Gay Marriage

Two Justices Really Want To Revisit Gay Marriage Ruling. Let's Not Panic, Please.

Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito worry about the future of religious freedom. That’s not the same as a call to overturn the decision.


Kim Davis, the former Kentucky County Clerk who made national news for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, is briefly back in the news today because the Supreme Court declined to hear her case. Despite that refusal, some observers are concerned that the Court might overturn the decision that made gay marriage the law of the land, a fear fed partly by some comments by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito and partly by the nomination of Catholic conservative Amy Coney Barrett to the bench.

Kim Davis v. David Ermold is not, on the surface, about gay marriage recognition itself. It's about qualified immunity, the legal principle that often shields government workers from personal civil liability when their behavior violates citizens' rights. Davis faces civil lawsuits over her refusal to issue marriage licenses. She attempted to argue that she was covered by qualified immunity, even though the Supreme Court had ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, that states must recognize and permit same-sex marriages. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District rejected this argument, meaning she could be personally sued and held liable in civil court for violating the rights of those whose marriages she refused to license.

Davis asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in, and today it declined to hear her case. When the Supreme Court rejects a case, there is often no statement or explanation, but sometimes those who dissent from the majority decision will write separately to explain why they think the court should have heard the case. Today's orders include a response written by Thomas and joined by Alito. But they are not dissenting from the court's refusal to hear the Davis case. They agree with the majority decision to decline.

Thomas and Alito contend that the Court has still not properly dealt with the religious liberties of those who object to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. "If the States had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs," Thomas writes. He argues that the Obergefell decision cut off the opportunity for Kentucky to craft legislation that might have given both sides what they want—a way for same-sex couples to get their marriage licenses without religious objectors being forced to give their stamps of approval.

As a consequence to the Obergefell ruling, Thomas writes, "Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss. For example, relying on Obergefell, one member of the Sixth Circuit panel in this case described Davis' sincerely held religious beliefs as 'anti-homosexual animus.' In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals….Since Obergefell, parties have continually attempted to label people of good will as bigots merely for refusing to alter their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy."

Thomas and Alito argue that Obergefell has enshrined the idea that objection to legally recognized same-sex marriage is no longer a valid religious belief and is also an indicator that the person expressing belief must hold a host of antigay positions. They conclude that by "choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have 'ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'"

It's clear that Thomas and Alito want the Court to reconsider Obergefell, but it's not entirely clear that they think there's any actual chance the court would strike the whole thing down. They obviously would be happy if the decision were reversed, but their response is fundamentally a call for the Supreme Court to deal with the complicated issues of religious liberty that the ruling raised.

And the full court knows these issues exist. The Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling favored baker Jack Phillips' refusal to bake a gay wedding cake because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed clear animosity toward Jack Phillips' religious beliefs and was not the neutral arbiter it was supposed to be. In this summer's Bostock ruling, which bans workplace discrimination against gay and trans people, Justice Neil Gorsuch—writing for the majority—acknowledged concerns that the ruling could affect religious freedoms and added that "how these doctrines protecting religious liberty interact with [the Civil Rights Act of 1964] are questions for future cases." And the Supreme Court will, in fact, be hearing arguments in November about whether a municipality can refuse to contract services with an adoption or foster care agency if it declines to places children with same-sex couples due to religious objections.

Meanwhile, the fact that no one but Alito signed onto Thomas' statement should be seen as evidence that there isn't much interest in overturning Obergefell. And the Bostock ruling is an even stronger indicator. Given that Bostock says it violates the Civil Rights Act to discriminate against an individual for being gay or transgender, it's hard to imagine how the Court could then restore a ban on same-sex marriage recognition. Not unless it overturned both precedents.

But we have a Supreme Court opening and President Donald Trump has nominated Barrett to the seat. Many observers insist that Barrett is going to roll back LGBT rights, mostly on the grounds that she is a Catholic and has spoken before the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a religious legal foundation that frequently fights against LGBT legal protections.

Similar objections were raised about Gorsuch back in 2017: People saw his support of Hobby Lobby in the fight over whether the company could be forced to fund birth control, and they somehow concluded from this that he was hostile toward LGBT issues. He went on, of course, to author the 6–3 Bostock decision in June. Barrett might end up surprising people too. And if not, three justices is still pretty far from a majority.

NEXT: Michigan Supreme Court Strikes Down Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's COVID-19 Executive Orders

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We’re finally going to allow polygamists to get married?

    Wait, that’s not what they mean?

