# 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:** 38
**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, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/741 "2015-06-29T18:45:37Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. In Texas, this is happening on the County level. It doesn’t matter what Gov Abbott thinks. On Friday, some County clerks immediately started issuing licenses–scritching through the obsolete words on the form. Others delayed because they were waiting for word from Austin or waiting for the new forms. At least, they gave those excuses. Don’t know how things have been going today. I think this is a matter for the lawyers, not the Feds. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/742 "2015-06-29T18:55:01Z")
> [@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. It is almost trivial to remove gender limitations from two-person marriage, because all but a vanishingly small fraction of existing law and custom apply just as well to SSM as traditional marriage. Multiperson marriage opens so many doors to loopholes and omissions in existing law that I’d shudder to have a friend or family member in one that isn’t composed of the very best, most reliable, least selfish spouses. Especially with children involved. It’s not something that can be left to a vague mix of good intentions and future considerations. ---
**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, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/743 "2015-06-29T19:00:31Z")
“Massive Resistance” to _Brown_ took place on a county level, as well. Similarly to what’s happened here, so far, some counties immediately put measures in place to integrate, and some either refused to or were prevented from doing so. The NAACP had to file against several different counties’ school boards over many years to (attempt to) force desegregation. People who don’t want to do things try to get away with not doing them; so it goes. I’m not saying the army is going to show up tomorrow, very obviously. The question was whether the federal government has any legal means to enforce compliance on the ground. ---
**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, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/744 "2015-06-29T19:02:00Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > It is almost trivial to remove gender limitations from two-person marriage, because all but a vanishingly small fraction of existing law and custom apply just as well to SSM as traditional marriage. > > Multiperson marriage opens so many doors to loopholes and omissions in existing law that I’d shudder to have a friend or family member in one that isn’t composed of the very best, most reliable, least selfish spouses. I’m one person in a 4-person LLC right now that could just as easily be written up as a marriage. But none of that really matters. We don’t deny people their rights because “it’s too complicated to do”. If gays have the right to marry, then I see no reason that poly folk also don’t have the right to marry, in which case it is incumbent on the government to accommodate them, not the other way 'round. ---
**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, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/745 "2015-06-29T19:08:12Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m one person in a 4-person LLC right now that could just as easily be written up as a marriage. But none of that really matters. We don’t deny people their rights because “it’s too complicated to do”. If gays have the right to marry, then I see no reason that poly folk also don’t have the right to marry, in which case it is incumbent on the government to accommodate them, not the other way 'round. Then the poly folk need to get their movement together. Have Poly Pride days. And be sure those Rogue Mormon folks don’t reap any benefits. Marrying barely nubile girls to old men & tossing young men out of the community don’t do the movement any good. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/746 "2015-06-29T19:11:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m one person in a 4-person LLC right now that could just as easily be written up as a marriage. But none of that really matters. We don’t deny people their rights because “it’s too complicated to do”. If gays have the right to marry, then I see no reason that poly folk also don’t have the right to marry, in which case it is incumbent on the government to accommodate them, not the other way 'round. I’m open to the idea, and I’d be interested to hear from any folks in poly relationships who feel that their rights are being denied, but I don’t think SSM necessarily leads to legal poly marriage. ---
**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, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/747 "2015-06-29T19:18:55Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > [How quickly we forget.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16818092&postcount=111)😉 I didn’t forget. Actually, I was thinking of that thread when I wrote my post. I am merely pointing out that there is a government interest there. By contrast, there is no non-fictional interest at all in prohibiting SSM at this point. I am not taking a position on whether the (much more minor than often thought) consanguinity problem outweighs the rights of people who want to marry their relatives. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/748 "2015-06-29T19:32:55Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Here’s another way to think about it… > > …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? These are not random jerks. They are public officials who’ve almost surely taken some kind of oath of office, and are failing to perform their official duties if they refuse to issue licenses. I don’t expect the state to fire them because the state wants them ignore the law, but in normal conditions they SHOULD be fired. Which is why I’m suggesting that they be arrested on Federal authority. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/749 "2015-06-29T19:34:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > We don’t deny people their rights because “it’s too complicated to do”. Actually, we do. That’s why we have specific age of consent or age of majority laws, after all, because it’s too complicated to figure it out on a case-by-case basis. ---
**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, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/750 "2015-06-29T19:37:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m one person in a 4-person LLC right now that could just as easily be written up as a marriage. But none of that really matters. We don’t deny people their rights because “it’s too complicated to do”. If gays have the right to marry, then I see no reason that poly folk also don’t have the right to marry, in which case it is incumbent on the government to accommodate them, not the other way 'round. What are you trying to get across here? Are you polygamous and trying to argue for polygamous marriage? Or are you trying to use it to argue against same-sex marriage? Or something else? Several people have said now that the laws against polygamous marriage might change if polygamous marriage start trying to rally for it, but so far that’s not happening. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/751 "2015-06-29T19:39:32Z")
I like the idea that there is no longer the thing called “same sex marriage”. It’s just “marriage”. ---
