Obergefell v. Hodges

[ZiprHead]

Supreme court considering taking up case challenging legality of same-sex marriage

Court could revisit issue in case brought by county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples

www.theguardian.com

The case involves Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who, in 2015, became a cause celebre for religious opposition to same-sex marriage after the US supreme court legalized the practice in the Obergefell v Hodges case. Davis repeatedly refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and, at the height of her fame, was even briefly jailed for contempt of court.

Two men, David Ermold and David Moore, sued Davis after she refused to give them a marriage license. After a trial, a jury awarded the couple $100,000 in damages. Davis appealed that decision, arguing that her conduct was protected by the first amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion.

The US court of appeals for the sixth circuit, however, rejected that argument in March of this year. Because Davis was operating within her capacity as a government official, she was not entitled to first amendment protections, the judges ruled.

“When an official’s discharge of her duties according to her conscience violates the constitutional rights of citizens, the constitution must win out,” the judges wrote. “The Bill of Rights would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates.”

Now Davis wants the 6-3 conservative majority supreme court to overturn that ruling. Much of her petition to the high court focused on her contention that she deserves some form of protection from liability. “Anything less would leave the first amendment’s promises hollow to those who agree to public service and are sued for exercising their religious beliefs during that time,” her brief declared.

The brief also urged the supreme court to overturn Obergefell entirely. As part of their argument, attorneys for Davis praised the court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v Wade and claimed that Obergefell is “not grounded in the nation’s history or traditions” – a paraphrase of the reasoning that the court used to demolish Roe and erase the federal right to abortion. Davis is being represented by Liberty Counsel, an organization that has previously represented anti-abortion activists.

Any guesses on how this will go down?

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm sure we'll see some very fine people claim for now that the court would never...

And then when they inevitably do, they will say "and all for the best" or "both sides" or whatever the fuck hollow-ass excuse that meant they were always pieces of shit from the start.

 

[crazyfingers]

Supreme court considering taking up case challenging legality of same-sex marriage

Court could revisit issue in case brought by county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples

www.theguardian.com

The case involves Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who, in 2015, became a cause celebre for religious opposition to same-sex marriage after the US supreme court legalized the practice in the Obergefell v Hodges case. Davis repeatedly refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and, at the height of her fame, was even briefly jailed for contempt of court.

Two men, David Ermold and David Moore, sued Davis after she refused to give them a marriage license. After a trial, a jury awarded the couple $100,000 in damages. Davis appealed that decision, arguing that her conduct was protected by the first amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion.

The US court of appeals for the sixth circuit, however, rejected that argument in March of this year. Because Davis was operating within her capacity as a government official, she was not entitled to first amendment protections, the judges ruled.

“When an official’s discharge of her duties according to her conscience violates the constitutional rights of citizens, the constitution must win out,” the judges wrote. “The Bill of Rights would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates.”

Now Davis wants the 6-3 conservative majority supreme court to overturn that ruling. Much of her petition to the high court focused on her contention that she deserves some form of protection from liability. “Anything less would leave the first amendment’s promises hollow to those who agree to public service and are sued for exercising their religious beliefs during that time,” her brief declared.

The brief also urged the supreme court to overturn Obergefell entirely. As part of their argument, attorneys for Davis praised the court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v Wade and claimed that Obergefell is “not grounded in the nation’s history or traditions” – a paraphrase of the reasoning that the court used to demolish Roe and erase the federal right to abortion. Davis is being represented by Liberty Counsel, an organization that has previously represented anti-abortion activists.

Any guesses on how this will go down?

I never wanted to see that Christian Taliban again.

 

[scombrid]

Court is repeatedly demonstrating that it is shilling for the Heritage Foundation and is perfectly willing to avoid applying equal protection under the law. So we know where this marriage thing is going. If they could they’d outright repeal the 14th Amendment. But it turns out that if the executive and judicial branches collude to ignore the law then the laws don’t really exist.

 

[Jarhyn]

Court is repeatedly demonstrating that it is shilling for the Heritage Foundation and is perfectly willing to avoid applying equal protection under the law. So we know where this marriage thing is going. If they could they’d outright repeal the 14th Amendment. But it turns out that if the executive and judicial branches collude to ignore the law then the laws don’t really exist.

Well, they want to dismantle the protections against arresting the LGBT for being LGBT and eroding minor freedoms is part of the plan laid out in P2025.

Eventually the camps that have now already been built will see an expansion into the LGBT of various republican-controlled states, and they will make efforts to disappear the LGBT from Democrat regions all the same.

They will attempt to send enough voters from swing states to camps to fix the election, if they have to.

 

[laughing dog]

Supreme court considering taking up case challenging legality of same-sex marriage

Court could revisit issue in case brought by county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples

www.theguardian.com

The case involves Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who, in 2015, became a cause celebre for religious opposition to same-sex marriage after the US supreme court legalized the practice in the Obergefell v Hodges case. Davis repeatedly refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and, at the height of her fame, was even briefly jailed for contempt of court.

Two men, David Ermold and David Moore, sued Davis after she refused to give them a marriage license. After a trial, a jury awarded the couple $100,000 in damages. Davis appealed that decision, arguing that her conduct was protected by the first amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion.

The US court of appeals for the sixth circuit, however, rejected that argument in March of this year. Because Davis was operating within her capacity as a government official, she was not entitled to first amendment protections, the judges ruled.

“When an official’s discharge of her duties according to her conscience violates the constitutional rights of citizens, the constitution must win out,” the judges wrote. “The Bill of Rights would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates.”

Now Davis wants the 6-3 conservative majority supreme court to overturn that ruling. Much of her petition to the high court focused on her contention that she deserves some form of protection from liability. “Anything less would leave the first amendment’s promises hollow to those who agree to public service and are sued for exercising their religious beliefs during that time,” her brief declared.

The brief also urged the supreme court to overturn Obergefell entirely. As part of their argument, attorneys for Davis praised the court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v Wade and claimed that Obergefell is “not grounded in the nation’s history or traditions” – a paraphrase of the reasoning that the court used to demolish Roe and erase the federal right to abortion. Davis is being represented by Liberty Counsel, an organization that has previously represented anti-abortion activists.

Any guesses on how this will go down?

IMHO, Ms Davis is a narcissistic bigot.
If SCOTUS rules in her favor, then the US becomes a de facto theocracy.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Supreme court considering taking up case challenging legality of same-sex marriage

Court could revisit issue in case brought by county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples

www.theguardian.com

The case involves Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who, in 2015, became a cause celebre for religious opposition to same-sex marriage after the US supreme court legalized the practice in the Obergefell v Hodges case. Davis repeatedly refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and, at the height of her fame, was even briefly jailed for contempt of court.

Two men, David Ermold and David Moore, sued Davis after she refused to give them a marriage license. After a trial, a jury awarded the couple $100,000 in damages. Davis appealed that decision, arguing that her conduct was protected by the first amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion.

The US court of appeals for the sixth circuit, however, rejected that argument in March of this year. Because Davis was operating within her capacity as a government official, she was not entitled to first amendment protections, the judges ruled.

“When an official’s discharge of her duties according to her conscience violates the constitutional rights of citizens, the constitution must win out,” the judges wrote. “The Bill of Rights would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates.”

Now Davis wants the 6-3 conservative majority supreme court to overturn that ruling. Much of her petition to the high court focused on her contention that she deserves some form of protection from liability. “Anything less would leave the first amendment’s promises hollow to those who agree to public service and are sued for exercising their religious beliefs during that time,” her brief declared.

The brief also urged the supreme court to overturn Obergefell entirely. As part of their argument, attorneys for Davis praised the court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v Wade and claimed that Obergefell is “not grounded in the nation’s history or traditions” – a paraphrase of the reasoning that the court used to demolish Roe and erase the federal right to abortion. Davis is being represented by Liberty Counsel, an organization that has previously represented anti-abortion activists.

Any guesses on how this will go down?

I never wanted to see that Christian Taliban again.

Love it when 4-time married people preach their bullshit!

 

[ideologyhunter]

I never wanted to see that Christian Taliban again.

