On Nov. 10, the Supreme Court declined to hear Davis v. Ermold, a case that sought to overturn the 2015 same-sex marriage ruling, Obergefell v. Hodges.
Although this is positive news, it’s frustrating that our country still prioritizes debating LGBTQ+ rights before addressing life-altering issues such as the longest government shutdown, a climate crisis and lapsing SNAP benefits. The country that gives me the resources and freedom to be myself now feels like it’s undoing its own progress.
In just 10 years, the legalization of same-sex marriage was at risk of being overturned based on religious beliefs. The case began in Rowan County, Kentucky, when Kim Davis refused to issue a marriage license to the same-sex couple, David Ermold and David Moore.
The couple filed a lawsuit for the violation of their rights and were awarded $100,000 in damages. She believed her refusal was an exercise of her First Amendment rights.
Mat Staver, the founder and chairman of conservative legal group Liberty Counsel, argued on Davis’ behalf in front of a three-judge panel with the intention of overturning marriage equality.
Davis, Staver and their lawyers argued Davis was exercising her rights by refusing to issue the license; however, the judges found her liable for state action. She countersued for her case, hoping to end marriage equality.
In a country proud of its freedom, the fact that this case even reached the Supreme Court reflects a lack of morals and ethics, both socially and legally. Equality should be protected, not still be treated as a topic to debate, especially with religion being the deciding factor. The prevention of the government from establishing or favoring a religion is protected under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
However, now Texas has made changes so that same-sex marriage is legal, but judges can refuse to perform same-sex marriages based on religious belief. This undermines the freedom protected under the Establishment Clause by directly contradicting the principle that separates church and state.
“It’s grossly illegal and that is definitely a signal to the world to step back into the darkness rather than embrace the light that we’ve been living in for a while,” Lavender Lions president Nathaniel Fontaine said about the Supreme Court’s possible decision to take Davis v. Ermold.
I admire the generations that came before me, who paved the way for us to live in the light. Despite our differences, minority groups have long fought for the rights we currently enjoy and those that all humankind deserves.
In my experience, I was a person who never saw marriage in my future because my perspective was that I had to be bound to a man. Needless to say, I’ve always been independent, seeking success in my career and providing for myself.
The discovery and understanding of my sexuality felt like a restart in my life, allowing me to envision a future with marriage and children. Within my lifetime, same-sex marriage has been legalized; a right I was guaranteed was just in jeopardy of being taken away, and still could be. My sexuality is not a deciding factor for deserving basic human rights. This piece of me can go unnoticed, but it doesn’t deserve to be hidden.
This nation is supposed to be a place of unity, freedom, advancement, and protection, yet it is failing to fulfill that dream.
Louis White • Nov 19, 2025 at 9:04 am
I hear two themes that make what otherwise is a good and valid argument fall apart.
The first is the incorrect belief that the Constitution deems a separation of church and state. It does not. What it does prevent is a State Mandated Religion or Church such as the Church of England. Which the original pilgrimage risked their lives to escape from.
The second is the premise that marriage is a union between people who have a sexual attraction. Marriage is a Union between a man and a woman as a moral measure to promote procreation. It is a moral principle from biblical principles.
Why some felt the Civil Union was not sufficient and had to push for “marriage” designation and therefore ridicule another’s religious beliefs is beyond me. That is what is creating the division we have today.
Society by and large accepted the same gender union. Which is based upon Government not religious beliefs.
Marriage is performed and blessed by religious beliefs. There was no government involvement in marriage at its inception. And none required in states that recognize common law marriages.
The Civil Union is a wholly separate union created by the state. Again its inception was primarily for procreation and to protect the rights of the women and children. But for those without religious beliefs. Therefore upholding Religious Freedom or lack thereof.
The States were and are free to choose to modify it to include same sex marriage.
It took a bit for the majority of Americans to accept same gender marriages.
The Civil Union was lacking in certain protections. Those could have been addressed without depreciating one’s religious beliefs and creating the division we have today.
But as the States maintain their Sovereignty, and marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is a matter reserved to the States and people respectively.
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction!
They do not have the right to force a State to force a individual or business to go against their religious beliefs.
But it is one of many cases where the Government, via one or more Branches have usurped rights or power where none is granted by the consent of the governed.