Ellie Rheam ’27
On November 10, 2025, the United States Supreme Court made the monumental decision to turn down an appeal seeking to re-assess the constitutionality of same-sex marriages.
The appeal was filed by a former county clerk from Kentucky, Kim Davis, who is currently facing charges for not issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples. She reasoned that her religion didn’t allow her to issue the licences in question and is now facing major charges and large fines. Due to those repercussions, she appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking support of her beliefs and requesting that the ruling in the 2015 case Obergefell v. Hodges be overturned. Obergefell vs. Hodges, the landmark court case that established the constitutionality and legalization of marriages between members of the same sex nationwide, was passed by a vote of 5-4. While the case’s outcome was a major step towards legal equality for couples of the same sex, it did not fully resolve issues of discrimination and could still be overturned.
Currently, the Supreme Court has a 6-3 majority of conservative judges, which is only slightly different from the Supreme Court’s 5-4 majority of conservative judges in 2015. Even so, with both parties extremely polarized and rarely straying from their beliefs, there are fewer “swing votes,” which allow for more balanced and compromised rulings. The court’s balance, or lack thereof, produced a climate where many believed the case could go either way, despite the past ruling confirming the legality of same-sex marriage.
Will Newman, faculty advisor for the Upper School Queer Straight Alliance club at EA, notes that they are unfortunately not surprised that the constitutionality of these marriages is still being questioned, regardless of its previous acceptance legally, mentioning, “In this current political climate, I imagine that there are many couples who are not super keen to go to the courthouse.”
Kim Davis, the woman who made the appeal, has expressed that the reason she was not issuing the same-sex marriage licences was because it went against her religion. To that point, Newman comments, “If an aspect of her job challenges her ability to practice her religion, maybe she should question the line of work that she’s in.” Bella Winner ’28, mentions that she expected them to turn the appeal down, “just because [same-sex marriage] has been legal for a while,” while also expressing that she was slightly unsure “with the Supreme Court being more Republican now.”
Photo Courtesy of Reuters
Dr. Melanie Subacus, Classics Department Chair Head and Middle School QSA faculty advisor also brought up the point that if the court had decided to reopen the case and overturn it would have been widely frowned upon, noting, “regardless of political spectrum, in polls most people think that we should have same-sex marriage, so I don’t know if it would be popular.” Dr. Subacus also notes that she “wasn’t actually sure what was going to happen” regarding the appeal, but thinks that “it would take a lot to completely overturn it.”
Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision to not to re-open this case allows thousands of U.S. citizens in same-sex marriages to rest easy knowing their right to their relationship is still intact. Though the constitutionality of these marriages is clearly still being debated by some in the US, these couple’s rights cannot be denied by law. This court decision is another small step towards the continued acceptance of LGBTQ+ communities in the country.
