Supreme Court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex marriage ruling

[Matata]

Clarence Thomas mentioned when Roe was overturned that same sex marriage law was based on the same (what he considered incorrect basis) so I've no doubt he's chomping at the bit to hear this case and I've no doubt what his vote would be should SCOTUS decide to hear it. Kim Davis is a loathsome creature.

Supreme Court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex marriage ruling

10 years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to all same-sex couples, it will consider whether to take a case asking it to overturn the decision.

abcnews.go.com

 

[lala646]

My apologies if this offends anyone on here, but I can only hope she burns in the hell she ostensibly believes in, and sooner, rather than later.

 

[Gypsy]

I wish I could say I was surprised. But I am not.
I am saddened, enraged and impotent with both.

 

[Matata]

I am saddened, enraged and impotent with both.

Same here. The impotentcy is what bothers me most. I do what I can on the local level but the challenges are so numerous I get overwhelmed by negative thinking that no matter how much good is being done, the bad is winning.

 

[Calliecake]

When they went after abortion it was clear to many of us what the next targets would be. I wasn’t surprised to read this at all. just sickened and disgusted.

 

[kenny]

No words!

Just

 

[ShinyPink]

OMG don't get me started on this bullsh*t. Everything happening is disgusting, frustrating, annoying, sickening.....

 

[LightBright]

Clarence Thomas mentioned when Roe was overturned that same sex marriage law was based on the same (what he considered incorrect basis) so I've no doubt he's chomping at the bit to hear this case and I've no doubt what his vote would be should SCOTUS decide to hear it. Kim Davis is a loathsome creature.

Supreme Court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex marriage ruling

10 years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to all same-sex couples, it will consider whether to take a case asking it to overturn the decision.

abcnews.go.com

Read the article. It’s a First Amendment issue. The clerk was jailed in contempt of court, and awarded by a jury and ordered to pay $100,000 in “emotional damages” and $260,000 lawyers fees. Except for Clarence Thomas, none of the Conservative Supreme Court judges are interested in hearing this case. They won’t hear it, there is no risk to same sex marriage.

This County Clerk was released from jail when her staff starting issuing licenses on her behalf. Hence there was a solution all along. This County Clerk was not re-elected after this issue was brought to light, she lost in 2018.

I wish I could get $100,000 for emotional damages. And apparently lawyers put in hundreds of hours on this case that could have been settled out of court or with a compassionate or pragmatic boss.

I don’t believe public servants should be forced to do something that is against their religious beliefs. A better option for all involved would have been impeaching this County Clerk or getting someone to process same sex marriage applications for her. They do this with abortion providers and circumcision in the medical profession. They provide individuals who cannot perform a legal task due to personal beliefs, with an administrative out.

Instead her County forced her to go against her religious beliefs with no workaround, until there was an example made of her: the authorities put her in jail and a jury trial required her to pay the equivalent of many years of salary. All to warn other dissenters and punish her for being Christian. They didn’t have to do this, IMO.

Lawyers for same sex marriage rights also sued a bakery in Colorado and got all the way up to the Supreme Court. Then when the baker WON in the Supreme Court on an unrelated (non First Amendment) issue, they sued him AGAIN for refusing to make a Transgender birthday cake. That second case made it up to Superior Court in Colorado.

It’s out of hand. This lawsuit will go nowhere because the courts, including the Supreme Court consistently don’t want to decide on which takes priority, First or 14th Amendment Rights.

“The Supreme Court, in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges, ruled that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person and is protected by the Due Process Clause. This ruling effectively struck down state-level bans on same-sex marriage.”

20 years of marriage rights for same-sex couples. Research disputes apocalyptic fears

Twenty years after the first legal U.S. same-sex marriages, some LGBTQ+ advocates are embracing groundbreaking research finding "consistently positive" social benefits.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Rockdiamond]

If only there were a "lab-grown" Supreme Court, so WE could buy them!!!
The current "natural" ones must have cost billions

 

[telephone89]

I don’t believe public servants should be forced to do something that is against their religious beliefs...Instead her County forced her to go against her religious beliefs with no workaround, until there was an example made of her: the authorities put her in jail and a jury trial required her to pay the equivalent of many years of salary. All to warn other dissenters and punish her for being Christian.

If this was any other religion, this wouldn't be allowed. You are hired to do a job. You know the parameters of the job. Public servants work for the PUBLIC. Not just the people that follow the same religion. If she isn't fit to do her job, she shouldn't have it (which thankfully she lost). You can't work at home depot and refuse to sell lumber to black people, how is this any different? No one is punishing her for her religion, she was punished because she's a bigot who refused to do her job.

Sounds like you would also agree with the states who now say doctors and nurses don't need to treat people they disagree with? Like an unmarried 35 year old pregnant woman being refused treatment because her provider didn't like that she got preggo out of wedlock?

 

[LightBright]

If this was any other religion, this wouldn't be allowed. You are hired to do a job. You know the parameters of the job. Public servants work for the PUBLIC. Not just the people that follow the same religion. If she isn't fit to do her job, she shouldn't have it (which thankfully she lost). You can't work at home depot and refuse to sell lumber to black people, how is this any different? No one is punishing her for her religion, she was punished because she's a bigot who refused to do her job.

Sounds like you would also agree with the states who now say doctors and nurses don't need to treat people they disagree with? Like an unmarried 35 year old pregnant woman being refused treatment because her provider didn't like that she got preggo out of wedlock?

No, I don’t agree with doctors refusing to do lifesaving treatments. That’s happening in Texas. I believe in removals and reassignments for doctors that won’t do abortions or D&Cs in places where abortions are legal. (I do not agree with what’s happening in TX and I think overturning Roe V Wade was a disaster). Abortion and D&C is sometimes life saving and should never be denied if requested. A doctor should not be in that position where they can pick and choose a lifesaving procedure.

Circumcision (another example) falls under the same “by request” category. But I would not require doctors to perform circumcisions, I’d make sure their colleagues can cover for them. This is done already in the medical field because of common sense and pragmatism.

But refusing to process a marriage license once a month or so, I’d first try to impeach the County Clerk, based on inability to do the job according to the law. This would put the onus on the fired worker to challenge based on violation of First Amendment Rights.

Or simply assign a co-worker to the task. Which is a simple administrative task and could have been and eventually was done. And this County Clerk lost the election- another check and balance.

I would not do a show trial that involved jailing, then jury awards of more than a quarter of a million dollars to the aggrieved couple. Except that it put an end to refusals to comply with the law as decided by The SC, by forcing the issue into the spotlight.

 

[Matata]

Read the article.

I did and she is still a vile human. I know her lawsuit lacks merit. It does however put the issue one step closer to SCOTUS and the conservative judges who do want to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. Davis's request for religous accomodations was denied by the courts. You can look up the reasons if you're interested. In the end they did get someone else to do her job. Employers aren't required to accommodate religious beliefs when they prove it presents a hardship to the business nor are they required to hire someone whose religious beliefs prevent them from performing the duties of the job.

I believe anyone who works for an employer is obligated to perform the job regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe religion has no business inserting itself in employment issues. Keeping religion out of the workplace does not prevent anyone from practicing it or believing in it; it prevents religions from forcing others to endure special accomodations for those who are so insecure in their belief that they think baking a cake damns them to hell. To me, it's as ridiculous as a vegetarian in a slaughterhouse refusing to kill animals.

Religoius freedom (of only one religion that is being pushed as the national religion and therefore against the Constitution) has run amok and in my very strong opinionated opinion needs to be severely curbed.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Common sense says that if your employer is asking you to do things in direct conflicts with your beliefs, that is on you. Move on to something else that isn't as distasteful to you. However, common sense doesn't often exist and so we take the legal route hoping to win and oh, yeah, some big money won't hurt either!

