What if it was a strap-on?
With all that that should imply.
Not if it was a mile long.
I was going to ask if you ever saw the movie Se7en, but decided it was bridge too far.
A Bridge Too Far is a completely different type of movie than Seven.
Oh, she will win. And it will be a 6-3 decision to overturn Obergefell.
The original SCOTUS vote in favor of same-sex marriage was 5-4. Only 2 of the Justices in the majority (Kagan & Sotomayor) remain. It is assumed Brown Jackson will join them.
3 of the 4 Justices who dissented remain. They are Roberts, Thomas and Alito. They have been joined by Coney-Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.
Who are the 2 of that group who will vote to uphold Obergefell? Huh? Which ones?
Yeah, Obergefell and a constitutional right to marriage is likely toast.
No no, the right of good Christian folk to marry will be enshrined as the one and only definition of marriage!
This shall include the right of a man of any age to marry any woman who has reached the age where menstruation is assumed. Because the loudness of their proclamations of moral purity is drowned out by the depth of their perversity.
Meh.
I meant to say “Yeah, Obergefell and a constitutional right to SAME SEX marriage is likely toast.”
I am still not seeing where an individual can just ask the SC to take up their pet cause. Cases involving individuals work their way up through the system, but has that happened here? Has Kim sued for whatever, lost, appealed all the way up to Kentucky’s SC and decided to keep going? Or has she just decided the time is right to go straight to the top? Because if the latter, and that’s a thing now, I’ve got a few things that irk me I’d like the Supremes to do me a favor and help me out on…
(Not that most of them would agree with me on most issues…)
Of course not. She was never obligated to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. If that was anathema to her beliefs, she was free to quit her job.
They already do that, and the courts have consistently found that the police don’t have any obligation to protect anyone at all.
What Kim Davis is asking for is something different - it’s absolutely true that courts have found that individual people do not have a constitutional right to be protected by the government against private actors. That’s all those decisions mean - I can’t sue the government for violating my 14th amendment right to equal protection. It doesn’t mean the state can’t pass a law that allows me to sue the government * and it doesn’t mean the state can’t fire or discipline an employee for not protecting me. That’s what Kim Davis is looking for - the right to refuse to issue marriage licenses and not lose her job or be sued for it.
* From the SC decision in CASTLE ROCK v. GONZALES
In light of today’s decision and that in DeShaney, the benefit that a third party may receive from having someone else arrested for a crime generally does not trigger protections under the Due Process Clause, neither in its procedural nor in its “substantive” manifestations. This result reflects our continuing reluctance to treat the Fourteenth Amendment as “ ‘a font of tort law,’ ” Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527, 544 (1981) (quoting Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S., at 701), but it does not mean States are powerless to provide victims with personally enforceable remedies. Although the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (the original source of §1983), did not create a system by which police departments are generally held financially accountable for crimes that better policing might have prevented, the people of Colorado are free to craft such a system under state law.
She was sued for damages by some of her victims from when this whole drama started. They won at trial and then again on appeal, and she is asking the US Supreme Court to reverse that.
She also went to the Supreme Court in 2020 at a different stage in the proceedings and was denied then, with only Alito and Thomas writing to say they wanted to take the case (which isn’t to say that they were necessarily the only ones).
Those things theoretically could happen, but we both know that they’re not going to. There’s almost no impetus for it, largely because most of the public doesn’t know that police aren’t already required to protect the people.
Nothing to see here,
Who is Matthew “Mat” Staver you ask?
In 2000, he represented absentee voters in the Bush v. Gore election case.
He has argued before the Supreme Court of the United States twice, before most of the federal courts of appeals, and has testified before the United States Congress.
Staver served as the dean of the Liberty University School of Law from 2006 to 2014.
In late 2018 he voiced his opposition to including gender identity and sexual orientation in a senate bill that would make lynching a federal crime. Staver “pushed back against mainstream media coverage, and explained that while no one can or should oppose a bill banning lynching, there were provisions in it that served an ill purpose.”
Staver practices law on behalf of Liberty Counsel.
But I’m sure there’s nothing to worry about.
Got it, so his role is to push to protect bigotry in the law. No wonder he’s taking on this cause. It sounds like it’s just his usual schtick.
It may be his usual schtick but there is a strong chance this will be the case SCOTUS uses to overturn Obergefell. They only need 4 votes to take up the case. There are 3 justices on the court who dissented last time - Roberts, Thomas and Alito. It will only take 1 of Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett or Gorsuch to make the 4 needed.
Unless something unexpected happens and the Court doesn’t vote to take up Davis’s case for some reason we are pretty much guaranteed seeing Obergefell overturned by a 6-3 ruling.
If SCOTUS wants it to happen, it’s gonna happen. There are literally no checks on them.
It seems pointless to point out, yet again, the supreme stupidity of allowing religious views intrude into legal issues.
I live in a majority Christian (+/- 80%) and minority Muslim (+/- 2%) country, South Africa, and yet we have extremely progressive laws on abortion, birth control and sex education.
I mean, all three are free and freely available, sex ed is included in the high school curriculum (not under that name, I think it falls under “Life Skills”, a broader topic)
It will definitely be overturned if the Supreme Court wants it overturned - the questions are whether anyone other than Alito and Thomas wants it overturned and whether they think this is the case to do it. Roberts dissented on the original decision but I’m not so sure he’ll vote to overturn it - although he doesn’t want the SC to look political, I think he’s political enough to base his vote on how it will look if Obergefell is overturned using this particular case - but it also seems like he’s lost his ability to read the room.
A plausible scenario is that they split the baby by deciding that states can decide for themselves whether or not to allow guys to marry but under the faith and credit clause must recognize such marriages performed in other states. That way they can limit the practical chaos while maintaining the bigotry.
Yes, but abortion, birth control, and sex education are cultural issues rather than religious ones. In the US, churches have worked hard to make these religious issues, successfully, but they aren’t important parts of doctrine or ritual.