Progress as promised

Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision.

Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for six days in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds, is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees.

[...]

"The mistake must be corrected," wrote Davis' attorney Mathew Staver in the petition. He calls Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Obergefell "legal fiction."

[...]

Davis is seen as one of the only Americans currently with legal standing to bring a challenge to the precedent.

  ABC

And I'm willing to be everything in my pocket that she is not bringing this suit or paying for it on her own.

Lower courts have dismissed Davis' claims and most legal experts consider her bid a long shot.

[...]

"Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals showed any interest in Davis's rehearing petition, and we are confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis's arguments do not merit further attention," said William Powell, attorney for David Ermold and David Moore, the now-married Kentucky couple that sued Davis for damages, in a statement to ABC News.

Don't hold your breath.

So far in 2025, at least nine states have either introduced legislation aimed at blocking new marriage licenses for LGBTQ people or passed resolutions urging the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell at the earliest opportunity, according to the advocacy group Lambda Legal.

In June, the Southern Baptist Convention -- the nation's largest Protestant Christian denomination -- overwhelmingly voted to make "overturning of laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God's design for marriage and family" a top priority.

UPDATE 08/12/2025:  Two smart attorney/Supreme Court analysts agree.  I hope they're right.

 

No immunity decision today - again

Yes, so what happens?  Maybe the difference will be in "stay" versus "enter".

UPDATE 03:25 pm:

UPDATE 06/22/2024:

Will same-sex marriage be reversed?

For MAGA and GOP, it's all about sex, isn't it?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Alito nails it - unwittingly

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito renewed his criticism Tuesday of the high court’s landmark same-sex marriage ruling, addressing it in a five-page statement as part of an order explaining why the court declined to hear a case involving a Missouri lawsuit.

The case in question, the Missouri Department of Corrections v. Jean Finney, involved a dispute where jurors were dismissed from the employment discrimination case after they voiced religious concerns about same-sex relationships.

[...]

The high court in 2015 voted 5-4 in favor of allowing same-sex couples the right to marriage.

[...]

In his statement Tuesday, Alito said he agrees with the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the Missouri lawsuit but said it “exemplifies the danger” that he anticipated in the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case.

“Namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be ‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government,” he wrote.

  The Hill

Yeah, well, that's what they are, so that would seem appropriate.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Falling short again

The Senate’s Respect for Marriage Act ... as it currently stands would officially repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and require state recognition of legal same-sex and interracial marriages but would not codify the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex unions nationwide or prevent the high court from eventually overturning the landmark decision.

“It would be great if the bill went further, but we don’t have the votes for the bill to go further,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) told Changing America.

  The Hill

Old, white Christians are not dying out quickly enough.

The Obergefell ruling barred states from enforcing statutes or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages. Should the Supreme Court overturn the ruling, as it did with Roe v. Wade and the right to abortion, the issue of same-sex marriages would be returned to the states.[T]he possibility of going further in the immediate future is remote given that House Republicans are set to retake the chamber in January.

So states don't have to perform same-sex marriages, but they do have to recognize them if done in states that do.

In the Senate, Republicans were concerned that religious liberty protections may be eroded by federal legislation protecting marriage equality.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) forced the upper chamber to delay a procedural vote on the bill this month until 10 p.m. after he was unable to win the necessary support for his amendment to further strengthen the religious liberty provisions.

“They shouldn’t be able to punish religious belief,” Lee said on the Senate floor before the Nov. 16 vote. “That’s all I want. A protection saying the federal government may not punish any individual or entity based on a religious or moral conviction-based belief about marriage. That is not too much to ask.”

How in the world is religious belief punished if people of the same sex are allowed to marry?

Like I said, old, white Christians aren't dying out quickly enough.

While at least 12 Senate Republicans and 47 House Republicans are likely to put the bill over the top, it is notable that more than 75 percent of GOP lawmakers did not vote for the proposal overall, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

All votes against are Republicans, of course.

Next on the chopping block: Gay marriage

Sen. Ted Cruz said he thinks the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage was wrongly decided.

[...]

"Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history. Marriage was always an issue that was left to the states," Cruz said when asked how Obergefell could be vulnerable if it came before the Supreme Court again.

[...]

"I think that decision was clearly wrong when it was decided. It was the court overreaching," he said, adding that he's not sure if the Supreme Court would reverse it.

  MSN

This will be the Supreme Court that strips Americans of rights. It's paramount that the Court be reined in. There are several options to be pursued, among them a combination proposed by former AG Eric Holder that I think typifies the best ideas: 

• term limits of 18 years
• fluctuating number of justices
• every president appoints one justice in the first year of his/her term and one in the third year

As new justices are added to the court, other justices will reach their term limit.  Immediately, Clarence Thomas will go, leaving 8 justices.  (There won't be any problem of a tie vote because they now vote generally 6 to 3.)  Thomas has been serving - and I use that term lightly - for 30 years.  

Roberts (currently serving for 16 years) will be gone by the 2024 election, when - hopefully - Biden will be replaced by another Democrat who will appoint one justice, bringing the number to 9 again.

Alito will go in the following year, bringing the number back to 8 for one year until the president gets another pick.

We will still be stuck with the Trump trio: Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, for a number of years, but hopefully two qualified justices will have been appointed to help balance their extremist votes.

Also, further reform needs to be a code of ethics and rules for recusal.

The only snag I can see here is that the current lot will have destroyed voting rights and permitted state Republicans to rig their legislatures to favor ultra-right views, dooming us to a future controlled by anti-democracy extremists.  With presidents like that, we'll get continual Supreme Court justices like the current crop of sadists.

November this year really will be the deciding vote of whether the US has a chance to recover or it loses its democracy.

UPDATE:

UPDATE:  Another, similar, good idea for court expansion.