The US Supreme Court issued an order declining to take up a case seeking to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case that granted same-sex couples the right to marry nationwide.
The case, brought by former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, argued that Davis’s First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion had been infringed upon by requiring her to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
One of those couples, David Moore and David Ermold, took Davis to court and were eventually granted $50,000 each, a decision upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in March. The Supreme Court declined both Davis’s petition to overturn that monetary award, as well as the broader question of same-sex marriage rights.
In Michigan, Attorney General Dana Nessel expressed relief for the decision, but noted that it would likely not be the last legal threat to same-sex marriage rights or Obergefell.
“I am relieved for today’s decision reaffirming same-sex couples’ continued right to dignity and protection under the law, but we cannot take those protections for granted,” she said in a press release. “Members of this Supreme Court have already told us they are willing to overturn Obergefell. It’s only a matter of time before they do.”
Michigan’s constitution currently has an explicit ban on same-sex marriage, which is not in effect because of the Obergefell decision. If federal courts were to overturn that, the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act would ensure that previous marriages, as well as same-sex marriages in other states, would have to be recognized by the state — but same-sex marriage would become illegal in Michigan.
Democrats in both the state House and Senate have introduced bills that would put forth ballot proposals to remove that language from the constitution, which if passed would make same-sex marriage legal even if federal courts overturned their decision from a decade ago.
State Sen. Jeremy Moss (D-Bloomfield Township) introduced a resolution on Thursday to do just that, while state Rep. Jason Morgan (D-Ann Arbor) introduced his version in the House in March, just after the appellate court’s decision in Davis’s case. Both specifically cited concerns about a future Supreme Court decision as influencing their decision to introduce the resolutions.
“Regardless of the outcome of Court action, it’s well past time to remove the discriminatory and, as of now, unconstitutional marriage ban language in our state’s constitution,” Moss wrote in a press release announcing the introduction of his resolution.
“Today’s victory allows us a reprieve, an opportunity to bring our state Constitution into alignment with the protections our residents are entitled to and have enjoyed for more than a decade,” Nessel’s press release continued. “Now is the time to act.”
