Within the modern United States political climate, some believe that rights should only be upheld for them, but not for others who are different. This is especially problematic when those that hold government positions refuse to uphold the rights of others because of their political beliefs.
In the summer of 2015, there was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States case Obergefell v. Hodges, in which SCOTUS ruled that same-sex couples have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexual couples. This ended up overturning several states’ laws restricting same-sex marriage.
However, recently, the idea of marriage equality was challenged, but SCOTUS rejected the brief and upheld the right for same-sex couples to marry.
This started in the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges where Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple, David Moore and David Ermold. She decided that, because of her religious convictions, she would not uphold the rights of same-sex couples.
Davis argued in court that her First Amendment rights to freely exercise her religion were violated by requiring her to issue a marriage license to Moore and Ermold. The trial court’s opinion was, because Davis was a government employee, her actions were not protected by the First Amendment, according to an article by SCOTUSBlog.
As Americans, we all have the right to say that we disagree with national policies and Supreme Court decisions. We also have the right to believe in whatever religious ideals that we want. However, your rights don’t grant you the ability to restrict other people’s rights.
After appealing the trial court’s decision to the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and losing that, Davis then filed a motion appealing to SCOTUS asking for her case to be heard. She asked the justices to rule on the merit of her First Amendment argument as well as considering overturning the SCOTUS ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges, claiming that the ruling left with a choice between her religion and her job.
It was good that SCOTUS did not allow this motion to be heard for multiple reasons. First, if they had heard Davis’ appeal, it would give legitimacy to the idea that the First Amendment right of religious freedom can override other people’s civil liberties, such as same-sex marriage equality.
That could set a dangerous precedent that would open the door for the justification of other civil liberties to be ignored for religious reasons. What happens when someone uses their religion to justify to not letting people of certain races or other religions into neighborhoods and establishments?
Second, this majority conservative court has been overturning previous cases that had a progressive ruling. The clearest example of this is how SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade in June of 2024. Overturning previous case law sets the idea that SCOTUS can just throw out old precedents that they are not politically aligned with.
This is a win reaffirming marriage equality for same-sex couples and limiting the scope of religious protections so they cannot be used to trample other peoples’ rights.
Christopher Sprague can be reached at [email protected].