Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk whose refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples made headlines, is back in the spotlight. Despite the assumption that her time in the news had passed, Davis is challenging a significant court ruling that required her to compensate a same-sex couple $100,000 for her actions. This appeal, which calls for the overturning of the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, has reignited concerns among advocates of marriage equality.

The Supreme Court's current composition has shown a willingness to revisit and potentially overturn established precedents, as evidenced by recent decisions that have upended long-standing rights. The justices' readiness to reconsider the Obergefell decision is particularly alarming, given the explicit calls from Justices such as Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas to reevaluate rulings related to marriage equality and other personal liberties.

In 2020, both Alito and Thomas criticized the Obergefell decision for its "ruinous consequences for religious liberty." This perspective was further solidified by Alito's majority opinion in the Dobbs case, which overturned reproductive rights precedents and drew disturbing parallels with the Obergefell ruling, suggesting it was not “deeply rooted in history.”

Despite these ominous signs from the Supreme Court, some voices remain hopeful. Legal experts like Mary Bonauto, who represented Jim Obergefell, argue that the Court should uphold the positive impacts of marriage equality for families and society at large. However, with a majority of the Supreme Court potentially leaning against precedent, this optimism faces a harsh reality check.

Public opinion continues to support marriage equality, with recent polls showing that 69% of Americans view it as beneficial for society. However, the current Supreme Court has demonstrated a tendency to make decisions that reflect its own conservative vision rather than the will of the majority.

In response to these developments, states like California and Hawaii have taken steps to safeguard against any potential reversal of marriage equality. Legal professionals are also gearing up to protect the rights of couples through contractual agreements, anticipating that the legal landscape might shift unfavorably.

As the situation develops, the urgency for those supporting marriage equality to mobilize and prepare for a significant legal battle has never been clearer. The coming months could determine whether the progress made over the past decade will stand or be undone, making it a critical time for advocacy and action in defense of marriage equality.