Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-926_5hdk.pdf
Page Number: 1

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2020) 

1 

Statement of THOMAS, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

KIM DAVIS v. DAVID ERMOLD, ET AL. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED 
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

No. 19–926.  Decided October 5, 2020

  The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. 
  Statement  of  JUSTICE  THOMAS,  with  whom  JUSTICE 
ALITO joins, respecting the denial of certiorari. 
  In Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015), the Court 
read  a  right  to  same-sex  marriage  into  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment,  even  though  that  right  is  found  nowhere  in 
the  text.    Several  Members  of  the  Court  noted  that  the 
Court’s decision would threaten the religious liberty of the 
many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred in-
stitution between one man and one woman.  If the States 
had been allowed to resolve this question through legisla-
tion,  they  could  have  included  accommodations  for  those 
who hold these religious beliefs.  Id., at 711 (ROBERTS, C. J., 
dissenting); id., at 734 (THOMAS, J., dissenting).  The Court, 
however,  bypassed  that  democratic  process.    Worse  still, 
though  it  briefly  acknowledged  that  those  with  sincerely 
held  religious  objections  to  same-sex  marriage  are  often 
“decent  and  honorable,”  id.,  at  672,  the  Court  went  on  to 
suggest  that  those  beliefs  espoused  a  bigoted  worldview, 
ibid.  See also id., at 670 (noting that such a view of mar-
riage  is  “demean[ing]”  to  gays  and  lesbians  because  it 
“teach[es] that gays and lesbians are unequal”); id., at 671 
(describing  the  view  of  marriage  dictated  by  the  religious 
beliefs of many as “impos[ing] stigma and injury”);  id., at 
675 (characterizing the traditional view of marriage as “dis-
respect[ful]” to gays and lesbians).  The dissenting Justices 
predicted that “[t]hese . . . assaults on the character of fair-
minded people will have an effect, in society and in court,” 
id.,  at  712  (opinion  of  ROBERTS,  C. J.),  allowing  “govern-
ments, employers, and schools” to “vilify” those with these