Supreme court launches attack on gay marriage ahead of Amy Coney Barrett nomination
Two conservative justices made an unexpected statement attacking 2015 decision, causing alarm amongst campaigners
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.An unexpected statement by two Supreme Court justices dennouncing same sex marriage has caused alarm over the court’s direction even before Donald Trump’s appointment, Amy Coney Barrett, arrives on the bench.
Associate justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito argued on Monday that a landmark decision in 2015 enabling same sex couples to marry created “bigots” of “religious adherents”.
Their remarks came as the court declined to hear a a case brought by a former Kentucky county clerk, Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and was sued.
Agreeing with the court’s decision not to hear Davis’s appeal on the matter, Mr Thomas and Mr Alito called her request a “stark reminder of the consequences” of the court’s decision in Obergefell v Hodges, which paved the way for same sex marriage in the United States.
“By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem that only it can fix,” wrote Mr Thomas.
Alumni at Amy Coney Barrett’s undergrad school sign letter of concern over Supreme Court nomination 
'My bad': White House press secretary corrected in real time as she claims Amy Coney Barrett is Rhodes scholar
Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett tests negative for Covid-19
Amy Coney Barrett spoke at training programme that inspires ‘distinctly Christian worldview in every area of law’
“Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ‘ruinous consequences for religious liberty,” he continued, whilst claiming that Davis “may have been one of the first victims of this court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision” and warned: “She will not be the last.”
The voluntary four-page statement prompted dismay amongst LGBTQ campaigners, legal experts and lawmakers on Monday, with Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign, telling the Washington Blade that the Court believed LGBTQ rights to be “ruinous”.
“[It] proves yet again that a segment of the Court views LGBTQ rights as ‘ruinous’ and remains dead set against protecting and preserving the rights of LGBTQ peoples,” he argued.
Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, argued that Republicans were trying to remove LGBTQ rights and marriage equality.
Referring to Republican attempts to fast-track the confirmation of president Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, Mr Schumer wrote on Facebook that voters should "Make no mistake”
“This is what's at stake with Republicans trying to force through this illegitimate process. People's rights. Ending marriage equality. Stripping away LGBTQ+ rights. We are fighting to stop it."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments