(DCNF)—The Supreme Court declined Monday to reconsider its landmark ruling legalizing gay marriage.
In a brief order, the justices rejected, without comment, Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis’ petition to consider overturning the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision.
Davis, who was briefly jailed after she declined to issue marriage licenses based on a religious objection to the 2015 ruling, urged the justices to reverse Obergefell’s “legal fiction of substantive due process.”
“The damage done by Obergefell’s distortion of the Constitution is reason enough to overturn this opinion and reaffirm the rule of law and the proper role of this Court,” her petition filed by Liberty Counsel stated.
Court watchers believed the petition was a longshot, though it gained widespread media attention.
Let them marry. Why should gay people be so much happier than straight people?
SCOTUS has enough on its plate for next term (gun rights, trannies in sports, election laws, voting rights, religious liberty infringement, even a death penalty case) to give homo’s any more attention or consideration.
I’m more concerned with their ruling on the Tariffs. That could be catastrophic.
The Government has no vested interest in homosexuals marrying,but countries have struggled with the aftermath of heterosexuals not reproducing. Of course the same government that thinks gay marriage is good supports the replacement of falling populations with 3rd world savages. So there will be course correction.
I remember the Gay Marriage episode on SOUTHPARK where instead of being “Married” they would just be “BUTT BUDDIES”!
“Sodomy…and ivory…
side by side on my piano keys…”
Loco – I think they’re more into organs than pianos…
skdk
They shouldn’t force churches or local govs to go along with it.
Libs have no need for ‘religion’ until they need to force theirs on everyone else.
Clark county where Vegas is located was boasting about 10,000 marriage licenses being issued, but what is the point. The two purposes of the license is to prevent inbreeding and to establish responsibility for parents. Muzzies negate the first and homos negate the second.
Two things.
First, this is a bad case because immediately after Obergefell, Davis refused to issue ANY marriage licences, including to heterosexual couples. Her punishments were for behaviors going far beyond the same-sex marriage issue. Malfeasance. She should have just resigned.
Second, “marriage” in the United States is the secular registration of new family formation. The “license” is merely that. It’s about civil financial benefits (originally inheritance, but now also taxes, pension, other next-of-kin determinations, etc.), and has absolutely nothing to do with religious marriage.
The registration and subsequent declaration is so that states can identify “where the families are”, who the spouses are, for these purposes.
One can get married religiously without the civil registration. One can get married by civilly registering and foregoing a religious ceremony.
Different states do permit religious leaders to acknowledge (like a notary) a declaration of marriage (family formation) as a convenience and concession to religious ceremonies, as well as (with some differences) notaries public, judges, ship captains, and various government officials.
Bottom line is that “marriage” is about government benefits and, to varying extents, responsibilities for those who formally declare themselves to be married.
Kim Davis’s case, arguing “religion” and as a government official, refusing to perform what in fact was a completely secular clerical function, created irrelevant messy issues that made this not a good case to contest the Supreme Court’s arrogation of what arguably should be a state function.
P.S. for MJA and others who confuse the two parallel “marriage” concepts that usually, but not always, overlap: no church is required to perform a marriage ceremony that it doesn’t want to.
fitting message for the supreme court: up your ass