**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, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/752 "2015-06-29T19:41:44Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > On Friday, some County clerks immediately started issuing licenses–scritching through the obsolete words on the form. Others delayed because they were waiting for word from Austin or waiting for the new forms. At least, they gave those excuses. Don’t know how things have been going today. Many (most?) Texas counties have been complying, but there are [a few holdouts](http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/29/texas-counties-withholding-same-sex-marriage-licen/) as you might expect. Looks like Hood County is going the full-resistance route, although apparently no same-sex couples have come in for a license yet, but maybe we’ll get to see what happens when one does. Just eyeballing it, the five Texas counties with populations in excess of 1,000,000 are issuing licenses as of today, as are the majority of counties with populations over 250,000. To the extent there is organized opposition it looks likely to come from some smaller, out-of-the way counties that might not have much demand in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/753 "2015-06-29T20:26:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m one person in a 4-person LLC right now that could just as easily be written up as a marriage. But none of that really matters. We don’t deny people their rights because “it’s too complicated to do”. If gays have the right to marry, then I see no reason that poly folk also don’t have the right to marry, in which case it is incumbent on the government to accommodate them, not the other way 'round. So, just for starters (and I’m sure your LLC partnership agreement covers most of this): A and B are married. A wants to add C, B doesn’t want to. Can A marry C anyway? If so, are B and C also married (this one is easy, I think, and the answer is no)?. But can A be married to B and C, without B and C being married? If not, why not? A, B, and C are married, each to all. B wants out (let’s assume all the way). A says OK, C says nope. I’m assuming a divorce can be forced between two people, so maybe this isn’t a problem. A, B, and C are married, each to all. B wants out. There are children. Since all are married to all, all are parents. A and C are the gene donors. B wants sole custody. A and B are married, B is also married to C, D, and E. B dies inestate. Where does the money go? Half to A, 1/6 to C, D, and E? 1/4 to each? A, B, and C are married, each to all. A is in a persistent vegetative state, with no medical directive. B wants to pull the plug, C doesn’t. Is the plug pulled? We’ve built up rules and law over generations to handle couple marriage. All of the above can be solved, but it’s not as simple as changing “man and woman” to “two consenting adults”. ---
**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, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/754 "2015-06-29T20:30:16Z")
None of those are things that can’t be handled by a prenup, or that don’t occur in other situations. A and B are married and have two adult children, C and D. A dies. B is in a PVS. C wants to pull the plug but D doesn’t. Does the plug get pulled? ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/755 "2015-06-29T20:34:33Z")
You are missing the larger point that people in multi party relationships, of any stripe, do not seek or desire government or societal sanction. They want to be able to shape it as they please, and deal with the outcomes as suits them. Without involving the government, in anyway. They are NOT seeking to have any sort of light shone on their relationships, in fact, precisely the opposite. The entire arguments seems incredibly disengenuous to me, for this reason. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/756 "2015-06-29T20:53:15Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Actually, we do. That’s why we have specific age of consent or age of majority laws, after all, because it’s too complicated to figure it out on a case-by-case basis. Not a good example. Minors don’t have certain rights. It may be too complicated to craft a law or an amendment to change what those rights are, but if they HAVE the right, they aren’t refused it because it would be too complicated to allow them to exercise the right. ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/757 "2015-06-29T21:41:05Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Not a good example. Minors don’t have certain rights. It may be too complicated to craft a law or an amendment to change what those rights are, but if they HAVE the right, they aren’t refused it because it would be too complicated to allow them to exercise the right. This is equivocation. The subject of **jsgoddess** ’s discussion was fundamental/human/moral rights that mature adults should have and that are denied to all minors even though a minority might be mature enough to merit those considerations. Saying “minors don’t have those rights because there is no law granting them that right” is shifting the conversation to legal rights and is silly; using that definition, we say that gays have a right to be married now because gays have a right to be married, which is tautological. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/758 "2015-06-29T21:54:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If gays have the right to marry, then I see no reason that poly folk also don’t have the right to marry _If_ the price to allow same-sex marriage were to also allow polygamous marriages of consenting adults, I’d call that totally worth it. However, I don’t buy that argument. In many ways, marrying two people conveys an _additional_ benefit over marrying one. (Twice as many people who can’t be forced to testify against you in court, to name one example.) That’s not the same as a gay person asking to enjoy the same marriage benefit as a straight person, but with the person of their choice. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/759 "2015-06-29T22:10:43Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > This is equivocation. The subject of **jsgoddess** ’s discussion was fundamental/human/moral rights that mature adults should have and that are denied to all minors even though a minority might be mature enough to merit those considerations. Saying “minors don’t have those rights because there is no law granting them that right” is shifting the conversation to legal rights and is silly; using that definition, we say that gays have a right to be married now because gays have a right to be married, which is tautological. But minors are defined as the set of people not having certain rights. I think the situation is more that there are clearly some minors who should be prohibited or protected from certain actions, and some adults who should not. The dividing line is somewhat arbitrary (there will always be some below the line who can handle things better than some above) but that doesn’t affect the basic point. Society even recognizes the line may be incorrect, as we’ve increased the drinking age and lowered the voting age. There is no such blurry line for SSM. Assuming the parties are above the somewhat arbitrary age at which marriage is legal, all couples are equally capable of marriage. Certainly as much so as OSM. ---
**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, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/760 "2015-06-29T22:44:06Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > You are missing the larger point that people in multi party relationships, of any stripe, do not seek or desire government or societal sanction… You have a cite for this outlandish claim? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544.md?page=37) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544.md?page=39)