    1. Yes; no.

      1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…OPk after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

        Here’s what I do…>> Click here

      2. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make Abw me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

        Here’s what I do…>>Visit Here

    2. Nope, polygamists are inherently sexists, as is marriage itself. Polyamory is the next item on the super-woke docket. People randomly shacking up with multiple shackers need the same rights as married cis-sexist peeps. Or something.

      p.s. I have nothing against gay marriage. I was a bit opposed originally as it was new and it took time to digest it. But I have several married gay friends now that I have known since childhood. No problem. I still think that the government needs to mostly get out of the marriage business, however. People shouldn’t get more rights just because the are married.

      1. People shouldn’t get more rights just because the are married.

        You gotta offset the pain of matrimony somehow.

        1. This is why Catholics drink.

        2. Years ago I spotted a bumper sticker that said “don’t legalize gay marriage, spare them the pain”

        3. What about polygamous Mormons? Do they have to drink two, three or four times as much as a non-Mormon married to one person?

      2. If one spouse makes more they get hit with a penalty too.

      3. I’m against gay marriage. I’m even more against government granting licenses for marriage at all.

        1. I am just against redefining marriage, but I guess that is moot at this point.

        2. Well you have a very reasonable answer, maybe the government should get out of the marriage license business all together.

          1. I agree completely.

    3. I quit working at shop rite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me jow happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…>>Visit Here

  2. >>meaning she could be personally sued and held liable in civil court for violating the rights of those whose marriages she refused to license.

    for *that* QI gets suspended … but not for all the murders … check.

      1. touche.

  3. Non-story. People just want something to freak out about. That is all.

  4. The more serious question is why the state is licensing and sanctioning marriage in the first place. Adults can enter into nearly any contract they wish without government oversight. But apparently deciding to a have spouse requires their approval.

    Anyway welcome to bureaucratic hell, gays. You now get to wait in line for a stamp of approval from some fat clerk who doesn’t give a shit.

    1. Because there’s a Gordian Knot of legal benefits that married couples can receive from various employers such as the Federal Government etc.

    2. Follow the money.
      It is actually about all the laws and tax rulings that differentiate according to marital status.
      Properly done, the government should not recognise in law the declarations made in any religious ceremony. Bit lazy legislators just say these tax breaks go to married couples. Or these inheritance rights are assumed for married couples. etc.
      So “all” that has to be done is to eliminate all the marital preferences in all the laws and regulations.
      If those who truly believe the state should designate preferential treatment for certain relationships, say ‘for the children’, then they should specify that in a manner that does not require a ceremony. Say the legal parents of a child can claim the child as a dependent, “married” or not. Everyone has to file taxes without regard to what is now “filing status”. Just file taxes.

    3. Historically, the church got involved in marriage to keep the state out. Because lords wanted to control which serfs got married. Churches said, hands off.

      After that marriage was mostly common law in the English legal sphere. But the whole idea of licenses and shit came about and once again the state was there to say who could and could not get married. Partly so slave owners could who who their slaves could married, but partly because government wants moar powah.

      But the state does need to be involved somewhat. At least so long as the legal system is part of the state. Because you have matters of inheritance and joint property and things like that. Because marriage is similar to a contract, but is not entirely a contract. No matter how angrily the AnCap contractualists insist otherwise. The legal system still needs to recognize the difference between marriage and shacking up and roommates.

      1. “Because lords wanted to control which serfs got married.”

        Yeah man, and they also granted themselves “first dibs” from time to time!

        Right of the King to have sex with new brides. (Googled that to find the below).

        “Droit du seigneur (‘lord’s right’), also known as jus primae noctis and prima nocta, was a supposed legal right in medieval Europe, allowing feudal lords to have sexual relations with subordinate women, in particular, on their wedding …”

        Well, I should hope it safe to say, at least we’re not going back THAT far!

        1. Fuck off racist.

        2. “Yeah man, and they also granted themselves “first dibs” from time to time!”

          You should have actually read the Wikipedia article you linked, Sqrls. Droit du seigneur was a myth.

          1. Historians David M. Walker and Hector McKechnie wrote that the “right” might have existed in medieval Europe,[1][2] but other historians have concluded that it is a myth, and that all references to it are from later periods.[3][4]

            So it is disputed… Do YOU know which is right? Were YOU there? Maybe in a past lifetime? Is Shirley McClain available to “past lives regression hypnotherapy” you, and access your past-lives memories?

            Sick tales of torture and brutality
            John M. Spidaliere May 30, 2003 Updated Sep 11, 2013

            “Before the war, the ministry was run by Uday Hussein, the eldest son of Saddam Hussein, who used his position to support his decadent lifestyle and satisfy his lust for violence and sex.”

