# Supreme Court \[declines to hear\] same sex marriage cases.\[plus further developments (Ed.)\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 6, 2014, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544 "2014-10-06T13:50:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 37
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/721 "2015-06-29T14:47:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Ya think? He was on NPR this morning calling for SCOTUS justices to be elected instead of appointed. It’s a terrible idea, but I would savor the chance to vote against Alito and Scalia. (and Thomas too). ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/722 "2015-06-29T14:47:44Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I hope the Feds can figure a way to do this legally: > > Send a swarm of Federal agents with arrest power to Texas, to be dispacthed anywhere a state official refuses to issue a marriage licence to a gay couple. Arrest the official on the spot for deliberate violation of the couple’s civil rights. > > Sure, let Texas defend these folks – after they get a taste of a jail cell. I guarantee that there won’t be more than a handfull before the rest manage to find it in their conscience to issue them. > > So, is there some legal means for the Feds to carry out this plan? I would be afraid that Cliven Bundy’s friends would show up. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Lowry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/723 "2015-06-29T15:03:13Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > The article you cited doesn’t say that. It says: > “But he [Paxton] says “numerous lawyers” stand ready to defend, free of charge, any public official refusing to grant one.” > > Granted, it doesn’t make Paxton any less of a fucking asshole, but let’s at least be accurate about what KIND of asshole he is. Here’s a specific example of a couple being refused a license and suing: [East Texas same-sex couple sues after being denied marriage license](http://www.kltv.com/story/29420653/east-texas-same-sex-couple-sues-after-being-denied-marriage-license) If the gay couple wins the suit (which seems likely), who would be paying out? Would it be the clerk or the state? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/724 "2015-06-29T15:12:08Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > The article you cited doesn’t say that. It says: > “But he [Paxton] says “numerous lawyers” stand ready to defend, free of charge, any public official refusing to grant one.” > > Granted, it doesn’t make Paxton any less of a fucking asshole, but let’s at least be accurate about what KIND of asshole he is. He put the notice out on the official State Attorney General’s website. It certainly sounds to me like the State of Texas is guaranteeing that lawyers are standing by pro bono. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/725 "2015-06-29T15:13:57Z")
> [@Anduril](#): > > First off - hurrah for marriage equality. I do have some questions about the decision, though. I read through it but I simply don’t have the wherewithal to fully parse it - the depth and breadth of my ignorance is just too great. For those in the legal profession: > > Do the principles invoked in the decision open the doors for siblings marrying each other? Presumably, the rights invoked for allowing marriage of same sex couples can be invoked for marrying siblings, am I wrong? How about for mother/father-adult child couples? Are there any in-principle distinctions between gay marriage and incestuous marriage of adults insofar as the decision is concerned. > > The reason I ask is that this is something that will be asked by opponents of marriage equality and it would really be nice to have an answer. My reaction is to say, “Sure. Anywhere that presently allows two first-degree relatives to marry will have to afford that right to people of the same gender. Anywhere that presently allows marriage among more than two people will have to afford that right to people of the same gender.” This man on dog shit is a desperate gambit to distract from the point. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/726 "2015-06-29T15:14:41Z")
> [@Sam\_Lowry](#): > > Here’s a specific example of a couple being refused a license and suing: [East Texas same-sex couple sues after being denied marriage license](http://www.kltv.com/story/29420653/east-texas-same-sex-couple-sues-after-being-denied-marriage-license) > > If the gay couple wins the suit (which seems likely), who would be paying out? Would it be the clerk or the state? Wouldn’t it be lovely if they cited Paxton as an accessory? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/727 "2015-06-29T15:48:10Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Ah, I see the problem. You appear to have mistaken this for “Be Nice To Bigots” week. Here’s another way to think about it… Many people have remarked on the quite remarkable speed with which public opinion has swung on Gay Marriage (due, I’m sure, to the fact that it is so obvious that it should be legal once you actually think about it). Some of that is due to old bigots dying. But a lot of it is due to people changing their minds. So suppose 10,000 people have been changing their mind each week. Presumably the week _before_ they changed their mind, they were still against gay marriage. After all, that’s what changing ones mind means. At that point, is it (a) fair and accurate to call them a hate-filled-bigot, and (b) productive to call them a hate-filled-bigot? To repeat myself, I hope I don’t come off as a patronizing tongue-clucker of the “no, THIS is how you gay people should be acting if you want to affect social change” variety, which I realize I’m certainly skirting close to. But in this particular case it’s abundantly clear that it is possible for people’s minds to be changed, BECAUSE IT HAS HAPPENED SO MUCH. And I think that even with this decision there’s still benefit to changing minds, because that will just make crap like the random jerks in Texas who are refusing to comply with the new ruling that much less common. So what’s more likely to change minds… unyielding but calm and polite (I wont say “respectful”) debate, or hatred? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/728 "2015-06-29T15:52:29Z")
