Would SCOTUS overturn Obergefell v Hodges?

All accounts point to the fact that they will never take it up. Am I being naive in believing what I am reading?

Short answer: Yes!

Long Dong has to pay back all those complimentary vacations.

I wouldn't be surprised if they overturned brown vs the board of education

In a heartbeat.

Of course they would.

They can’t overturn it. They can however throw it back to the states like abortions. Gays will have to marry in states where gay marriage is allowed and the states that don’t allow it with have to recognized per it being codified last year.

I think they know not to fuck with the gays. They may tease it, but if they dare there will be a sickening and fierce battle ahead.

^^^^ Honey, women are 50% or more of the population, and they still overturned Roe. They don't give a shit about a "fierce battle ahead" -they have lifetime jobs and a cushy retirement.

Women also don't fight though r9, not like they used to. They have had the right to vote for over 100 years and they still don't have equal pay for equal work or guaranteed paid maternity leave. The gay rights movement started 56 years ago and gays have gotten pretty much most of what they fought for. A woman is more loyal to her socio-economic level and her husband than she is to other women from other backgrounds. Gays, when we fight, pretty much see each other on the same footing coming for a same background. Again, when we fight..

Basically it's easier to take things from women because they don't complain enough when you do to make it matter, they don't stand in their united power.

[quote]I think they know not to fuck with the gays

Oh my sides! Stop, please, I’m about to wet myself!

Nothing surprises me anymore. The Supreme Court is as corrupt and partisan as the evil administration.

It boils down to religious freedom vs citizens' rights. The argument is that becasue Kim Davis does not beleive in gay marriage she should not be forced to issue marriage certificates. Rulings have already passed about "artist" cake makers who can refuse making a cake for a gay couple. But this is different. The Clerk of Courts is an elected role and that person is sworn in. She decided that her personal religious beliefs came before her sworn duty. IF (and this is a big IF) the Supreme Court actually decided cases based on merti and proof this would be a no brainer. It is a circus though, and at the beck and call of Trump.

What an absolute crock of shit, R10. You'll be singing a different tune when the Supreme Court takes away gay marriage rights. And they will.

Oh and BTW the majority of states are now RED so good luck in "fighting" for ANY rights.

Voting for them doesn't matter either in red states. Even in red states where voters approved amendments to restore abortion rights, like Kansas and Missouri, their asshole state AGs/legislatures are shitcanning their votes.

So take your smug self righteousness and shove it.

This is exactly the type of case that the six Republican judges are hoping for. They want to prove that Kim Davis rights were taken away because she was following God‘s law. I’m sure some of them already met with her lawyers and told them when to put the case forward. The author of this article seems to be one of those pundits who makes his money by pretending that the justice system is just. His speculation on which of the six is going to vote which way is laughable. Anyone with eyes knows how it will go.

A person's right to their religious views is (or should be) limited when they run for public office or accept government employment. As a government servant you must uphold the law and deliver your services to everyone without bias or discrimination. Period. A private citizen (such as a cake maker) might be free to discriminate in the delivery of their services, but government employees cannot. No one is forced to become a government worker, so the waiver of religious rights is voluntary.

This woman is such an idiot. If she had simply directed one of he assistants to fill out the wedding license the whole thing would have been a non-issue. That gay couple wouldn't have held out for her to do it -they just wanted to get married. But no. It wasn't enough for her to not do it herself. She went out of her way to prevent people from exercising their basic rights, just to satisfy her misguided religion.

R15 If it's such a crock of shit, why are women legally allowed to be paid less than men? Women are a majority of the voting population. This is not a topic like abortion that falls along religious or moral lines. This is a pretty clear cut example of what I think 99% of the female population could come to agree on, but they haven't. Why is that? Because they don't stick together and vote as a block when it matters. I don't know how less than 10% of the population fought to get what they wanted when over the half the population can't come together on the most basic things that affect all of their lives. It's just the truth. But that this doesn't pertain directly to this thread, just r9's response.

