# 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:** 39
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/761 "2015-06-29T23:04:38Z")
For something on the order of 50+ years, many hick towns in GA made their money via speed traps. Jimmy Carter, as Governor, set up trailers on State-owner property near the courthouses in these burgs and staffed them with lawyers to challenge the tickets. It worked. I can see Feds-in-a-Box coming to a Recorder’s Office near Sen. Cruz. The boxes would have a direct line to the local Federal District Justices. Let’s see how many of those “pro-bono” lawyers have the guts for a Fed case. ---
**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, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/762 "2015-06-29T23:15:18Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > 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. Yep, much of the power in the right to marry is its exclusivity, and many of the benefits that accrue have been able to accrue only because we can only marry one person at a time. To use a simple example: Here in California, if I go rent a car, I can get my husband included as an authorized driver with no extra charge. If someone could go in with a dozen husbands, this little perk would probably be done away with. (I think it’s statutory.) Things like spousal immunity, joint filing for taxes, avoidance of transfer tax, certain legal rights, etc. would be eradicated if I could marry as many people as I wished. Some things are tenable only because their universe is limited. Start changing the rights of existing marriages in order to add polygamous marriage and you’ll really be dealing with “their marriage is hurting mine!” ---
**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, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/763 "2015-06-29T23:16:25Z")
Seen any poly pride parades lately? ---
**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, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/764 "2015-06-29T23:18:52Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > Seen any poly pride parades lately? I don’t think you seriously want to try to argue that no poly people want government or societal sanction. > **[Polyamory: When three isn’t a crowd | CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/28/health/polyamorous-relationship-meaning-wellness)** > > People in polyamorous relationships see an opportunity to come out and show it’s not just about sex, but about love and families, too. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/765 "2015-06-29T23:20:11Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > Seen any poly pride parades lately? [Yes.](http://www.gurdjiefflegacy.org/90art/polyamory.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/766 "2015-06-29T23:24:55Z")
[Hijack] I just wanted to point out that one of the attorneys who took their case(s) to the Supreme Court, [Dan Canon](http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/11/07/lawyers-petition-supreme-court-hear-6th-circuit-marriage-cases/), is a good friend of mine. We used to play in a band together. [/hijack] ---
**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, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/767 "2015-06-29T23:40:20Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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 don’t think **AB** ’s point was “we shouldn’t do it because it’s complicated”; what I got, at least, was “there are differences between same-sex marriage and poly marriage that make the former a weak argument for permitting the latter.” Poly marriage is more different from dyadic marriage than SSM is from DSM. > [@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. 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. And you’ve spoken to each and every person so situated, have you? I mean, that used to be said about – and occasionally by – people in same-sex relationships\*. Turned out a certain amount of that was making a virtue of necessity. I’m sure there are some people in poly relationships _pour epater les bourgeoisies_, but I suspect a majority lover their partners. \*Even as the struggle for marriage equality has been going on for about four decades. ---
**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, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/768 "2015-06-29T23:50:34Z")
> [@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. Right. The reason there are bright line ages is that it’s too hard to make a case-by-case determination, even though it unfairly deprives people of rights they could otherwise have. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2015, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/769 "2015-06-30T00:11:39Z")
We have gone round this poly marriage vs. SSM comparison before. Removing laws against it? Easy and should be done, IMO. Bring it up to the legal status of current state sanctioned marriage? Complex, and I would need to see specifics and hear from the poly community before supporting it. I don’t want things like immortal marriages where every time one spouse dies a new spouse is added keeping wealth locked up forever. It is far from impossible, and I don’t think it is inherently immoral or coercive, but I also don’t think legislatures need to spend a lot of time and money figuring out how it should work. If you want a it to be legal, make a suggestion for how it should work and then get shop it around to the poly community. Same sex marriage was simple and straight forward to enact, and it had vocal group pushing for it. Neither of those things can be said for poly marriages. ---
**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 30, 2015, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/770 "2015-06-30T01:06:16Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > We have gone round this poly marriage vs. SSM comparison before. Removing laws against it? Easy and should be done, IMO. Bring it up to the legal status of current state sanctioned marriage? Complex, and I would need to see specifics and hear from the poly community before supporting it. I don’t want things like immortal marriages where every time one spouse dies a new spouse is added keeping wealth locked up forever. And that can’t be done with monogamous marriages? > [@](#): > > It is far from impossible, and I don’t think it is inherently immoral or coercive, but I also don’t think legislatures need to spend a lot of time and money figuring out how it should work. If you want a it to be legal, make a suggestion for how it should work and then get shop it around to the poly community. Same sex marriage was simple and straight forward to enact, and it had vocal group pushing for it. Neither of those things can be said for poly marriages. So, something needs a “vocal group” pushing for it in order to be right? Funny, I thought all it took was a single group challenging the law. Anyway, this is all probably a hijack, so I’ll let it go at that. