A recent lawsuit aims to challenge the legal foundation of same-sex marriage in the United States. The case, filed by Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace in Waco, Texas, seeks to overturn the landmark ruling established in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, which affirmed the right to same-sex marriage. Hensley contends that her Christian beliefs prevent her from officiating same-sex weddings and is represented by attorney Jonathan Mitchell, known for his role in formulating Texas’ abortion ban.
The lawsuit was lodged in the federal Western District of Texas on October 6, 2023. Hensley’s complaint reflects a significant shift in the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court since the Obergefell decision. Mitchell pointed out that Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the Obergefell opinion, has been replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who voted in favor of the decision, has been succeeded by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Mitchell’s filing underscores the potential for a re-evaluation of Obergefell, suggesting that the current court may not uphold the same legal standards as its predecessors. He stated, “It is far from clear that five members of the current Supreme Court will endorse Obergefell,” referencing the recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and dismissed the previous court’s approach to identifying fundamental rights.
The current Supreme Court comprises justices who have previously expressed dissent against Obergefell. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented in the 5-4 ruling that established same-sex marriage rights. With the recent personnel changes, it is reasonable to infer that a majority of today’s court may view the Obergefell decision unfavorably.
Despite the lawsuit’s implications, there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will consider overturning Obergefell. Last month, the court declined to review a petition from Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who has long opposed the Obergefell ruling. The procedural issues in Davis’s case did not necessitate a direct challenge to the Obergefell precedent, indicating that the justices may be cautious about revisiting this contentious issue.
The dismissal of Davis’s petition did not draw dissent from any of the justices, suggesting a consensus on not pursuing the matter further, at least for now. Hensley’s lawsuit could face a similar fate, as it reflects ongoing attempts to contest Obergefell, despite the legal landscape appearing increasingly challenging for those seeking to overturn it.
As the legal battle unfolds, Hensley’s case illustrates that the fight against same-sex marriage rights is far from over, despite the strong precedent established by Obergefell. With a legal strategist like Mitchell at the helm, there remains a concerted effort to reframe discussions around marriage equality in the United States, even as the road ahead appears steep.
