Supreme Court rejects challenge to legalisation of same-sex marriage – BBC

U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Marriage Equality and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

A recent decision by the United States Supreme Court to decline an appeal in a case concerning same-sex marriage has significant implications for the advancement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By refusing to revisit the landmark 2015 ruling in Obergefell v Hodges, the court has effectively upheld the legal framework supporting marriage equality, directly impacting SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Case Background and Judicial Process

The appeal was brought by Kim Davis, a former county clerk who, in 2015, refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, citing a conflict with her religious beliefs. This action led to a civil rights lawsuit and subsequent legal proceedings that tested the balance between religious freedom and constitutional rights.

• Ms. Davis was sued by David Ermold and David Moore for violating their constitutional right to marry.
• A federal court rejected Ms. Davis’s argument that her religious beliefs protected her from liability, stating that an elected official cannot use their own constitutional rights to violate those of others.
• Lower courts, including the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, consistently ruled against Ms. Davis, resulting in a court order for her to pay $360,000 in damages.
• The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal finalizes the lower courts’ rulings.

Upholding Legal Precedent and Advancing SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The Supreme Court’s inaction reinforces the Obergefell v Hodges precedent, which is a cornerstone for legal equality for the LGBTQ+ community in the United States. This aligns directly with the objectives of SDG 10, which calls for reducing inequality within and among countries by empowering and promoting the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, or economic or other status.

1. Reinforcement of Equal Rights: The decision ensures that the constitutional right to marriage remains accessible to all couples, thereby reducing a significant legal inequality faced by the LGBTQ+ community.
2. Protection Against Discrimination: By letting the lower court’s decision stand, the judiciary affirms that public officials cannot use personal beliefs to discriminate against citizens and deny them legally protected rights.
3. Promotion of Social Inclusion: Legal recognition of same-sex marriage is a critical step toward the broader social inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals, a key target of SDG 10.

Intersection with SDG 5: Gender Equality

The principle of marriage equality is intrinsically linked to SDG 5 (Gender Equality). This goal aims to end all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere, a principle that extends to discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court’s decision supports this goal in several ways.

• It upholds a legal framework that challenges traditional gender norms and promotes equal rights in civil institutions.
• It ensures that legal rights and protections associated with marriage are not contingent on gender or sexual orientation, contributing to a more equitable society.
• The case underscores the importance of non-discriminatory laws in achieving full gender equality and empowering all individuals.

The Role of Judicial Institutions in Achieving SDG 16

This case serves as a clear example of the function of strong institutions, a central component of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The goal emphasizes the need for effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels to promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice for all.

The judicial process, from the initial federal court ruling to the Supreme Court’s final decision not to intervene, demonstrates the role of the judiciary in interpreting constitutional rights and resolving conflicts within society. By upholding established law that protects a minority group, the court system has acted as a crucial mechanism for ensuring justice and reinforcing the principle that the law applies equally to all citizens, thereby strengthening the institutional framework for human rights protection in the country.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article primarily addresses issues related to equality, justice, and the role of institutions, which directly connect to the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

   • SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: This goal is central to the article, which revolves around the fight for equal rights and non-discrimination based on sexual orientation. The case of the same-sex couple being denied a marriage license is a clear example of inequality that the legal system is being asked to address. The article highlights the struggle for “equal dignity in the eyes of the law” for LGBT individuals.
   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article is fundamentally about the functioning of the justice system and public institutions. It details a legal battle that progressed through multiple court levels, from a federal judge to the Supreme Court. It examines the rule of law, access to justice for a minority group, and the accountability of a public official (Kim Davis) who refused to perform her duties.
   • SDG 5: Gender Equality: While the case involves a male couple, the underlying principle is about ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is intrinsically linked to broader concepts of gender equality. SDG 5 aims to end all forms of discrimination, and legal frameworks that protect LGBTQ+ rights are crucial for challenging traditional gender norms and promoting equality for all.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the events described, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices. The article directly addresses this target. The refusal by Kim Davis to grant a marriage license was a discriminatory practice. The court’s decision to penalize her and the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal reinforces the elimination of such practices and upholds the legal precedent (*Obergefell v Hodges*) that ensures equal opportunity in marriage.
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The entire narrative illustrates this target in action. The couple, David Ermold and David Moore, sought and gained access to the justice system to challenge the violation of their constitutional rights. The courts, by ruling in their favor, promoted the rule of law over an official’s personal beliefs.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The case demonstrates the principle of holding public institutions and officials accountable. Kim Davis, in her capacity as Rowan County clerk, was held accountable for her actions. She was ordered to pay “$360,000 (£274,000) in damages and served six days in jail for contempt of court,” which shows the system enforcing accountability.
   • Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development. The legal battle is a clear example of the enforcement of a non-discriminatory law—the constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The civil rights lawsuit and its outcome are a direct enforcement mechanism against discriminatory actions by a state agent.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   The article does not cite specific quantitative SDG indicators, but it provides strong qualitative evidence that serves as a proxy for measuring progress:

   • Indicator for Target 10.3 / 16.b (Existence and enforcement of non-discriminatory laws): The primary indicator is the existence and affirmation of the *Obergefell v Hodges* ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage. The enforcement is demonstrated by the successful civil rights lawsuit filed by David Ermold and David Moore. The court’s decision to award damages is a tangible measure of this enforcement.
   • Indicator for Target 16.3 (Access to Justice): The ability of the couple to file a lawsuit and have their case adjudicated by a federal judge, an appeals court, and ultimately have the Supreme Court consider (and reject) the appeal, is a clear indicator of a functioning process for seeking remedy and justice. The final judgment in their favor confirms that the justice system provided a resolution.
   • Indicator for Target 16.6 (Accountable Institutions): The legal consequences faced by Kim Davis—serving jail time for contempt of court and being ordered to pay significant monetary damages—serve as a direct indicator of an accountable institution. It shows that an elected official cannot use their position to violate citizens’ constitutional rights without consequence. As Judge David Bunning wrote, “Davis cannot use her own constitutional rights as a shield to violate the constitutional rights of others while performing her duties as an elected official.”

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

Source: bbc.com