Supreme Court formally asked to overturn same-sex marriage ruling

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-formally-asked-overturn-landmark-same-sex/story?id=124465302

55•1659447091•3h ago

Comments

duxup•2h ago

If your job is to issue marriage licenses and you don’t want to, at what point is that on YOU to make adjustments?

I do not see how her personal objection should have any impact to other people’s lives. She is issuing marriage licenses and FOR the state, not her personal endorsement.

I sure didn’t care about or even know who issued my marriage license and it sure wasn’t their job to pass judgment.

If allowed couldn’t just anyone take state jobs and claim “religious objection, I won’t do it, all you citizens can’t have whatever it is I do”?

Just absurd.

darth_avocado•2h ago

The beauty about work is that you can always leave if you don’t like what you’re being asked to do. Being asked to lift heavy stuff and you don’t want to? Find a job where you don’t have to. Serving pork is against your religion? Work at a vegan restaurant. Don’t like dogs? Don’t work at an animal hospital. Feel squeamish about blood? Don’t work at a hospital.

It really is that simple.

treetalker•2h ago

The First Amendment challenge is a sideshow; this case will be all about teeing up Obergefell for the conservative bloc's pot shots, if not complete overturning. The larger cultural theme, though, is to underscore who's in charge by flaunting the "in" group's imperviousness to normal legal rules: like Trump, the January 6 offenders, Justices Thomas and Alito themselves, et al., Kim Davis will be shown to be above the law.

beepbopboopp•2h ago

I think the most interesting part about this is that this is first "out group" that theyre taking aim at that truly has money, power and extremely organized cultural weaponry.

It seems they think coming after this group with impunity like they have the poor and some other specific minorities is going to work out with little consequence or true backlash. Id bet this group serves more third rail than they are anticpating.

bdhe•1h ago

I wonder what Peter Thiel and Matt Danzeisen think about this?

treetalker•1h ago

Probably nothing because past marriages won't be affected.

bdhe•1h ago

> Just absurd.

What's worse - Kim Davis's personal life doesn't read like someone who "respects traditional marriage". From wikipedia:

> Davis has been married four times to three husbands. The first three marriages ended in divorce in 1994, 2006, and 2008. Davis has two daughters from her first marriage and twins, a son and another daughter, who were born five months after her divorce from her first husband. Her third husband is the biological father of the twins, the children being conceived while Davis was still married to her first husband.

This is a concerted effort to test what the new SCOTUS is going to grant the new "in group" in this country in terms of laws that bind the "out group" which in this case is the gay community.

ryankrage77•2h ago

I do wonder what these people's thought process is, to want to make gay marriage illegal. I grew up in a Christian household, and definitely used to be homophobic, as a sort of default. But once I was old enough to think for myself (I think around ~14 or so), I considered the issue and realised I was being stupid. My reasoning was, if people of the same gender want to be together, it doesn't affect me and is none of my business. I went from a vague, abstract dissaproval/discomfort to not caring, or a vague 'good for you' sentiment.

The entire thing has had me wondering ever since, when people who should be capable of learning better (i.e, not surrounded solely by bigots that prevent them re-considering/speaking up) are homophic, transphobic, racist, etc, what is going on inside their head? Have they just never given it thought? Like, what does a rational argument against homosexuality look like? I have always been forced to conclude that bigotry is irrational on the level of full-on delusion.

duxup•2h ago

If there’s something I, in theory, would like about the GoP in America it’s their libertarian ideology… but it’s a lie.

They believe in freedom, for them to restrict everyone else’s freedom. Of course that’s not freedom or libertarian or anything of the sort.

Even the political nature of the religious right isn’t about helping god’s children, it’s more about hating them and revoking any help they can get…

FredPret•2h ago

I went through exactly the same steps as you, and I think where people get hung up/disagree with you is on the "it doesn't affect me" step, and of course there's a small minority that's just assholes.

add-sub-mul-div•2h ago

There's people who are prone to react to new ideas with curiosity and people who are prone to react to new ideas with suspicion, fear, intolerance. It's that simple. You're right, it's not rational. Identity by gender/sexuality/race/etc. is so fundamental, so the latter group reacts most strongly and negatively to new ideas about identity. Religion fans the flames. Most don't take back control from their religious upbrining the way you did.

tbrownaw•1h ago

Some people think state-recognized marriage is a special privileged legal status for the purpose of having and raising kids. Ie, that the focus actually isn't on the adults who are the ones to get married. In which case, couples who know they can't possibly have kids are trying to con the state out of the benefits without accepting the associated responsibility. I don't know what faction of people with this view take is to it's logical conclusion regarding for example infertility, but I'd be very surprised if there weren't at least a few and not completely shocked if it was a majority.

tbrownaw•2h ago

> In a petition for writ of certiorari filed last month

A quick search says the court accepts approximately a percent of those.