 

[Lookinagain]

Read the article. It’s a First Amendment issue

Her challenge to Obergefell isn't based on her First Amendment claim.

More fundamentally, she claims the high court's decision in Obergefell v Hodges -- extending marriage rights for same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment's due process protections -- was "egregiously wrong."

Her First Amendment claims is to shield her from liability for not issuing the licenses which then resulted in a monetary damage award against her. That's separate and distinct from the claim that Obergefell shouldn't have the benefit of the 14th Amendment.
The goal is the 14th Amendment issue. The anti-gay marriage groups needed a plaintiff who had standing to bring this case, and they found her and her First Amendment claim. But they dragged Obergefell into it to challenge that 14th Amendment decision. Kind of a back door approach. The court could easily take up the First Amendment claim and say it's not necessary to decide the 14th claim as it really has nothing to do with her First Amendment issue. The two issues are severable. They may very well do that, or go further and take up the 14th claim.

Except for Clarence Thomas, none of the Conservative Supreme Court judges are interested in hearing this case. They won’t hear it, there is no risk to same sex marriage.

I'm not sure Thomas is the only one interested in overturning Obergefell. There are some pretty religious justices on the court.

I find Thomas to be such a hypocrite. Obergefell, just like Roe, was based on the 14th Amendment. So was Loving vs. Virginia, the one that allowed interracial marriages. I noticed in his opinion on Roe, where he mentioned Obergefell as well as Griswold vs. Connecticut IIRC, he somehow left out Loving. All cases are based on the same legal theories. But I guess he only wants to overturn the ones that don't affect him.

I don’t believe public servants should be forced to do something that is against their religious beliefs.

No, they should be fired, or impeached.

It’s out of hand. This lawsuit will go nowhere because the courts, including the Supreme Court consistently don’t want to decide on which takes priority, First or 14th Amendment Rights.

They don't have to decide which takes priority in her case. They can say she can't be liable for damages for not issuing the licenses, and can also say that her First Amendment rights have nothing to do with the rights of others to marry granted by the 14th. I'm not even sure she has standing to bring that issue to the court. As I said, they are backdooring in the 14th Amendment claim to try to get it heard but the justices can get around that and still decide her liability claim.

 

[Matata]

This bit from the OP article is rich in irony. The Southern Baptist Convention whose leadership covered up and ignored years of sexual abuse allegations to the tune of 700 victims (some as young as 3 yrs old) worrying about defying God's design for marriage and family.

"In June, the Southern Baptist Convention -- the nation's largest Protestant Christian denomination -- overwhelmingly voted to make "overturning of laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God's design for marriage and family" a top priority."

 

[Lookinagain]

This bit from the OP article is rich in irony. The Southern Baptist Convention whose leadership covered up and ignored years of sexual abuse allegations to the tune of 700 victims (some as young as 3 yrs old) worrying about defying God's design for marriage and family.

"In June, the Southern Baptist Convention -- the nation's largest Protestant Christian denomination -- overwhelmingly voted to make "overturning of laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God's design for marriage and family" a top priority."

I saw an interesting video on, I think, Instagram, where a young man was challenging a legislator who was saying the Bible stated that only men and women could marry each other. The young man then pointed out part of the Bible that said something about planting crops next to each other, or wearing clothes made from different types of threads required stoning or death. Sorry, not a biblical scholar so can't quote precisely. But then asked the legislator should he be killed because his suit was made of two different fibers. It was interesting. I wish that I could quote it better.

 

[Matata]

We didn't think Roe would fall and it did. There is a concerted effort to overturn the Respect for Marriage Act and "So far in 2025, at least nine states have either introduced legislation aimed at blocking new marriage licenses for LGBTQ people or passed resolutions urging the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell at the earliest opportunity, according to the advocacy group Lambda Legal." (from the OP article).