> [@Anduril](#): > > First off - hurrah for marriage equality. I do have some questions about the decision, though. I read through it but I simply don’t have the wherewithal to fully parse it - the depth and breadth of my ignorance is just too great. For those in the legal profession: > > Do the principles invoked in the decision open the doors for siblings marrying each other? Presumably, the rights invoked for allowing marriage of same sex couples can be invoked for marrying siblings, am I wrong? How about for mother/father-adult child couples? Are there any in-principle distinctions between gay marriage and incestuous marriage of adults insofar as the decision is concerned. > > The reason I ask is that this is something that will be asked by opponents of marriage equality and it would really be nice to have an answer. > [@Anduril](#): > > Yes. The traditional definition of marriage as defined by the framers exclude incestuous marriages. But the use of traditional definitions is a principle we can no longer afford ourselves (unless I’m mistaken). > [@Anduril](#): > > Do these compelling state interests outweigh a fundamental right, particularly when the dangers you alluded to may not be operative in all cases? > > Normalization as a prerequisite for the establishment of the right seems to assume that the change will happen via democratic instruments. The SCOTUS ruling made it clear that such was not necessary. A person inclined to take the cudgels for incestuous and/or polyamorous marriages can seek redress in the same way that the Plaintiffs for the marriage equality case have. I am not entirely convinced you are asking in good faith, but I’ll play. First, there is a substantial practical issue with consanguinous marriage that is not present in same-sex marriage (that is, consanguinity and the resulting risk of genetic disorders in children born of the relationship.) Second, Kennedy very carefully avoided identifying any new principles on which the decision was based, as he has done to some extent in other LGBT rights cases. So it’s pretty much impossible to say what the impact of the decision is outside the narrow question presented. In any event, as a practical matter the proponents of consanguinous marriage need to get a certain level of support before SCOTUS will entertain the idea over overturning the bans on it. They do not operate in a vacuum. In 1986, the upheld sodomy bans in _Bowers v. Hardwick_, because the general public attitude to homosexuality was “OMG, eww, fags.” In the same year, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality (fully) from the DSM. From 1973-1986 they had something called _ego-dystonic homosexuality_ in there which was made up to placate the psychiatrists who were mad about removing homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. Since then, as we’ve seen, homosexuality has become less of a taboo. It is entirely fair to say that the court has taken public opinion into account in its evolving stance on laws burdening homosexuals. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/729 "2015-06-29T15:58:32Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Many people have remarked on the quite remarkable speed with which public opinion has swung on Gay Marriage > So what’s more likely to change minds… unyielding but calm and polite (I wont say “respectful”) debate, or hatred? I’m thinking that over the last few years, the Pro-SSM side hasn’t bothered with polite debate over the topic. Despite that, public opinion has swung very quickly. I do not believe it is a coincidence, and I see no reason to change tactics now. One might say that they’re catching more flies with vinegar than with honey. BTW, if you’re making a fly trap, go with vinegar, it really works. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/730 "2015-06-29T15:59:02Z")
> [@Sam\_Lowry](#): > > Here’s a specific example of a couple being refused a license and suing: [East Texas same-sex couple sues after being denied marriage license](http://www.kltv.com/story/29420653/east-texas-same-sex-couple-sues-after-being-denied-marriage-license) > > If the gay couple wins the suit (which seems likely), who would be paying out? Would it be the clerk or the state? Our Atty General pretty much admitted that gay marriage is now legal in Texas. He mentioned that employees who were directed by God to avoid their work\* should\* be protected by the Constitution. There will be _pro bono_ lawyers–enough to go around? He also noted that “the strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of each case.” In other words, “Good luck!” [(Details in this giant thread at _The Texas Observer_.)](http://www.texasobserver.org/supreme-court-upholds-same-sex-marriage/) The case in Tyler said nothing about religion; the clerk was just waiting for the right form. Most urban Texas counties started marrying people in Friday. The Republican Clerk in Harris County (Houston) dragged his feet until a memo from our County Attorney set him straight. This sounds like a lawyer versus lawyer thing. No Federal Troops needed! ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Lowry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/731 "2015-06-29T16:02:42Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Here’s another way to think about it… > > Many people have remarked on the quite remarkable speed with which public opinion has swung on Gay Marriage (due, I’m sure, to the fact that it is so obvious that it should be legal once you actually think about it). Some of that is due to old bigots dying. But a lot of it is due to people changing their minds. > > So suppose 10,000 people have been changing their mind each week. Presumably the week _before_ they changed their mind, they were still against gay marriage. After all, that’s what changing ones mind means. At that point, is it (a) fair and accurate to call them a hate-filled-bigot, and (b) productive to call them a hate-filled-bigot? It’s true that a lot of people have changed their minds for various reasons. I don’t know what method works best. But I think being called a hate-filled bigot probably did change some minds. I think some people think about politics stuff in the abstract. Like they have a platonic ideal of what marriages and families should be and the laws should conform to that. Being called a bigot could remind them that we are in the real world, and the laws don’t affect abstract concepts, they affect people and their lives. Also, it’s not a binary switch, where someone goes from thinking gay marriage is the downfall of civilization and gays will burn in hell and then they change to being someone who is pro-gay marriage and marches in the pride parade and donates to the Human Rights Campaign. It’s more of a continuum. A lot of people who recently changed to being pro-gay marriage were probably not the people dripping with hate towards gay people, it was more that they were uncomfortable with it, or didn’t see the point, or think it’s a sin but not at all the worst one. Those people can be switched over to be at least not against gay marriage by being reminded of the harm that being against gay marriage can cause. ---
**Author:** ![Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambrosio_Spinola)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/732 "2015-06-29T16:05:43Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Our Atty General pretty much admitted that gay marriage is now legal in Texas. He mentioned that employees who were directed by God to avoid their work\* should\* be protected by the Constitution. There will be _pro bono_ lawyers–enough to go around? He also noted that “the strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of each case.” In other words, “Good luck!” [(Details in this giant thread at _The Texas Observer_.)](http://www.texasobserver.org/supreme-court-upholds-same-sex-marriage/) I actually think Paxton is sort of right, but only up to a point. Whether or not any given employee in a county clerk’s office has to issue same-sex marriage licenses may be some sort of personnel problem for them to work out. But I don’t think that the county can simply refuse to provide any same-sex marriage licenses on religious grounds. In other words, the individual people in the office may personally object but the county as a governmental body is going to have to provide accommodation somehow to people that want the licenses. This appears to be the position of many county attorneys, as well, although I’m sure we’ll get to see some fun litigation in the days and weeks ahead. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/733 "2015-06-29T16:25:24Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Ok, I have questions. Aside from a bunch of tax and property issues, are there other advantages a gay person may gain by having a legally recognized marriage? Isn’t that enough? I mean, sure, same-sex couples who were unble to marry could get, by various _a la carte_ bits of bureaucracy, many of the things married different-sex couples get as a mater of course, but since we already have that _table d’hote_ mechanism in place, it’s a lot easier to simply open that up to same-sex couples if we’re going to allow them access to these things at all. In any case, [Human Rights Campaign says there are 1,138 Federal benefits available exclusively to married couples](http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples), and probably more in various states; even if that number is a bit imprecise, I wouldn’t dismiss it as “a bunch of tax and property issues.” It’s a pretty big bunch. > [@elucidator](#): > > What I’m wondering about right at this moment is why this thread is bumped every few minutes while the one about the ACA droops. Don’t know what that means, or even if it means anything at all. The fundamental soundness of the ACA was decided a couple of years ago; _King_ was just stupid bullshit. > [@Anduril](#): > > Do the principles invoked in the decision open the doors for siblings marrying each other? IANAL. But my gut response to this particular slippery-slope argument is that incest is not a sexual orientation. “I’m only attracted to my relatives” strikes me as a different (and much, much rarer, if extant) thing from “I’m only attracted to men.” > [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](#): > > the individual people in the office may personally object I don’t understand this viewpoint. The issuing clerk is functionally a license-issuing robot, no? Issuance indicates only that the forms were correctly filled out and the fee was paid, not that the person wielding the stamp personally approves; it’s an objective thing. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/734 "2015-06-29T16:37:30Z")
> [@Sam\_Lowry](#): > > Also, it’s not a binary switch, where someone goes from thinking gay marriage is the downfall of civilization and gays will burn in hell and then they change to being someone who is pro-gay marriage and marches in the pride parade and donates to the Human Rights Campaign. It’s more of a continuum. A lot of people who recently changed to being pro-gay marriage were probably not the people dripping with hate towards gay people, it was more that they were uncomfortable with it, or didn’t see the point, or think it’s a sin but not at all the worst one. Those people can be switched over to be at least not against gay marriage by being reminded of the harm that being against gay marriage can cause. What’s likely to happen is that as more and more people know openly gay married couples and discover that they’re not the baby-raping mutant sex fiends they’ve been portrayed as in some right-wing circles, it will become even less of a big deal. Nate Silver had an interesting [article](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/change-doesnt-usually-come-this-fast/) recently showing how acceptance for gay marriage has been much more rapid than one might expect, even adjusting for age. And the reason does seem to be higher visibility for gay people. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/735 "2015-06-29T16:41:19Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I am not entirely convinced you are asking in good faith, but I’ll play. First, there is a substantial practical issue with consanguinous marriage that is not present in same-sex marriage (that is, consanguinity and the resulting risk of genetic disorders in children born of the relationship.) [How quickly we forget.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16818092&postcount=111)😉 ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/736 "2015-06-29T16:52:31Z")
> [@Anduril](#): > > …Normalization as a prerequisite for the establishment of the right seems to assume that the change will happen via democratic instruments. The SCOTUS ruling made it clear that such was not necessary. A person inclined to take the cudgels for incestuous and/or polyamorous marriages can seek redress in the same way that the Plaintiffs for the marriage equality case have. If you wish to normalize incestuous marriage, you need to start winning hearts & minds. When is Incest Pride Week? Will you walk in a parade, hand in hand with Mom (or Daughter)? Take the cudgel & let us know how it works. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/737 "2015-06-29T17:03:25Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > The bolded part also covers the prohibition against polygamy quite well. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Wait a minute. Are you claiming there is a “polygamy taboo” that is part of our nature as humans? That would be astonishing, if true, considering the widespread practice of polygamy. > [@silenus](#): > > In no way. I’d say “read for comprehension” but I like you and probably screwed up the phrasing. What I’m saying is the bolded part “Decreasing tensions, preventing insularity, etc.” is also a reason for _legally_ prohibiting polygamy, as it causes many of the same problems. > > There certainly isn’t a _societal_ taboo - hell, the Bible supports it whole-heartedly in some places. OK. Thanks for the explanation, since I asked for clarification to make sure I was reading your post correctly. I can see now that I did not. However, I still disagree that those are good reasons to ban polygamy. You could say the same thing about re-marriage by couples with children from previous marriages. That would be the “decreasing tensions” part. I don’t think either that, or polygamy, have anything to do with “insularity”. At least not any more than monogamous marriages do-- we all have friends who, literally, disappear from the social scene once they get married. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/738 "2015-06-29T17:45:54Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I hope the Feds can figure a way to do this legally: > > Send a swarm of Federal agents with arrest power to Texas, to be dispacthed anywhere a state official refuses to issue a marriage licence to a gay couple. Arrest the official on the spot for deliberate violation of the couple’s civil rights. > > Sure, let Texas defend these folks – after they get a taste of a jail cell. I guarantee that there won’t be more than a handfull before the rest manage to find it in their conscience to issue them. > > So, is there some legal means for the Feds to carry out this plan? There’s a clear precedent here in civil rights law - the Southern Manifesto and similar efforts to avoid or resist the exercise of federal authority to grant rights to blacks. It’s worth remembering that it wasn’t really that long ago that the U.S. fucking Army was in Little Rock to enforce a Supreme Court decision that wasn’t well received in certain quarters. Schools and public accommodations didn’t just become integrated overnight (and in some cases they never really did). There’s no question that there are means available. What it really depends on is how far the states are willing to go to challenge federal authority, and what they do about it specifically. > [@](#): > > What has been said, in the light of the facts developed, is enough to dispose of the case. However, we should answer the premise of the actions of the Governor and Legislature that they are not bound by our holding in the Brown case. It is necessary only to recall some basic constitutional propositions which are settled doctrine. [358 U.S. 1, 18] > > Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” **Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.”** Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers’ “anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . .” Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524. > > **No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.** Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: “If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . .” United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. A Governor who asserts a [358 U.S. 1, 19] power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, “it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . .” Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397 -398. > > It is, of course, quite true that the responsibility for public education is primarily the concern of the States, but it is equally true that such responsibilities, like all other state activity, must be exercised consistently with federal constitutional requirements as they apply to state action. The Constitution created a government dedicated to equal justice under law. The Fourteenth Amendment embodied and emphasized that ideal. State support of segregated schools through any arrangement, management, funds, or property cannot be squared with the Amendment’s command that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The right of a student not to be segregated on racial grounds in schools so maintained is indeed so fundamental and pervasive that it is embraced in the concept of due process of law. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 . The basic decision in Brown was unanimously reached by this Court only after the case had been briefed and twice argued and the issues had been given the most serious consideration. Since the first Brown opinion three new Justices have come to the Court. They are at one with the Justices still on the Court who participated in that basic decision as to its correctness, and that decision is now unanimously reaffirmed. The principles announced in that decision and the obedience of the States to them, according to the command of the Constitution, [358 U.S. 1, 20] are indispensable for the protection of the freedoms guaranteed by our fundamental charter for all of us. Our constitutional ideal of equal justice under law is thus made a living truth. Cooper v. Aaron, the rare unanimous opinion issued per curiam, i.e. not by an individual justice, but by all of them. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Lowry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/739 "2015-06-29T17:57:53Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK. Thanks for the explanation, since I asked for clarification to make sure I was reading your post correctly. I can see now that I did not. However, I still disagree that those are good reasons to ban polygamy. You could say the same thing about re-marriage by couples with children from previous marriages. That would be the “decreasing tensions” part. I don’t think either that, or polygamy, have anything to do with “insularity”. At least not any more than monogamous marriages do-- we all have friends who, literally, disappear from the social scene once they get married. Well, if I was starting up a new country from scratch, I don’t know if I’d ban polygamy. I’d consider on whether it should be allowed or not. But in the US, it is currently banned for several reasons, including religious ones and because often when it happened in the past it ended up with women and children being abused and neglected. The bans could be overturned if there starts being a movement of people wanting to have polygamous marriages, and showing how they just want to live their lives and no one would be harmed, but as far as I know there isn’t really a movement like that, unlike what there was for gay marriages. I was for gay marriages to be allowed, because I listened to gay people, and because there were studies showing that gay marriage doesn’t harm children or anyone else. If polygamous people start making the same arguments, I’m willing to listen. But it seems that so far every time I see polygamous marriage brought up, it’s not by actual polygamous people wanting to make it legal, but it’s by people against gay marriage or people playing devil’s advocate trying to derail conversation. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/740 "2015-06-29T18:34:43Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > There’s a clear precedent here in civil rights law - the Southern Manifesto and similar efforts to avoid or resist the exercise of federal authority to grant rights to blacks. It’s worth remembering that it wasn’t really that long ago that the U.S. fucking Army was in Little Rock to enforce a Supreme Court decision that wasn’t well received in certain quarters. Schools and public accommodations didn’t just become integrated overnight (and in some cases they never really did). There’s no question that there are means available. What it really depends on is how far the states are willing to go to challenge federal authority, and what they do about it specifically. The army was there to protect against the very real threat of violence, which I don’t think is a concern in this case. And they didn’t show up the same week as the SCOTUS decision. I’d rather give this some time and let it work out peacefully. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544.md?page=38)