# Kim Davis asks Supreme Court to overturn gay marriage ruling of 2015
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [August 11, 2025, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943 "2025-08-11T21:51:35Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 4
### Author:  [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2025, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943/61 "2025-08-12T02:19:51Z")
We’ve now have had two threads discussing this. IIRC the official mod position is
it depends
---
### Author:  [@MonkeysBrother](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MonkeysBrother)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2025, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943/62 "2025-08-12T02:33:58Z")
I’m idly curious as to who is bankrolling Ms. Davis in this effort.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2025, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943/63 "2025-08-12T03:18:24Z")
Depends on what? The time of day? The weather? The color of your umbrella? The price of condensed milk in Malaysia? Would you mind revealing just a bit more of The Official Mod Position so it doesn’t look so damn fickle?
---
### Author:  [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2025, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943/64 "2025-08-12T05:01:37Z")
> [@MonkeysBrother](#):
>
> I’m idly curious as to who is bankrolling Ms. Davis in this effort.
The Future Republic of Gilead.
Stranger
---
### Author:  [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2025, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943/65 "2025-08-12T05:16:07Z")
Pfffft. Kim Davis, Bible thumper, made the news, ho-hum. Distraction news. She has no case for county or state, let alone the dopey SCOTUS.
---
### Author:  [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2025, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943/66 "2025-08-12T05:58:53Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> I think her logic is if _Obergefell_ was ruled on incorrectly and is overruled then it reverses her court loss.
AIUI, her court loss and the considerable costs thereof stem from Kentucky state or county law. Such laws were made mandatory by _Obergefell_, but overturning _Obergefell_ wouldn’t invalidate them, not even if Kentucky later decided to take them off the books. The legal opinions I’ve seen suggest that Kim Davis doesn’t have a hope in hell of reversing her court loss. All that overturning _Obergefell_ would accomplish is regressing American society and causing pain and distress for a lot of innocent people.
---
### Author:  [@OttoDaFe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OttoDaFe)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2025, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943/67 "2025-08-12T06:23:35Z")
> [@wolfpup](#):
>
> … All that overturning _Obergefell_ would accomplish is regressing American society and causing pain and distress for a lot of innocent people.
Which would warm the cockles of the hearts of Ms Davis and her ilk, were they (the cockles) not frozen solid — not to mention shriveled to the point that the pre-Whohille Grinch’s looked humongous.
---
### Author:  [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2025, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943/68 "2025-08-13T06:28:12Z")
> [@We\_re\_wolves\_not\_werewolves](#):
>
> “Marriage” was historically a union between a man and a woman. If you define “marriage” that way, the argument that it is a fundamental right is much stronger, and probably not contestable. After all, societies have recognized marriages for thousands of years. That is why anti-miscegenation laws rightfully were outlawed. They were denying a man and a woman the right to marry based on the color of their skin, an obvious violation of the equal protection clause.
If you consider “X was historically…” a valid legal argument for overturning a Supreme Court decision, virtually every decision that granted someone a right they had previously been denied is on the table. And indeed some current Supreme Court justices have already indicated they’d like to “revisit” a number of them. Which seems pretty damn activist to me.
And marriage in America was “historically” between people of the same race too.
---
### Author:  [@Toxgoddess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Toxgoddess)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2025, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943/69 "2025-08-14T11:12:51Z")
Historically and in many societies men have taken multiple wives. There has been a very limited allowance for that here based on religion; but if we are using “historically” as our guide, then shouldn’t any man anywhere have the right to multiple wives, regardless of his religion or lack thereof?
---
### Author:  [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2025, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943/70 "2025-08-14T17:58:26Z")
> [@Toxgoddess](#):
>
> but if we are using “historically” as our guide, then shouldn’t any man anywhere have the right to multiple wives, regardless of his religion or lack thereof?
If we use “historically”, any person not conforming to the approved religion is, at best, untrustworthy scum with no rights and, at worst, a dead heretic.
---
### Author:  [@Toxgoddess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Toxgoddess)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2025, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943/71 "2025-08-14T18:27:27Z")
So MAGA is good with it then.
---
### Author:  [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2025, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943/72 "2025-08-14T18:29:58Z")
> [@Toxgoddess](#):
>
> shouldn’t any man anywhere have the right to multiple wives, regardless of his religion or lack thereof?
It would certainly bring real benefits to mistresses everywhere, especially if the primary wife’s consent was not required. And it would be a boon to the wedding industry. And if powerful men have more wives than their share, it leaves a surplus of young men for the military-industrial complex to chew up. What’s not to like?
---
### Author:  [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2025, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943/73 "2025-08-14T22:45:15Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> Let’s take religion out of the equation. Would it be constitutional for a state to tell me that I can enter into a contract to have a woman dig a well for me, but it would not be a legal contract if I made it with another man?
