A decade after she was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis was back in the spotlight. This time she petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Davis was appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages, along with $260,000 in attorneys’ fees, awarded to David Ermold and David Moore, the couple she denied a marriage license in 2015. The case drew national attention, with Davis urging SCOTUS to reverse itself on marriage equality, just as it did on abortion.
As the case headed to the nation’s highest court, New Jersey LGBTQ advocates were reassuring residents about state-level protections and had prepared for potential federal rollbacks of marriage equality. Joe Forte of the NJ LGBT Democratic Caucus and Lauren Albrecht, Senior Director of Advocacy and Organizing at Garden State Equality, emphasized the state’s unique legal position in a joint statement addressing the current climate back in October.
“New Jersey law explicitly recognizes marriage equality and prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity,” they explained. “Even if federal protections were weakened, these state-level laws ensure that same-sex marriages remain legally valid, and couples retain the same rights and responsibilities as opposite-sex couples.” The advocates highlighted New Jersey’s proactive approach, noting that the state “has not just allowed for same-sex marriage, but in 2022 explicitly codified into law the right for adults to marry any other adult.”
However, Forte and Albrecht acknowledged ongoing challenges where federal and state jurisdictions intersect. “While New Jersey has robust protections, gaps can remain in areas like adoption, parental rights, and certain healthcare decisions — particularly where federal law or policies intersect with state law,” they noted. This reality drives their continued political engagement. “For these reasons, we focus on electing the right representatives to office that will have the ability to make bold policy and legal decisions to protect all LGBTQ populations in the state, particularly our transgender and nonbinary youth.”
In marriage and family law, New Jersey advocates have worked to strengthen protections for transgender individuals. Forte and Albrecht outlined the state’s progress. “New Jersey has expanded protections for transgender individuals, including recognition of gender identity in identification documents and anti-discrimination protections in employment, housing, healthcare, and public accommodations.”
Current legislative priorities focus on healthcare access and privacy. “At this time, we are focusing on supporting our legislature to pass further protections protecting access to, and data privacy of, gender affirming and reproductive healthcare.” The advocates also emphasized their comprehensive approach to building political power, noting that “the caucus helps train, recruit, and support LGBTQ+ candidates running for office at all levels, strengthening representation and advancing policies that protect equality.”
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) issued a stark warning about Davis’ Supreme Court petition before the recent refusal to hear the appeal. HRC said it was “incredibly worrisome” given that “several sitting justices and state legislatures have gone on record in support of overturning marriage equality.” The organization reminded supporters of the historical struggle, “So many HRC members fought hard for marriage equality — we joined together, state by state, to demand the right to love whom you love. We did not stay silent or stand in the shadows. Millions of allies took a stance.” HRC emphasized previous defensive victories, including its role in securing passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, but stressed vigilance in the future. “We must all act on our belief that LGBTQ+ rights and lives are beautiful and worth fighting for.”
The group also highlighted a troubling aspect of Davis’ legal representation as she was backed by Liberty Counsel, an organization the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated as an anti-LGBTQ hate group. HRC was fairly sure the Court would not move forward with the case. However they warned against complacency, “Our opponents are openly talking about rolling back marriage equality — and when they tell us what they are trying to do, we should believe them.”
Christian Fuscarino, Executive Director of Garden State Equality, expressed confidence in New Jersey’s protections. “Good news for New Jersey: same-sex couples are safe here. Marriage equality is the law of the land, and we are not going back into the shadows of discrimination. Not now. Not ever.” He credited proactive legislation. “In 2020, Garden State Equality successfully amended New Jersey’s statutes to enshrine this fundamental right for all couples and their families. And we’re not done.”
Looking toward future challenges still to come, Fuscarino underscored the group’s readiness. “If the U.S. Supreme Court dares to imperil marriage equality, we’re ready. We’ve got more fight in us than the Turnpike’s got traffic, and we’ll defend the LGBTQ community in every courtroom, every State House, and every street corner in America.”
Advocates also recognize New Jersey’s expanding role as other states enact restrictions. Forte and Albrecht noted the expectation of “becoming a state where people choose to live, instead of living in states with fewer civil rights protections, and working to make New Jersey more welcoming to new residents seeking safety and comfort.”
Grassroots networks reinforce this infrastructure even in traditionally conservative areas. “There are many local groups doing fantastic work to bring resources and community to those areas, such as Sussex County Pride, ACQA, Toms River Pride, and many others,” Forte and Albrecht said.
Project 2025 is a federal policy agenda and blueprint for a radical restructuring of the executive branch
While Davis’ case represents one legal challenge to marriage equality, it occured within the broader context of Project 2025, the comprehensive conservative policy blueprint that seeks to strip rights from the LGBTQ community in every direction, including reversing recent progressive policies. Project 2025 is a federal policy agenda and blueprint for a radical restructuring of the executive branch authored and published by former Trump administration officials in partnership with The Heritage Foundation. The plan represents a systematic approach to rolling back LGBTQ protections across federal agencies and programs.
Project 2025 calls for removing the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from “every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists”. This language erasure is designed to eliminate legal protections and recognition for LGBTQ individuals across the federal government. The plan includes firing federal employees that oppose or insufficiently support right-wing policies, ending access to abortion and contraception, and eliminating protections for LGBTQ people.
With Donald Trump’s return to the presidency in January 2025, parts of Project 2025 have already shifted from blueprint to reality. The administration now recognizes only two sexes on federal documents, such as passports, based on sex assigned at birth. It has dissolved the Gender Policy Council, reinstated the transgender military ban, and moved to strip anti-discrimination protections in healthcare and schools. Federal agencies have also begun removing LGBTQ related language and data collection efforts from federal agencies and reports.
Project 2025 envisions a federal government that denies the existence of transgender people, undermines the rights of same-sex married couples, and dismantles services for LGBTQ Americans wherever possible. The comprehensive nature of the conservative agenda extends beyond marriage equality to encompass healthcare access, employment protections, education policies, and family recognition.
Kim Davis’ recent case has shown that Project 2025 implementation continues. States like New Jersey are positioning themselves as both legal refuges and resistance centers. The combination of strong state-level protections, organized advocacy infrastructure, and political engagement represents a model for defending LGBTQ rights in an increasingly hostile federal environment.
For New Jersey residents and allies, advocates emphasize that engagement remains crucial. Forte and Albrecht encourage “contacting legislators, participating in local advocacy groups, attending public hearings, educating themselves and others, and amplifying LGBTQ+ voices in their communities,” noting that “grassroots engagement is key to strengthening protections.”
The convergence of Davis’ recent Supreme Court petition, Project 2025’s implementation, and state-level political battles represents a critical juncture for marriage equality and LGBTQ rights more broadly. While New Jersey advocates express confidence in their state’s protections, they recognize that the fight for equality continues on multiple fronts, requiring sustained political engagement and legal vigilance to preserve hard-won rights against an organized conservative campaign to roll them back.
