The Path to Restoring Biblical Marriage: The Kim Davis Case and the Potential Overturning of Obergefell v. Hodges

By Collin M. Hain

Chief Operations Officer

In a time when cultural pressures challenge the timeless truths of Scripture, the institution of marriage—ordained by God as the sacred union between one man and one woman—remains a cornerstone of our faith and societal stability. For believers, the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges represented government overreach, redefining marriage in ways that contradict natural law, biblical teachings, and the will of millions of Americans. Today, however, we approach a pivotal moment in legal history with the case of Kim Davis, a Christian who stood firm in her biblical convictions on marriage. The case could offer a renewed hope of restoring freedom of conscience. Let’s the Obergefellruling, the details of Davis's case, what is currently before the Supreme Court, and the potential effects of a historic reversal.

TL;DR Facts:

• What Was Obergefell?: A 5-4 ruling mandating recognition of same-sex marriage nationwide under the 14th Amendment, overriding voter-approved laws in 31 states that upheld marriage as one man and one woman. It was seen as judicial overreach, ignoring democracy and encroaching on closely held and historical religious beliefs.

• Secular/Legal Flaws: No constitutional mention of marriage means states should decide. Dissenters like Chief Justice Roberts called it "judicial will," not judgment. Government recognizes marriage for societal benefits like family stability, not to redefine it.

• Kim Davis's Stand: As a Kentucky county clerk and devoted Christian, she refused to issue same-sex licenses in her name in 2015, citing her faith (Acts 5:29). Jailed briefly, sued, and hit with more than $100,000 in damages, courts denied her immunity in 2025. Her’s is a story of faithfulness against persecution.

• Current Supreme Court Action: Davis petitioned the Supreme Court in August 2025 to overturn Obergefell via her case (Docket 25-125). Justices discuss hearing it on November 7, 2025. With a conservative majority, conservatives are hopeful.

• If Overturned?: States regain control, potentially reviving bans in 32 states. Protects believers from lawsuits, boosts religious freedoms, and promotes stable families for kids.

What Did the Obergefell Ruling Actually Do?

To dive deeper, let’s start in June 2015 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. This decision didn't just allow same-sex marriage; it mandated that all states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize such marriages performed in other states. Prior to Obergefell, marriage laws were largely decided at the state level, with many states—through voter referendums or legislatures—defining marriage in the historic and traditional definition as between one man and one woman, reflecting the biblical model found in Genesis 2:24.

Obergefell was not a victory for equality but an act of judicial legislation that imposed a secular redefinition of marriage on the nation. It sidelined the democratic process, overriding the voices of citizens in 32 states that had statutes protecting traditional marriage. Critics, including dissenting justices like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, argued that the ruling lacked a firm constitutional basis and encroached on religious liberties. Justice Thomas later suggested in his 2022 concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (which overturned Roe v. Wade) that cases like Obergefellshould be reconsidered, as they rely on the flawed doctrine of "substantive due process." This opened the door to the possibility of reversal, much like Dobbs returned abortion regulation to the states.

Even from a secular and legal standpoint, Obergefell has been criticized as an example of government overreach. The Constitution does not explicitly mention marriage, which has historically been a matter for states to consider. By imposing a nationwide definition, the Court effectively acted as a super-legislature, inventing a "fundamental right" to same-sex marriage recognition that isn't cited in the text. Chief Justice John Roberts, in his dissent, warned that the majority's decision celebrated "judicial will" over "judicial judgment," arguing, "The Court is not a legislature... Just who do we think we are?" Justice Samuel Alito echoed this, noting that the ruling usurped the democratic process and disregarded the traditional understanding of marriage that had prevailed for millennia. Legal scholars have pointed out that this overreach not only violated separation of powers but also set a dangerous precedent for judicial activism, where unelected judges impose policy preferences on the nation. Such arguments highlight how Obergefell disrupted the balance of power, forcing states to conform to a federal mandate without clear constitutional warrant.