And AIUI they usually prefer cases where the lower courts disagree with eachother, which I don't think this one is. And it sounds like every court she's been through on the way up has unanimously shot her down.

I rather suspect this should be taken about as seriously as your local sovereign citizen trying to have income taxes declared illegal.

treetalker•2h ago

The Roberts Court (especially since Gorsuch/Kavanaugh/ACB) looks out for circuit splits like any other, but it readily accepts (and sometimes telegraphs requests for) cases claiming that the last judicial regime's precedents were wrongly decided on non-originalism paradigms.

unsnap_biceps•18m ago

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the 2022 case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."

fzeroracer•2h ago

I would say that this is going to go nowhere, but after the Supreme Court's absolutely disastrous reversal on Roe v. Wade it would not surprise me if they finally take it up here and say they're going to kick it back down to the states. It'll be an absolute shitshow as all the states that had bans and other restrictions kick in.

Good luck to all the tech companies that have offices in red states if it comes to pass.

snapplebobapple•1h ago

disastrous how? To me it seems like the states are starting the 20-30 year process of legislating it themselves that should have happened and been mostly done by now but was instead stopped in its tracks and allowed to fester, strengthening the religious right (which is a very bad thing). The first 15 years will suck as some states try unconstitutional things and get smacked down but you guys will get to a spot where you have slightly different laws by state that most people can agree on and the issue will mostly die down by the end rather than fester and get larger and larger support against it like it has to this point. You can generally tell when the supreme court gets it wrong by whether the issue slides into the background as obviously correct to most people after a generation or two or if the issue gets bigger and bigger and this issue got bigger and bigger. abortion falls into the latter category. (And I love abortion. It's killed so many future criminals you see it in the crime stats. I'm not a crazed religious person, I'm an atheist, so you can't write the above opinion off as that).

FranzFerdiNaN•59m ago

The thing is 'doing unconstitutional things and getting smacked down' is no longer a certainty. This Supreme Court has shown itself to wipe their ass with the Constitution, or any law, if it helps either the conservative agenda or Trump.

snapplebobapple•48m ago

Yah, you're looking at it on too short a time frame. If enough people are butt hurt about something over a long enough time period, it will get reversed (as you just saw from this very issue that started the discussion). Also, unconstitutional does not mean something you don't like, it means something explicitly outlawed in the constitution. Things like stopping pregnant women from exercising their right to travel, not setting restrictions on abortion to a level higher than I personally would like.

sd_mikey•1h ago

> "If there ever was a case of exceptional importance," Staver wrote, "the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it."

Kim Davis has been married four times to three men [1][2].

She had twins in 1994, five months after divorcing her first husband, with the biological father being the man who later became her third husband, which seems to point to an affair during the marriage [1][3][2].

If this is about upholding Christian convictions, her own history doesn’t exactly model them.

[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-cle...

[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriag...

[3] https://people.com/celebrity/kim-davis-married-four-times-re...

FranzFerdiNaN•1h ago

With conservatives its always rules for you, not for me.

readthenotes1•12m ago

I think you mean authoritarian, not conservative.

Power doesn't corrupt, it reveals. -- Robert Caro

https://apnews.com/general-news-political-news-9426bc09f958a... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8463949/Neil-Fergus... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partygate

GLM-4.5: Agentic, Reasoning, and Coding (ARC) Foundation Models [pdf]

StarDict sends X11 clipboard to remote servers

All known 49-year-old Apple-1 computer

Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

I tried every todo app and ended up with a .txt file

Weathering Software Winter

The Article in the Most Languages

GitHub is no longer independent at Microsoft after CEO resignation

Show HN: I built an offline, open‑source desktop Pixel Art Editor in Python

Claude Code is all you need

FreeBSD Scheduling on Hybrid CPUs

OpenSSH Post-Quantum Cryptography

Show HN: Play Pokémon to unlock your Wayland session

Chris Simpkins, creator of Hack font, has died

What does it mean to be thirsty?

Neki – sharded Postgres by the team behind Vitess

How to teach your kids to play poker: Start with one card

Japan's largest paper, Yomiuri Shimbun, sues Perplexity for copyright violations

Launch HN: Halluminate (YC S25) – Simulating the internet to train computer use

Ollama and gguf

The value of institutional memory

The History of Windows XP

You're Wrong About Dates – and Your Code Is Lying to You

Starbucks in Korea asks customers to stop bringing in printers/desktop computers

Why tail-recursive functions are loops

Byte Buddy is a code generation and manipulation library for Java

How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

36B solar mass black hole at centre of the Cosmic Horseshoe gravitational lens

AOL to discontinue dial-up internet

The Joy of Mixing Custom Elements, Web Components, and Markdown