[This blog will always be free to read, but it’s also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: [email protected]. And if this is too big of a commitment, I’m always thankful for a simple cup of coffee.]

On Friday, the Supreme Court, in a private conference, will consider whether to take up a challenge to Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States.

The great Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog contextualizes for us:

As a general practice, the court does not grant review without considering a case at at least two consecutive conferences; this is the first conference in which Davis’ challenge will be considered. If the justices deny review, however, that announcement could come as soon as Monday, Nov. 10.

I would be lying if I said I’m not pessimistic about this. I believe the Court will grant review, and they will eventually overturn Obergefell. I don’t think the votes are there to stop it. I hope I’m wrong. If the Court does decline review in the coming weeks, I will be relieved and celebrating. But I don’t think I’m wrong.

It will be a tragic setback for LGBTQ rights—both here and globally—but fortunately, due to the leadership and foresight of Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and President Biden, the damage of that eventual overturning will be significantly mitigated.

Back in 2022, Senator Baldwin cobbled together a bipartisan majority in the Senate—which included twelve of her Republican colleagues—to overcome the filibuster and pass the Respect for Marriage Act, which was then signed by President Biden.

Among other things, it provided federally-enforced reciprocity between the states on the validity of same-sex marriage licenses. Basically, if and when Obergefell is overturned, the Respect for Marriage Act guarantees that marriage licenses issued in states where it’s legal are still valid in states where issuing them would be illegal.

So, if I get married to another woman in Massachusetts, that marriage license would still be valid in, say, my home state of Texas, where it would be illegal to issue them when Obergefell is overturned.

Obviously, this is a very imperfect protection because many same-sex couples living in states where it would be illegal to get married can’t afford to travel to a state where it would be legal. Imagine, alone, the implications of that in a medical emergency. Or in having parental rights. Not great.

Regardless, it’s a crucial backstop that will protect millions of LGBTQ families in our country, and I’m deeply grateful to Senator Baldwin and President Biden for getting it across the finish line. It’s hard to believe there were twelve Republican senators who went along with it just three years ago.

We’re in this sad situation—on the precipice of witnessing one of the most important advances in LGBTQ rights dissolved—because of Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses in the wake of the Obergefell ruling.

A lawsuit was filed against her by same-sex couples who were denied, which she lost in district court and eventually at the Supreme Court, and after she continued refusing to issue licenses, she was jailed for contempt.

Following her release from jail after five days and a promise not to interfere with the work of her deputy clerks, Ms. Davis had alternate forms created which removed her name and she refused to add her signature to marriage licenses. Although the legality of these licenses were recognized by the state, some wondered if they could still be challenged in other contexts (out-of-state) for lack of a clerk’s signature.

There’s an entanglement of lawsuits here I won’t get into, but the most germane here is that a same-sex couple—David Ermold and David Moore—originally denied a license by Ms. Davis sued her to recoup their legal fees, which was eventually upheld in federal court and ordered to be paid by the State of Kentucky. But the state refused to pay them and said that burden should fall on Ms. Davis.

Mr. Ermold and Mr. Moore also sued Ms. Davis for $100k in emotional damages, and a jury found in their favor in 2023.

So, that’s why we’re here and wondering if Obergefell will be overturned. Because in order for that to happen, someone would have to convince the Supreme Court that an unconstitutional burden has been placed on them by the legalization of same-sex marriages.

But there’d be no constitutional burden if Ms. Davis had carried out her duties as a county clerk because same-sex marriages don’t place a burden on anyone outside of those marriages.

We’re in this incredibly frustrating situation because Ms. Davis can lay claim to being the only person in America whom can, in theory, assert that she’s been burdened by Obergefell because of the legal fees she’s been ordered to pay (along with the jail time, emotional burden, etc).

All of this even though Ms. Davis brought it upon herself by neglecting her oath as a county clerk in favor of her religious views despite swearing to uphold the laws in a country guided by a constitution that guarantees freedom from religion.

She used her public office to force others to abide by her religious views and she got heavily penalized for it, and thus, she has a (ridiculous) argument for legal standing because of damages she incurred.

Ms. Davis has a curious relationship with her faith. As a Christian myself, I recognize all of us who follow Christ are vastly imperfect, but Ms. Davis is particularly dubious when it comes to Christ’s teachings.

She’s been divorced three times. Her second failed marriage included an affair she had with the man who would become her third husband and the father of twins she birthed during that second failed marriage. She later divorced that third husband and remarried the second one. Four marriages, three divorces.

I’m not here to judge Ms. Davis for her track record on shattered nuptials and broken commitments before God. That’s not my place, and it never will be. I have always maintained that whatever consenting adults want to do is none of my business.

People should have sex with whom they want and marry whom they want and divorce whom they want, and at no point should my opinion on any of that be taken into consideration, let alone be the basis for any law. My religious views are for my personal life alone, and I should mind my own business.

Ms. Davis does not feel that way. She dismisses critics who point out her own imperfect journey, claiming her sins have been washed away by God’s salvation, liberating her to stand in punitive judgment of anyone she believes to be imperfect in the eyes of God.

I do not believe this is because Ms. Davis has an enduring faith in God. Quite the opposite. Her actions reflect a deep insecurity over her own faith and a relentless need to have her religious views validated by everyone around her in order to assuage that insecurity.

Kim Davis is the kind of Christian whom requires the irritation of her doubts to be calamine’d not by the perfect love and understanding of God but by the unyielding resignation of strangers’ personal lives to her religious purity, and while she does so, her own religious impurity should be met only with endless grace.

Grace for me but not for thee.

Ms. Davis is not someone with strong faith, but moreover, she is clearly not a happy person, and it is somehow the obligation of everyone else to sacrifice themselves for her spiritual validation and personal happiness.

I genuinely feel bad for her. I can’t imagine spending my life in the constant pursuit of ensuring every other adult is miserable so that my wobbly faith can be duck-taped together with the unnecessary pain of strangers.

I pray she finds peace somewhere because it’s abundantly clear she’s not seeking it from God.

Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Get full access to Charlotte's Web Thoughts at charlotteclymer.substack.com/subscribe