This is an issue that I would hate to see turned over to the states because of the inequalities and potential confusion it would cause as has happened with abortion. For example: If same sex marriage is legal in my state and a couple moves to another would that invalidate their marriage? The foundations of human rights need to be established and protected at the federal level to avoid creating such disparities (imo).

Loving vs. Virginia is also in the crosshairs of those opposing same sex marriage.

We are devolving back to a time when some humans were seen as more human than others and rights were bestowed or withheld based on that ignorant and inhumane viewpoint.

 

[Matata]

Sorry, not a biblical scholar so can't quote precisely.

That particular book contradicts itself so often that its adherents can come up with an excuse to justify any challenge thrown at it and at them.

 

[Lookinagain]

This is an issue that I would hate to see turned over to the states because of the inequalities and potential confusion it would cause as has happened with abortion. For example: If same sex marriage is legal in my state and a couple moves to another would that invalidate their marriage? The foundations of human rights need to be established and protected at the federal level to avoid creating such disparities (imo).

I totally agree and something based on a Constitutional right should always be a Federal right, applicable to all people. Saying that one state can decide what is Constitutional and what isn't makes no sense at all. Same with the birth right citizenship issue. Why SCOTUS said there could be no national injunction against that EO totally stumps me. Why would you need each federal district to decide that. I get that a class action may solve that issue, but I don't see why it would require that. This court certainly has done many things that I just don't understand from a legal standpoint.

 

[Rockdiamond]

If only

 

[LightBright]

I totally agree and something based on a Constitutional right should always be a Federal right, applicable to all people. Saying that one state can decide what is Constitutional and what isn't makes no sense at all. Same with the birth right citizenship issue. Why SCOTUS said there could be no national injunction against that EO totally stumps me. Why would you need each federal district to decide that. I get that a class action may solve that issue, but I don't see why it would require that. This court certainly has done many things that I just don't understand from a legal standpoint.

I 100% agree that Constitutional Rights should never be tampered with on a state to state basis. It’s beyond frustrating we aren’t there yet.

But the EOs are a power of the Executive Branch of government, so the Supreme Court reasserts this power in the case you mention. I don’t think there has been a SC case that clarifies the definition of birthright citizenship for modern times.

Because it was directed at people born to resident slaves at the time of birth, who are converted to US citizens. It has been interpreted since slavery was abolished to apply to people born to resident or tourist non citizens who are now still not citizens, if I understand correctly. So the original law anticipated everyone in family would be US citizens living in US.

Modern interpretation: only people born on US soil are citizens, rest of family could be non citizens and even NON-RESIDENTS. Babies born from US surrogates to foreign parents are also citizens. If a resident of another country comes here as a tourist at 8.5 months pregnant and has their baby here, their baby is a citizen. US hospital birth, equals US citizenship. All this is being done with intent. We need clarity - original intent vs. modern interpretation.

 

[Matata]

We need clarity - original intent vs. modern interpretation.

Gorsuch and Thomas are originalists. Thomas is strict originalist and Gorsuch is considered a textualist who often approaches the text in its original meaning. So it would appear that those two would favor the original intent. We'll be waiting quite a while to see if SCOTUS will take up the issue since they can't do so until the lawsuits challenging the EO are settled.

 

[adlgel]

We need clarity - original intent vs. modern interpretation.

The same desire could be applied to the 2nd Amendment as well.

 

[LightBright]

The same desire could be applied to the 2nd Amendment as well.

Totally agree in terms of regulations pertaining to it.

 

[Lookinagain]

I 100% agree that Constitutional Rights should never be tampered with on a state to state basis. It’s beyond frustrating we aren’t there yet.

Not only are we not there yet, we're moving in the other direction since the overturning of Roe.

Alito's 78-page opinion, which has a 30-page appendix, seemingly leaves no authority uncited as support for the proposition that there is no inherent right to privacy or personal autonomy in various provisions of the Constitution.