I think this is an excellent question that I don’t think anyone addressed. @We_re_wolves_not_werewolves, care to take a stab at it?
---
### Author:  [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2025, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943/74 "2025-08-15T00:04:01Z")
> [@RitterSport](#):
>
> > [@Saint\_Cad](#):
> >
> > Let’s take religion out of the equation. Would it be constitutional for a state to tell me that I can enter into a contract to have a woman dig a well for me, but it would not be a legal contract if I made it with another man?
>
> I think this is an excellent question that I don’t think anyone addressed.
To be clear, marriage is a special kind of contract under the law which offers particular privileges (legal shield from criminal testimony, inheritance rights, special tax status, et cetera, alimony), requires court action to dissolve even if uncontested by both parties, and historically allowed a husband legal authority over financial and political affairs of the wife. So, it isn’t an ordinary contract involving the exchange of money, goods, or services; it is more akin to a business partnership with some very rigorous bylaws and unique legal exceptions.
The US Constitution says nothing explicit about marriage so any basis in federal statute law comes from the “full faith and credit” clause of Article IV, Section 1 and ‘Due Process’ and protection of ‘fundamental rights’ provisions of the 14th Amendment; everything else is state and common law, or derived from privacy and freedom of expression rights. Whether a state can or cannot reject petition of same sex marriage very much depends in whether it is classified as a ‘fundamental right’, but states are required to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages which are lawfully joined in other states (unlike civil unions which do not necessarily offer the same protections).
As a matter of social norms same sex marriage has become accepted as law or is in process of being legalized in much of the developed world, or else nations have given marriage-like protected status to civil unions. Of course. legal or no, same sex partnerships with a shared household, children (from previous marriages, partnerships, or adoptees of orphaned extended family) have existed throughout history and tacitly accepted in many cosmopolitan societies albeit without financial and custodial protections in law.
It is not for Kim Davis, a civil servant whose job is to issue licenses and documents per the law, to adjudicate what is or is not legally permissible either through the precepts of her religious beliefs or interpreted through the filter of ‘tradition’. She has no legal standing to do so, and frankly if she was in fundamental disagreement with the legal requirements of her job she should have resigned in protest. Fuck her and the people standing with her expressing her ‘right’ to arbitrarily impose her morals by blocking the lawful actions of others.
Stranger
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2025, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943/75 "2025-08-15T00:29:56Z")
> [@Gyrate](#):
>
> And marriage in America was “historically” between people of the same race too.
Heck, for that matter, the vast majority of marriages, historically, were entered into before 1950. There you go: Justification that no marriage since 1950 should be regarded as valid.
---
### Author:  [@We\_re\_wolves\_not\_werewolves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/We_re_wolves_not_werewolves)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2025, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943/76 "2025-08-15T01:01:04Z")
It’s a bit of an oddly worded question, but that would be a sex based discrimination case, which would result in a court presumably applying “intermediate scrutiny” to see if it survives an equal protection challenge. For a law that discriminates based on sex to be upheld, the unequal treatment must “substantially relate” to an “important governmental objective”. This is a lower standard than the strict scrutiny that is applied for cases based on, e.g. race or religion. So, the state would have an uphill battle to articulate how such a law would meet the above requirements. My guess is that such a law would not survive such scrutiny.
---
### Author:  [@We\_re\_wolves\_not\_werewolves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/We_re_wolves_not_werewolves)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2025, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943/77 "2025-08-15T01:03:07Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> > [@Gyrate](#):
> >
> > And marriage in America was “historically” between people of the same race too.
>
> Heck, for that matter, the vast majority of marriages, historically, were entered into before 1950. There you go: Justification that no marriage since 1950 should be regarded as valid.
The courts don’t generally consider just U.S. practice to define whether something is a fundamental human right, they have historically looked more broadly to human civilization as a whole.
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2025, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943/78 "2025-08-15T01:07:40Z")
And in human civilization as a whole, the vast majority of marriages were prior to 1950.
---
### Author:  [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2025, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943/79 "2025-08-15T01:07:43Z")
I’ve changed my stance on Kim Davis. I say approve her request _provided the law also negates her marriage(s) which contradict Biblica standards is (are) also voided_.
_Aside: I had mistyped “Biblical” a “Biblican”. Now that I think about it, “Biblican” isn’t really wrong, after all._
---
### Author:  [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2025, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943/80 "2025-08-15T01:09:02Z")
> [@We\_re\_wolves\_not\_werewolves](#):
>
> My guess is that such a law would not survive such scrutiny.
Great. Now apply that reasoning to same sex marriage bans.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943.md?page=3)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ruling-of-2015/1021943.md?page=5)