Could Same-Sex Marriage Be on the Line Again? WeHo Gets Ready to Rally

The day the Obergefell decision came down happened to be a couple of days after my partner and I were officially married at the Beverly Hills courthouse, ahead of our ceremony in Italy.  We didn’t plan it that way, but the timing felt right, a small, personal victory as the country seemed to finally be catching up.  For once, love and law were aligned, and the promise of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” finally included people like us.


Ten years later, we find ourselves back at a crossroads.  The Supreme Court is once again weighing whether love between two people deserves equal protection under the law.  Here in West Hollywood, a city built on inclusion, progress, and the freedom to be yourself, the idea that marriage equality could be rolled back feels unthinkable. Yet it’s happening in plain sight.

On Friday, justices met in private to decide whether to hear an appeal from Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who made headlines back then for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.  Davis was briefly jailed after defying a federal order to follow the law.  She lost her job, lost her reelection bid, and lost again in court this year, when a federal appeals panel ordered her to pay $360,000 in damages and legal fees.

Instead of accepting that outcome, Davis has turned to the same Court that once ruled against her. Her lawyers want the justices to wipe away that judgment and — if they’ll go that far — to overturn Obergefell entirely.

Legal experts call it a long shot, but the symbolism isn’t lost on anyone.  After the Court’s 2022 abortion ruling, the idea of revisiting settled rights doesn’t feel impossible anymore.

Here in West Hollywood, the news hits differently.  This city helped lead the early fight for marriage rights long before Obergefell.   When West Hollywood incorporated in late 1984, one of its first acts as a new city was to recognize same-sex relationships.  On February 21, 1985, just months after becoming a city, the newly formed City Council unanimously passed the Domestic Partnership Ordinance, creating one of the nation’s first legal registries for unmarried couples.

That ordinance, passed during the height of the AIDS crisis, gave same-sex partners limited rights and protections at a time when few governments would even say the words “domestic partnership.”  It became a model for other cities across the country and cemented West Hollywood’s reputation as a pioneer in LGBTQ+ equality.

Now, four decades later, that legacy matters more than ever. West Hollywood turned 41 this year, and the same spirit that drove those early decisions — inclusion, protection, and visibility — continues to define the city as leader on social justice and equality for all.   Strangely, or should I say sadly, something our country can’t manage to do consistently and completely. 

Earlier today, protesters gathered outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., demanding that justices “leave Obergefell alone.”  The demonstration was organized by Refuse Fascism and other groups who warned that a rollback of marriage equality would mark a new phase in the country’s culture wars.  A companion demonstration will take place at 4 p.m. Friday (today) at the corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and Robertson in West Hollywood, in solidarity with those calling on the Court to keep marriage equality intact.  

Insta: @refusefacismla
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1 Comment
Newest
Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Martin
Steve Martin
1 month ago

Davis believes that her personal beliefs should allow her to ignore the law in exercising her official duties, believing that she has a “Christian” veto. That just leads to chaos. I would start a sect saying that my followers would not have to pay taxes. God knows what kind of stupidity would ensue if the Supreme Court decides to negate the First Amendment’s separation of Church and State. I don’t think Chief Justice Roberts wants to be remembered as the Roger Taney of the modern Court.