The right to equal marriage in the United States, which seemed like an achievement already consolidated since 2015, is once again under the spotlight. All because of the appeal of Kim Davis, a former official in Kentucky who a decade ago refused to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. His case will reach the Supreme Court this fall and could reopen a debate that was thought to be closed.
A case that does not go unnoticed
Davis was fined more than $360,000 and spent six days in jail for contempt. For her, her refusal was protected by the First Amendment, which protects religious freedom. His lawyers claim that the 2015 ruling—the historicObergefell v. Hodgeswhich recognized the right to marriage equality—was “legally erroneous” and should be reviewed.
What is most worrying is the current scenario: the Supreme Court is no longer the same as in 2015. It now has a clear conservative majority (6 versus 3 liberal judges), partly thanks to the appointments of Donald Trump. And the experience with Roe v. Wade, the ruling that guaranteed the right to abortion and was reversed in 2022, does not help calm fears.
The offensive against LGTBIQ+ rights
Davis’ case comes at a time of legislative setback in several states. Nine legislatures have promoted initiatives this year that seek to limit or even eliminate equal marriage in their territories. Theirs thus becomes the first serious appeal to reach the Supreme Court since 2015 with the direct intention of reversing Obergefell.
However, lower courts have already made clear that religious freedom does not exempt an official from following the law. In other words: Davis was not acting as a private citizen, but as a representative of the State.
What role does Trump play?
Donald Trump‘s position on this issue has always been ambiguous. Over the years, he has gone from supporting civil unions to outright rejecting marriage equality, then saying he accepted it as a “fait accompli.” Even so, his judicial appointments have strengthened the conservative bloc and, indirectly, have given more strength to those who seek to reverse already recognized rights.
A scenario like Roe vs. Wade?
Comparisons are inevitable. In both cases, we are talking about rights recognized by the Supreme Court through broad constitutional interpretations. If the abortion script were repeated, equal marriage would not disappear overnight, but it would remain in the hands of each state. This would open a huge crack: getting married in New York would be possible, but not in Texas, for example.
Probabilities and realities
Most experts believe an immediate repeal is unlikely. The doctrine of stare decisis (respect for precedents) remains a major deterrent, and many state and federal laws already recognize marriage equality. Additionally, the Respect for Marriage Act of 2022 requires all states to recognize marriages legally celebrated anywhere in the country.
Even so, the concern exists: the Supreme Court could establish new legal bases that, without eliminating the right now, facilitate future attacks.
According to Gallup, support for equal marriage remains around 70% of the population. It’s a high number, but growth has stagnated in recent years. This stability can be interpreted in many ways: is it a solid consensus or a sign that conservative sectors have room to push for setbacks without losing too much political capital?
Some analysts warn that cases like that of Kim Davis are not only questions of faith or rights, but also political instruments. Reopening this debate can serve certain sectors to mobilize their bases, distract from other issues or reinforce identity narratives. The risk is that equal marriage is used as a bargaining chip on an ideological board, leaving the real people whose lives depend on these decisions in the background.
The Davis case is not just an individual appeal. It is a litmus test to know how far the Supreme Court is willing to go in reviewing already consolidated civil rights. The immediate result may not be devastating, but the questions it opens are: are we facing a new attempt to curtail freedoms? Or will American society be able to uphold marriage equality once and for all?
