ+ friends, family and others.
Religion has nothing to do with it.
Stop pushing the Liberal agenda, hate and scare tactics. It’s a solid reason so many Liberals/Progressives abandoned the Democratic Party and supported President Trump’s reelection with their 2024 votes. And a reason many Independents did as well.
The religious argument, coming from Kim, a SWORN public official, is moot. Jesus said: Swear not at all. This is a clear, unambiguous statement. If someone wants to be a Bible literalist, as Davis claims to be, then she should have refused to take any public oath at all, not just balk at doing her job after swearing to do it. Taking an oath of office and then refusing to uphold the law under the guise of “religious belief” is self-condemning by the very scripture she claims to uphold. Her hypocrisy is that she swore to uphold the secular law.… Read more »
The Supreme Court is not going to overturn the legalization of Gay Marriage. What the Court will consider is her religious right-to-object… This what the Court will decide not the legality of Gay Marriage. The Court will find her objections unsupportive because – as you wrote – she freely chose to take an oath to serve the public under the jurisdiction and authority of the law. But, do remember, that President Bush tried to attach a codicil to the Constitution by stating that Marriage is between a Man and A Woman. It did not become a reality. Thus, what is… Read more »
Yes Gay marriage is definitely under attack.. Everything Pres. Orange Demon Dumb Hat says is a lie. Campaigning he said he would not touch Medicaid. One of the first things he did was to cut it. In campaigning, he said he loves the LGBT’s. No he doesn’t. He only loves us if we give him lots of $$$.
Check the facts:
He didn’t cut Medicaid. He removed people who were not entitled to it (non-citizens, healthy individuals mostly) from receiving benefits.
He has Gay appointees in his administration.
He is also aware that a record number of Gays voted him into office after realizing Democrats had nothing to offer. He’s not going to alienate them.
Who’s the Dumb Hat?
I’ll take “Ezinalo” for for $500, Alex.
That’s funny! Haha!!
How ’bout stay in your relationships first, before complaining about rights?
The U.S. Supreme Court cannot create federal laws. The power to create federal laws rests solely The with the U.S. Congress. The Supreme Court’s role is to interpret laws. Roe vs. Wade was based on the belief by its supporters that the U.S. Supreme Court can create federal laws. The power to create federal laws rests solely with the U.S. Congress. The reversal of Roe vs Wade returned the legality of abortion to the States individually or to Congress federally. The reversal did not create prosecution of anyone who had had or had performed an abortion in the past. Abortion is legal is many US States… Read more »
No – even tho I have NO INTEREST in getting “Married” the LGBTQ+ Community will NEVER let that HAPPEN and if the Bible thumpers and homophobes try it, we need to make the BLM RIOTS look like a TEAPARTY!!!!!!!!
Eventually, this Republican Supreme Court is likely to overturn Oberkfell. The justices, a few of whom are in Trump’s pocket, won’t rule until after the midterms because they don’t want to contribute to their party losing House seats. Only way same-sex survives as legal is for chief justice John Roberts and one of the Trump appointees — Gorsuch or Barrett to vote with the three progressives. Roberts might see Oberkfell as established law and keep the law as is. Barrett is a fervent Roman Catholic, so that won’t help, but she has surprised us as an independent voice.