This certainly tells you that at least Alito and probably Thomas would undo multiple precedents that defined the 14th Amendment right to privacy as encompassing things like gay marriage and birth control. Interracial marriage should also fall into that group but I don't see how Thomas can agree with that. So what happened to Roe can clearly happen to those cases if other justices agree and then all of these issues could be thrown back to the states.

The same desire could be applied to the 2nd Amendment as well.

Well it certainly should be if people actually stick to their supposed theories about Constitutional interpretation, but they don't. They use the originalist/textualist version when it gets them to their preferred goal but don't when it doesn't.

I don’t think there has been a SC case that clarifies the definition of birthright citizenship for modern times.

No, there has not because it is settled law. There would have been no reason for the Court to take up the question again except that now we have the EO. But certainly the language of the 14th Amendment is very clear and was in response to the Dred Scott decision. There are many treatises and cases that pre-date the 14th that said that the common law rule ( common-law doctrine of citizenship by birth within the country) applied to all but children of ambassadors and the children of occupying enemy soldiers but also excluded children of slaves and tribal Native Americans. Other than these exclusions, the treatises and cases spoke of all children born in the U.S. as citizens and did not distinguish between parental citizenship or not. So the argument that the 14th was only meant to grant citizenship to slaves and their children, ignores the fact that those were the only people being denied that right for no other reason. Tribal Indians were a bit different because they were treated as having allegiance to their tribe, like a diplomat, so their status didn't change with the 14th, but later.
Anyway, my point is that arguing that the 14th should only apply to slaves and their children ignores the history and the fact that the common law generally being followed before the 14th granted citizenship to all persons born in the U.S. regardless of their parentage (except for the exclusions I noted). If Thomas follows his originalist view, then he should be looking at the situation before the enactment and if Gorsuch follows the textualist view he should stick to the text, which does not limit birthright citizenship to slaves and their children.

Which is why I don't agree with this @LightBright

So the original law anticipated everyone in family would be US citizens living in US.

I don't know how SCOTUS can avoid taking up this case, but who knows.

 

[Lookinagain]

If only

Thank you. I bet that's where the young man on IG questioning the legislator got his material. It's very close and much better than my poor synopsis.

 

[empliau]

@LightBright -
"Because it was directed at people born to resident slaves at the time of birth, who are converted to US citizens. It has been interpreted since slavery was abolished to apply to people born to resident or tourist non citizens who are now still not citizens, if I understand correctly. So the original law anticipated everyone in family would be US citizens living in US."

See US vs Wong Kim Ark, where in 1898 the Supreme Court ruled that US-born children of non-citizen residents are US citizens, on 14th amendment grounds. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/

I grant that 1898 is a while ago, but it has been settled law for some time. (Not a lawyer.)

 

[LightBright]

Not only are we not there yet, we're moving in the other direction since the overturning of Roe.

Alito's 78-page opinion, which has a 30-page appendix, seemingly leaves no authority uncited as support for the proposition that there is no inherent right to privacy or personal autonomy in various provisions of the Constitution.

This certainly tells you that at least Alito and probably Thomas would undo multiple precedents that defined the 14th Amendment right to privacy as encompassing things like gay marriage and birth control. Interracial marriage should also fall into that group but I don't see how Thomas can agree with that. So what happened to Roe can clearly happen to those cases if other justices agree and then all of these issues could be thrown back to the states.



Well it certainly should be if people actually stick to their supposed theories about Constitutional interpretation, but they don't. They use the originalist/textualist version when it gets them to their preferred goal but don't when it doesn't.