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, we must recognize that government does not ultimately define marriage; it merely recognizes and regulates it for specific societal purposes. Marriage, as an institution, predates government itself—rooted in natural law and human biology, it exists to foster stable unions for procreation, child-rearing, and mutual support. Governments have historically acknowledged marriage to promote these public goods, such as encouraging responsible parenthood and societal stability. Redefining marriage through judicial decree ignores this reality, treating it as a malleable social construct rather than a pre-political reality designed for human flourishing. From a secular perspective, this means government's role should be limited to incentivizing behaviors that benefit society, not rewriting fundamental human institutions to fit contemporary ideologies.

For everyday Americans, Obergefell meant that government officials, businesses, and even churches could face pressure to affirm same-sex unions, potentially at the cost of their deeply held religious beliefs. It shifted marriage away from a Divine-given institution designed for the glory of God, procreation, family stability, and societal good.

The Kim Davis Case: A Stand for Faith in the Face of Persecution

Kim Davis, the former county clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, became the face of the fight for religious liberty in the wake of Obergefell. As a devout Christian, Davis believed that issuing marriage licenses in her name to same-sex couples would violate her faith by endorsing something contrary to God's design for marriage.

This decision led to a high-profile legal battle. Several same-sex couples, including David Ermold and David Moore, sued Davis for denying them licenses. A federal judge ordered her to comply, and when she refused, she was briefly jailed for contempt of court in September 2015—a stark example of how the government can punish believers for living out their faith. Kentucky's legislature later passed a law removing clerks' names from marriage licenses to accommodate religious objections, but the damage was done. Davis faced ongoing lawsuits alleging she violated the couples' constitutional rights under Obergefell.

The case progressed through the courts. In 2022, a district judge ruled that Davis had indeed violated the rights of the plaintiffs. A jury awarded $100,000 in damages in 2023, and additional attorneys’ fees were added in early 2024. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision in March 2025, rejecting Davis's claims of qualified immunity (a legal protection for officials acting in good faith). Qualified immunity would have shielded her if the law was unclear at the time, but the appeals court held that Obergefell clearly established the right to same-sex marriage.

Davis's story is one of heroic faithfulness amid cultural hostility. Faithful believers and patriots have long championed similar causes, advocating for laws that protect religious freedom. They’ve emphasized that government should not force individuals to violate their conscience, advocating for safeguards for believers in public service. Davis's refusal wasn't about hate but about honoring God above man, as in Acts 5:29: "We must obey God rather than men."

What Is Actually Up for Ruling?

As of October 23, 2025, Davis's case has reached the U.S. Supreme Court. In August 2025, she filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in Davis v. Ermold, asking the justices to review the 6th Circuit's ruling. The core issue is whether Davis is entitled to qualified immunity, but her petition goes further: It explicitly calls for the Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, arguing that the 2015 decision was wrongly decided and lacks constitutional grounding.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to discuss whether to grant certiorari—meaning, whether to hear the case—at their private conference on November 7, 2025. If granted, oral arguments could follow in early 2026, with a decision by summer. Not all petitions are accepted, however, with a conservative majority (6-3) that has shown willingness to revisit precedents like Roe, there's hope among conservatives. Justices Thomas and Alito have previously expressed doubts about Obergefell, and this case could provide the vehicle to address them.

Importantly, the ruling wouldn't automatically end all same-sex marriages nor same-sex marriage rights, but could challenge the nationwide mandate, similar to how Dobbs returned abortion to state control.

What Would the Effects Be If Obergefell Is Overturned?

If the Supreme Court grants certiorari and ultimately overturns Obergefell, the effects could be transformative for religious freedom and family policy. First, marriage definition would return to the states, allowing legislatures and voters to reaffirm traditional marriage. Currently, 32 states have dormant bans on same-sex marriage that could be revived. This would empower communities to align laws with their values, rather than having them dictated by unelected judges.

For people like Kim Davis, it would vindicate religious objectors, potentially shielding clerks, bakers, photographers, and others from lawsuits for declining to participate in same-sex unions and celebrations. Broader protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could strengthen, fostering a society where faith isn't sidelined.

On the family front, conservatives argue this would promote human flourishing by upholding marriage as the foundation for building families and raising children in stable, complementary households.

In essence, overturning Obergefell would be a step toward restoring God's design for marriage in law, encouraging a cultural renewal derived from Scripture. As believers, we pray for wisdom for the justices of the Supreme Court. The Danbury Institute stands committed to defending biblical truths in the public square.