The Quiet Roar of Reaffirmation: Supreme Court Lets Same-Sex Marriage Stand, Again

In a move that felt both predictable and profoundly significant, the nation’s highest court has, once more, opted not to hear a direct challenge to the very foundation of same-sex marriage. It’s a decision, or rather, a non-decision, that effectively reinforces the landmark 2015 ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges, ensuring, for now at least, that marriage equality remains firmly ensconced as the law of the land.

You see, this wasn't the first time such a plea has landed on the Supreme Court's doorstep since Obergefell cemented the constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry across the United States. But each time, the justices have, by and large, demurred, allowing lower court rulings that uphold marriage equality to stand unchallenged.

This particular case hailed from Indiana, born from the fervent religious objections of a county clerk—not entirely unlike the situation with Kim Davis, if you recall, from a few years back. This clerk simply refused to process marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Her argument, essentially, was that her religious beliefs should exempt her from performing duties that, to her mind, endorsed something she morally opposed.

But here’s the thing about precedent and, honestly, the way the legal system tends to function: the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had already weighed in, decisively ruling against the clerk. The Appeals Court affirmed, quite clearly, that the Obergefell decision applies to everyone, public officials included. And when the Supreme Court declined to review that ruling, well, that 7th Circuit decision remained untouched, binding.

Of course, it wasn't a unanimous silence from the bench. As has become something of a pattern in these cases, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, articulating their long-held belief that Obergefell v. Hodges was, in their estimation, wrongly decided. They argue, in essence, that the court should revisit the entire premise, asserting that the case encroached upon religious liberty and state’s rights. But their voices, powerful as they may be, remain in the minority on this particular issue, at least for now.

It’s a subtle dance, isn't it? The court doesn't issue a grand new ruling; instead, its silence speaks volumes. By refusing to grant certiorari—the legal term for agreeing to hear a case—the Supreme Court allows the existing legal landscape to persist. For advocates of LGBTQ+ rights, this quiet refusal is, in truth, a resounding victory, a consistent message that the battle for marriage equality, fought and won, is not being reopened.

And so it goes. The right to marry, regardless of gender, remains woven into the fabric of American law, upheld not always by a thunderous declaration, but sometimes, by the simple, yet profound, act of letting things be.