No, there has not because it is settled law. There would have been no reason for the Court to take up the question again except that now we have the EO. But certainly the language of the 14th Amendment is very clear and was in response to the Dred Scott decision. There are many treatises and cases that pre-date the 14th that said that the common law rule ( common-law doctrine of citizenship by birth within the country) applied to all but children of ambassadors and the children of occupying enemy soldiers but also excluded children of slaves and tribal Native Americans. Other than these exclusions, the treatises and cases spoke of all children born in the U.S. as citizens and did not distinguish between parental citizenship or not. So the argument that the 14th was only meant to grant citizenship to slaves and their children, ignores the fact that those were the only people being denied that right for no other reason. Tribal Indians were a bit different because they were treated as having allegiance to their tribe, like a diplomat, so their status didn't change with the 14th, but later.
Anyway, my point is that arguing that the 14th should only apply to slaves and their children ignores the history and the fact that the common law generally being followed before the 14th granted citizenship to all persons born in the U.S. regardless of their parentage (except for the exclusions I noted). If Thomas follows his originalist view, then he should be looking at the situation before the enactment and if Gorsuch follows the textualist view he should stick to the text, which does not limit birthright citizenship to slaves and their children.

Which is why I don't agree with this @LightBright

So the original law anticipated everyone in family would be US citizens living in US.

I don't know how SCOTUS can avoid taking up this case, but who knows.

You are making me read Case Law haha. I’m not a lawyer… You are right. There is a ton of case law establishing that the Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship pertaining to US born offspring of non citizen parents prior to and after the 14th A., and as late as the 1980s (I’m still reading).

So the SC really needs to revisit Birthright Citizenship at a time where immigration is viewed generously and “traditionally” by half the citizens of the country, while the other half thinks it’s become a strategic congressional apportionment and Electoral College booster, and federal funding weapon, and that there’s a problem with the idea that a foreigner can just “show up” (with aid and encouragement by one political party) and easily gain citizenship for their child and even themselves.

The “generous attitude”, that you are correct in saying aligns with current law, has been official and societal policy at times for centuries (federally, individual states) but has also met with resistance and policy challenges like the Chinese Exclusion Act in California, when again the SC re-asserted a case of birthright citizenship in the case US vs Wong Kim Ark in 1898 that @empliau links to above.

I’m going to have to read more. And (I think you said this too) I think the SC ruling in favor of the Executive Branch EO is “interesting” because it means an EO can contradict case law (I’m assuming UNTIL the SC hears a pertinent case and decides/rules on interpretation).

 

[Lookinagain]

So the SC really needs to revisit Birthright Citizenship at a time where immigration is viewed generously and “traditionally” by half the citizens of the country, while the other half thinks it’s become a strategic redistricting and federal funding weapon, and that there’s a problem with the idea that a foreigner can just “show up” (with aid and encouragement by one political party) and easily gain citizenship for their child and even themselves.

Sorry, I didn't mean to give you a research project
But, I have two comments to this. First, if you look at the history of immigration, it was fairly generous throughout our history, although pretty restricted during the depression. I haven't read the Chinese Exclusion Act so I don't know if it dealt specifically dealt with children born of Chinese that were already in the U.S. at the time of passage of the Act but US vs Wong Kim Ark makes it irrelevant as to that point.
My other comment is that honestly, SCOTUS shouldn't be interpreting the law based upon what the people "think". Their job is to interpret the law, as written. It isn't supposed to be political or colored by what half of the populace likes, or doesn't like. That is supposed to be resolved by either legislation or Constitutional Amendment. The Courts job is not to legislate. And deciding cases on what people "think" is exactly what that is.

And (I think you said this too) I think the SC ruling in favor of the Executive Branch EO is “interesting” because it means an EO can contradict case law (I’m assuming UNTIL the SC hears a pertinent case and decides interpretation).

My last comment is that an EO certainly does not have the weight of law and therefore should never be able to contradict the law. That would nullify Congressional and Judicial actions, which of course is not what our Constitution envisioned. So any EO should be in conformance with existing law. So yes, if SCOTUS decides that it does conform, fine. But until then, in my opinion, the lower federal courts decisions control and if it is a federal right, I disagree with the SCOTUS decision that there can't be a nationwide injunction (unless brought as a class action---which I'm pretty sure they are open to).