Protecting Marriage Equality in the New Year - San Francisco Bay Times

"Late last December, Waco, Texas, Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley filed a federal lawsuit, claiming she had the right to refuse to marry same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs. As part of the lawsuit, she also argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell decision establishing nationwide marriage equality should be overruled. The filing garnered some headlines, reporting a new threat to Obergefell."

"One outlet termed Hensley "the new Kim Davis," referring to the notorious Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples for religious reasons back in 2015 and who last year asked the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell but was rebuffed. We take any effort to undermine marriage equality very seriously-indeed, no one should be trying to undercut our fundamental constitutional rights. And we look behind the headlines to try to understand the exact nature and status of any possible threat."

"The Dobbs majority, however, made clear: "to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion." The Court was explicit in saying that these rights and precedents include same-sex couples' fundamental right to marry recognized in Obergefell."

In late December, Waco Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley filed a federal suit claiming a right to refuse marrying same-sex couples on religious grounds and asking the Supreme Court to overrule Obergefell. Media compared Hensley to Kim Davis, who previously refused licenses and unsuccessfully sought Supreme Court reversal. The case generated concern but currently does not present a likely direct threat to Obergefell. Hensley relies on reasoning from Dobbs, but the Dobbs majority explicitly limited its holding to abortion and affirmed that it should not cast doubt on precedents like Obergefell, calling those assurances unequivocal.

Read at San Francisco Bay Times