Well, it certainly does not represent the period in which an appeal can be filed since SCOTUS is the court of last resort.
But to answer your main question, it means what it says: a SCOTUS decision is not final for 25 days, and therefore not binding for 25 days, unless the court specifies otherwise. That is not necessarily true of interlocutory orders, but Obergefell was an appeal from a final judgment.
I assume you were confused because of the previous lower court rulings on the same issue, which were effective even during the pendency of an appeal unless a stay was granted. That is not true of SCOTUS’ decisions.
No I was not confused because of that. I was confused because the only people I’ve heard claiming there is a 25 day waiting period were the attorney generals of two states that oppose the ruling and a punch of media pundits who’ve been parroting their claims. I do not trust their judgement on the issue.
Is the point, then, to allow government agencies sufficient time to adjust their procedures and paperwork in order to carry out the order? Or is there some other rationale?
It’s probably not that. Most SCOTUS decisions do not affect government agencies at all, but the rule is the same for those that do and those that don’t. I think it’s because there is no higher court to appeal to for a stay pending a rehearing.
The state of Jefferson commissions an automated system for marriage licenses. The betrothed fill out the form electronically at a kiosk or by typing into the blanks of a PDF and printing it out and taking it to a kiosk to be scanned in, and pay by credit card or EFT.
If the computer determines that the answers on the form are the correct ones and, as best as it can tell, are accurate, and the payment goes through, it prints out a license. This allows the couple to get married between seven and 60 calendar days later.
During that seven-day waiting period, human beings look for irregularities. If they find any the license is invalidated.
Can those humans be required not to invalidate an automatically issued license if there are no irregularities, legally speaking, but they regard the issuees as the wrong sort of couple, e.g. for religious reasons?
Your question is a bit oddly worded. Do you mean “are the reviewing humans allowed to assert their religious freedom rights to invalidate the license?” Doubtful. The courts generally treat a requirement to perform some affirmative act rather differently from one that requires no active participation.
What else do you do with ideas that have been discarded by history? This is not a friendly difference of opinion. These views have cause harm, direct harm, to people I love.
It’s not about “not allowing people to be exposed” to them. It’s about consigning them to the margins, just like we are with racism, sexism and other forms of bigotry. It’s an approach that seems to work.
I know that you really believe these ideas are okay, that they really shouldn’t be considered abhorrent. But your side lost this fight. We are moving away from being a society that judges people based on what sex they are attracted to.
Hell, we ban people from posting here just for being jerks, and all they’re doing is posting words that we could easily ignore. And we do it because to allow them to continue unchecked is to diminish and spoil what makes this little electronic society worth maintaining and participating in.
How then should we react when those people are not just words on a messageboard but are representatives of our government who are only willing to treat you like a full human being under duress? It is no punishment to stop them from attempting to inflict further harms, even trivial ones. We may be magnanimous in victory but we will not concede one inch of hard-won territory.
Heck, in most public workplaces you can be privately as much of a jerk as you want, as long as you’re not one to the customers or your coworkers and you perform your duties properly.
It’s really easy. If you still have sn objection, keep it outside the workday. If we can move you elsewhere with minimal disruption, we will. But you will not do or say anything to impede the public from accessing this service.
No, you don’t. It’s treating as exactly the same:
a) “Burn them fags, they’ll continue burning in hell!!!”
b) I’d rather no issue a licence if another person can do it.
