The Supreme Court recently declined to move forward with a case that challenged its 2015 decision to legalize gay marriage nationwide. In the year of 2025, we yet again find ourselves having to defend something that should be beyond questioning.
Obergefell v. Hodges granted same-sex couples across the U.S. the right to marry in 2015. That decision was a milestone for gay rights, recognizing that marriage is about dignity, love, equal protection and the ability to build a family. The objecting 2025 case was brought by Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky, and has shown how fragile and more subject to change these rights still are, according to CNN.
In her petition this year, Kim Davis asked the Court to let her off the hook for refusing to issue marriage licenses for two men. She directly challenged Obergefell, arguing that she should not have to pay damages on free exercise of religion grounds for denying licenses to two men. Then, she went further — she asked the Court to overturn the entire 2015 ruling, according to NBC.
Past overturning of other milestones has paved the way for more Americans to feel comfortable in their bigotry. Davis’ legal team cited Justice Clarence Thomas in their case, who in a 2022 dissent in Roe v. Wade had urged the Court to reconsider Obergefell. Davis claimed her First Amendment rights protected her as a public official and lower courts rejected that, according to The Guardian.
It also signals to society at large that discrimination and bigotry can be argued as legitimate legal positions, which normalizes attacks on other vulnerable groups. A new study published in June 2025 has shown that states that restricted or banned abortion rights after Roe v. Wade’s 2022 overturning have seen thousands more incidents of intimate partner violence, according to Northeastern Global News.
Though Roe v. Wade was overturned under Biden’s Democratic administration, the ruling sent a message that long-established rights are never truly safe. It showed that court decisions can be undone when the political or judicial climate shifts and that precedent alone does not protect us. That environment emboldens individuals and officials like Kim Davis to test the boundaries of civil rights, believing they might succeed in undoing decades of progress.
When one milestone is overturned, it lowers the threshold for questioning others — making it clear that marriage equality, racial protections and other civil rights could be next if citizens and leaders do not remain vigilant.
The overturning of Roe v. Wade was not a spontaneous event under the Biden administration. It was the result of years of planning and judicial strategy under Trump’s 2016 presidency. By packing the courts with judges who had openly questioned Roe and by publicly attacking reproductive rights, the Trump administration created the conditions for Roe to fall. Though Democrats held the presidency and Congress at points, the courts were stacked in a way that allowed opponents of abortion to succeed when they were ready. Rights can be quietly dismantled over time, and administrations can lay the groundwork for future reversals even without passing new legislation.
Trump’s strategy has broader implications. By legitimizing challenges to settled civil rights, defending officials like Kim Davis and framing issues like same-sex marriage and abortion as religious liberty battles, Trump has slowly helped normalize a version of Christian nationalism in American politics. His agenda is about creating a culture where government and law are seen as instruments to enforce religious beliefs.
Every legal challenge, every brief in court and every appointment to the judiciary reinforces the idea that rights are conditional and that political power can be used to privilege one set of moral values over others. If this trend continues, it threatens not only LGBTQ+ equality and reproductive rights but also the broader principle of separation between church and state.
For couples who rely on Obergefell, married and unmarried, the mere thought of losing this right similarly to how Roe v. Wade was lost in 2022 is nothing short of terrifying. It shapes health care decisions, inheritance adoption, custody taxes and daily life. When the government gives room to challenge those rights, it causes fear and uncertainty in people’s lives.
When the Supreme Court declined Davis’ appeal Nov. 10, it did so without comment, according to NPR. On paper, this looks like a win for marriage equality. But the fact that this fight was even possible and that her brief openly asked to erase a decade-old right shows how fragile progress can be under an administration like our current one.
Though the Court turned down Davis’ appeal, the danger put in place by the Trump administration remains. The fact that Davis’ challenge made it this far reminds us that Obergefell is not untouchable. If we allow one historic right to be rolled back other landmark decisions could be at risk. Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage, could be next. Brown v. Board of Education and other landmark civil rights rulings could be questioned if we accept the idea that rights are temporary and up for debate. If we allow Obergefell to be questioned, it signals that no civil rights ruling is safe and attacks on equality for one group could quickly extend to others.