I am bemused by the article. While the arguments for the three judges for Oberfell are sound, as are the arguments for the two overturning, the reasons for the remaining conservative judges to maintain it are….mostly crap? Hope that she is right but this seems like magical thinking badly dressed in legalese.

r8 "I think they know not to fuck with the gays. "

BWA HA HA HA - as if they give a flying fuck.

"... becasue Kim Davis does not beleive in gay marriage she should not be forced to issue marriage certificates"

Then get a job at Cracker Barrel or Chic-Fil-A, where she'd be if not falling into a clerical job.

Or Welfare/Disability like the rest of Kentucky.

I stand by my don't fuck with the gays comment. Paint over some rainbow crosswalk in Orlando. Freak out about sassy male NFL cheerleaders. Go on about "true masculinity" and shit on the news. There will be a breaking point and the when that happens ...it'll be a much more effective response than when Judy Garland died.

They’re going to throw out Kim’s case most likely but they are certainly champing at the bit for a case with firmer precepts and standing. Once that case reaches them, it’s 100% going to be curtains for collecting your dead husband’s survivor benefits. Although who fucking knows, maybe they will cut to the chase and rule in Kimmy’s favor. Crazier shit has happened in the last year or two.

r22 Keep fantasizing

Even though Roberts dissented in Obergefell, I don’t think he wants to deal with the issue. Neil Gorsuch supports gay marriage.

I get the feeling that Amy Coney Barrett, while she might personally be against homosexuality, she might be more of an Anthony Kennedy, who was also Catholic. She generally does not want to touch LGBT issues and usually rejects appeals over those disputes (favoring the gays).. She’s also never reliably voted with the conservative justices lock step on every issue.

Don’t know whether Kavanaugh is interested in visiting Obergefell or not. But we know Thomas and Alito are.

r17 That is just it. She was sworn in. She swore before her God to uphold the Constitution and laws of the land. Despite her interpretation of the bible (the word homosexual did not exist in the bible until 1948), she swore to that same God that she would uphold all the laws of the land. Any religious argument is out the window. Never mind she herself has been married three times, has three different children by different fathers. Her first husband fathered the third while she was married to the third. The argument that she should not be forced to violate her religious freedoms goes out the window when she has essentially broken several commandments.

If the court were to decide that personal religious belief over rules the law, the can of worms would actually be a 55 gallon drum.

So if someone was devote Catholic could they deny second marriages if the first one hadn’t been annulled yet?

They already allow Catholic priests to NOT report child abuse if they hear about it in the confessional. The rights of the church outweigh the rights of the children who are being abused.

[quote]Honey, women are 50% or more of the population, and they still overturned Roe.

It was easy because women are not 100% behind Roe... there are plenty of women who are actively anti-abortion.

[quote] They can’t overturn it. They can however throw it back to the states like abortions.

That is overturning it.

"Neil Gorsuch supports gay marriage." That is a lie r25. And you have a feeling that Amy Coney Barret and Roberts don't want to deal with it - like they didn't want to deal with abortion?

R7 That would be overturning it, Einstein. DOMA was ruled unconstitutional. And though only one, Massachusetts had gay marriage before Bill Clinton signed DOMA.

Abortion is not marriage.

Thomas and Alito are truly the corrupt duo. Not an ounce of integrity there. But the other four at least have glimpses of intelligence. That is not an endorsement by any means, but it’s enough to hold the dam on this one.

86% of LGBTQ voted for Harris. She got the highest LGBTQ vote for a Presidential candidate ever.

They’re not gonna screw with gay marriage because it would be a HUGE gift to democrats in the next election cycle.

She got the highest LGBTQ vote for a Presidential candidate ever.

…Said no one ever with any knowledge of Presidential election history.

I can’t believe how many of you are still in denial. They will do whatever their lord and master Trump wants.

R29 It should be that way. You cannot compromise the nature of confessional. It’s sacred. However you are an idiot and probably trolling. Abuse that occurs is known by teachers, nuns, parents. They don’t need fucked up priests confessing their sins to protect children. All they have to do is actually investigate and not cover up complaints or concerns. It’s that simple. There is always some complaint or concerned Frau who comes forward and the shit is just covered up.

r36 86% s very high and she still lost. What do they care about the other 14 percent?