Right. Ugh. I thought we'd seen the end of this dingbat. I will say she has one hell of a sexy look, for a 60-year-old Kentuck female...the crazy nun hair, the 1958 browline eyeglasses, the cultist stare. Jiminy Jesus. I guess she'll end up on a Trivial Pursuit card.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

QUOTE: Now Davis wants the 6-3 conservative majority supreme court to overturn that ruling. Much of her petition to the high court focused on her contention that she deserves some form of protection from liability. “Anything less would leave the first amendment’s promises hollow to those who agree to public service and are sued for exercising their religious beliefs during that time,” her brief declared.

The decision had nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs. If she rejected the application because the applicant supported one sports team and she supported another, it would be a similar situation. She lost for not doing her job.

 

[Harry Bosch]

QUOTE: Now Davis wants the 6-3 conservative majority supreme court to overturn that ruling. Much of her petition to the high court focused on her contention that she deserves some form of protection from liability. “Anything less would leave the first amendment’s promises hollow to those who agree to public service and are sued for exercising their religious beliefs during that time,” her brief declared.

The decision had nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs. If she rejected the application because the applicant supported one sports team and she supported another, it would be a similar situation. She lost for not doing her job.

Okay, so she's probably just looking for more money and maybe a fifth husband.

 

[scombrid]

“Anything less would leave the first amendment’s promises hollow to those who agree to public service ...” her brief declared.

Tell that to the six employees that were fired from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for social media posts about Charlie Kirk.

 

[Harry Bosch]

“Anything less would leave the first amendment’s promises hollow to those who agree to public service ...” her brief declared.

Tell that to the six employees that were fired from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for social media posts about Charlie Kirk.

Again, I've said it a million times on this forum, Conservatives invented cancel culture in the 1980s.

 

[bilby]

“Anything less would leave the first amendment’s promises hollow to those who agree to public service ...” her brief declared.

Tell that to the six employees that were fired from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for social media posts about Charlie Kirk.

Again, I've said it a million times on this forum, Conservatives invented cancel culture in the 1980s.

CE, or BCE?

 

[Politesse]

I suppose I'm being "rude" or some shit if I point out the fact that this was the obvious plan all along?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

QUOTE: Now Davis wants the 6-3 conservative majority supreme court to overturn that ruling. Much of her petition to the high court focused on her contention that she deserves some form of protection from liability. “Anything less would leave the first amendment’s promises hollow to those who agree to public service and are sued for exercising their religious beliefs during that time,” her brief declared.

The decision had nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs. If she rejected the application because the applicant supported one sports team and she supported another, it would be a similar situation. She lost for not doing her job.

Very true. In the normal functioning world, this case would be limited to whether a person elected government official can use their religion to enforce their view of the law in contradiction of Constitutional guidance of the US Supreme Court. Of course, this court can rule they can. Even worse, this court has been known to widen the scope of a case because their houses and debt and vacations weren't paid for by billionaires on behalf of the Heritage Foundation so they could just pussyfoot the rewriting of Constitutional precedence

Her violation of the law was so egregious that I'd suggest that a pardon from Trump would be a better idea than SCOTUS taking it up. It would effectively end equal protection under the law.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Once they overturn this, what's next? I'm thinking anti-segregation.

 

[Politesse]

Once they overturn this, what's next? I'm thinking anti-segregation.

No, it will be Lawrence v Texas next (ie allowing states to criminalize gay sex). This isn't a secret, they gave us a roadmap when they overturned Roe. Griswold v Connecticut is also cited, but I'm certain Lawrence will be challenged first, as it likely gives them a sympathetic police officer asca defendant for their "perfect case".

"In the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, the court said that nothing in its decision “should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Justice Thomas said he agreed with that.

However, he noted that in its rationale, the court’s majority found that a right to abortion was not a form of “liberty” protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution — as the court had said in Roe.

Then, he took aim at three other landmark cases that relied on that same legal reasoning: Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 decision that declared married couples had a right to contraception; Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 case invalidating sodomy laws and making same-sex sexual activity legal across the country; and Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case establishing the right of gay couples to marry."

 

[Elixir]

Smarmy bunch of creeps.

 

[Politesse]

They truly believe that no man has a right to decide where to put or not put his own penis: making that call is the sole province of their state government, each according to its interpretation of the Bible. They call this "liberty".

 

[ZiprHead]

^^^ Stealing that.