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2015, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/771 "2015-06-30T01:36:44Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > And that can’t be done with monogamous marriages? Not really. The marriage ends when someone dies. Then a new marriage is entered into. And, yes it would be possible to keep transferring a fortune down the line that way, but it would be unlikely and difficult. It would be much simpler and more likely in a multi-spouse arrangement. There was a specific example outlined in Heinlein’s **The Moon is a Harsh Mistress** that had a marriage that kept adding people down the line, until in the book the daughter or grand daughter (can’t remember which) of the original, now dead, founders joined. I doubt this will be common, but it is one of the many reasons I would want to see details. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > So, something needs a “vocal group” pushing for it in order to be right? Funny, I thought all it took was a single group challenging the law. Anyway, this is all probably a hijack, so I’ll let it go at that. How about start with a proposal? Posters who ask this question always seem to expect a lot of work and changes to federal and state law without evening defining how they want it to work. That was not the case with SSM. Change a few phrases and swap a few pronouns and job done. Poly marriages would require not just an entire rewrite of major portions of marriage law, but also revisions to the many other aspects of laws and regulations that marriage impacts. And it has to be done in a way that doesn’t change the way the law treats the vast majority of existing and future marriages between two people. ---
**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 30, 2015, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/772 "2015-06-30T02:09:31Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > We have gone round this poly marriage vs. SSM comparison before. Removing laws against it? Easy and should be done, IMO Doing that without creating a legal framework for polyamorous marriages would be the worst of both worlds. ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2015, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/773 "2015-06-30T02:58:49Z")
I believe that the US Supreme Court issuing decisions other than on Monday and occasionally Thursday is rare. Any chance that the Friday release was to get it out ahead of the Gay Pride celebrations on the weekend? ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2015, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/774 "2015-06-30T03:57:12Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > Doing that without creating a legal framework for polyamorous marriages would be the worst of both worlds. Not really. Right now, in many places you can get fined, go to jail, or lose custody of your children if your neighbors report you are living in a house of ill-repute. Decriminalizing just means that it isn’t a crime to live like that. You can’t get a license, but nobody is going to bust down your door and haul you away. Utah’s law against multiple partners cohabiting and fornicating was struck down in 2013 [Cite](http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/12/16/sister-wives-defeat-polygamy-law-in-federal-court) It puts poly folks in a status similar to gays and lesbians after _Lawrence v. Texas_. They didn’t have the rights and privileges of marriage, but they didn’t have to hide in fear of prosecution. ---
**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 30, 2015, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/775 "2015-06-30T13:16:53Z")
Sorry to distract the polyamory fans (who really need to clean up those nasty old Renegade Mormons before they start their Pride Movement), I’ve got an update from Texas. [As seen on KHOU this morning](http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/2015/06/29/clerks-in-harris-co-refusing-to-process-same-sex-applications/29488621/): > [@](#): > > When Chevonne Smith and her future husband showed up for a marriage license Monday morning, they weren’t especially surprised to see same sex couples waiting in line. > > After all, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled Friday that same sex marriage was a constitutional right in all 50 states and the story was all over television and the newspapers over the weekend. But what did surprise her was a curious interaction she witnessed between a clerk and a same sex couple who reached the front of the line. > > “They walked up and before they could even sit down to do the license, he told them, ‘You’re going to have to wait for the other clerk, I’m not going to give you the license because of my religious beliefs,’” she recalled. > > Two other same sex couples also had to wait for the other clerk, she said. > > “We thought that it was unfair,” she said. “Because, you know, it’s supposed to be for everyone now.” Our Republican County Clerk said he shares those religious scruples. (He had to be “cajoled” by our County Attorney into offering licenses to all.) Shouldn’t the objecting clerks wear special outfits? It’s an inconvenience in Texas’s largest county; I wonder about the more rural counties with smaller staffs. And I wonder how most of the employees feel about their shirking co-workers. Time to sue! ---
**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 30, 2015, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/776 "2015-06-30T13:22:02Z")
Don’t worry, you’re ahead of Louisiana, which still isn’t issuing any licenses to same-sex couples at all. > [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Shouldn’t the objecting clerks wear special outfits? Pink triangle lapel pins. ---
**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 30, 2015, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/777 "2015-06-30T14:01:16Z")
Alternatively, we could be civil about the whole thing and give people time to adjust. Clerks: You need to issue marriage licenses to everyone or find another job. If you choose to not issue licenses to same-sex couples, we will accommodate you for X number of of months while you find other employment. ---
**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 30, 2015, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/778 "2015-06-30T14:02:47Z")
Why should they be accommodated at all? They are performing a purely clerical function. Should we accommodate clerks whose religious beliefs prohibit remarriage? ---
**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 30, 2015, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/779 "2015-06-30T14:06:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Why should they be accommodated at all? They are performing a purely clerical function. Should we accommodate clerks whose religious beliefs prohibit remarriage? Was remarriage suddenly made legal today when it wasn’t yesterday? Anyone applying for the job now knows that he or she (or whatever) has to offer licenses to same sex couples. Those on the job now didn’t know that when they signed up. ---
**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 30, 2015, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/780 "2015-06-30T14:11:38Z")
They knew they would be offering licenses to couples whose marriages might be inconsistent with their personal views. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544.md?page=38) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544.md?page=40)