            “Uday had a cruel reputation for crashing weddings and either stealing the bride or any guest that intrigued him to rape and in some cases murder them, Eberly said.”

            Power pigs are utter assholes, and they DO, do these kinds of things! Have you witnessed ALL of human history, and are you willing to testify that this NEVER happened?

            1. One historian says it “might” have existed, key word might, while the vast majority conclude it was a myth. No controversy, except for those who can’t accept they are wrong.

              1. You’re trying to have a rational discussion with Squirrelly.

                Caveat emptor.

        3. Lord’s right was a myth according to almost every historian who has looked at the matter.

          1. Was this also a myth with respect to Saddam’s son, Uday? I have read REPEATEDLY that this happened, even to the brides of utterly faithful military officers in the service of Saddam!

            I wasn’t there, I didn’t see it happen. (Uday etc. that is) I have seen some utterly ugly aspects of humans, and how low they will stoop! “Power corrupts, and absolute power, corrupts absolutely”. It rings totally true, from what I have seen! I suppose you might have to see it personally, to believe it!


            As to deviancy, among the sundry depravities attributed to Caligula, sex with his sisters was just a start – as contemporaries put it: “He lived in habitual incest with all his sisters, and at a large banquet he placed each of them in turn below him, while his wife reclined above“. At dinner parties, he was in the habit of ordering the wives of guests to accompany him to his bedroom, and after having sex with them, would return to the party and rate their performance, berating the cuckolded husbands if their wives had been lacking.

            Caligula for ya… The depths to which we will sink, if given absolute political power. I do NOT think that this is all myths and fairy tales!

            1. Were those goal posts heavy?

              1. All of history is murky to us. I didn’t see it, and you didn’t see it. You didn’t see the Middle Ages, and how many Lords committed how many rapes, or how they may or may not have justified their abuses with having “been appointed” to their Lordly Powers… By THE Lord Himself! I didn’t see it either. No goal posts were moved. Unless we want to be a Holocaust denier like Rob Misek, though, we’d be well advised to learn from the consensus of historians, who can tell us, from accumulated evidence along the way, that there ***IS*** a “beast in humans” that is in desperate need of taming!

                A good read for facilitating learning here is “Holy Horrors”, … Holy Horrors: An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and Madness Paperback – May 30, 2002

                1. Talking about Lord’s right then you bring up catholic church and Cagiluga. Either you shifted the goal posts or you are incapable of being on topic.

                  1. Why do sane people even respond to him

                    1. Indeed.

                  2. FYI, “Holy Horrors” documents religiously-motivated horrors by religions other than Catholic as well. In more recent history, we have David Koresh (“Branch Davidians”, Waco) who was also “told by The Lord” that ALL the women in his group belong to him! These kinds of abuses by utterly power-mad and-or sex-mad evil people? We ignore this side of human nature at our peril! History clearly shows that they sprout up like weeds when allowed to do so!

    4. They sanction marriage for two reasons. First it allows the government to dictate the terms of the contract should it ever have to be enforced against one party or another. All marriage and family law is is a set of enforced contract terms for married couples and parents. To some extent you can get around that with a pre nub but even that is limited. Absent a prenup family law sets the default terms of the marriage contract. It is the state dictating how marriages will work.

      In return for allowing the state to dictate the terms of their marriage contracts, the state then forces everyone to recognize a married couple’s union. If you have a marriage license, the force of law prevents anyone from treating your marriage as less than other marriages. It forces people to recognize your marriage. This became important after the Reformation. Catholic Churches didn’t recognize marriages that were done in Protestant Churches and vice versa. So the state stepped in and took over marriage and said everyone had to recognize any marriage the state did.

      The whole thing is based state coercion. The state gets couples to agree to let it dictate the terms of their marriages and in return the state cohernces everyone into recognizing their marriages.

      When you understand that, you understand why state sanctioned gay marriage was never about freedom. It made gays less free because it subjected them to the enforced contract provisions of family law. And it made everyone else less free because now they were forced to recognize gay marriage.

      There was never anything libertarian about government sanctioned gay marriage.

      1. *Shrug* This is the basic point of any “State Sanctioned” activity.

        You have contractual duties and privileges. Rather than us each hammering out the contractual relationship with our spouse, kids, teacher, constable, neighbor, etc etc etc, the state assumes those responsibilities and applies these requirements. Typically people happily engage in this exchange with their government so that they get the advantages with less work.

        1. This is true. People don’t want a contract based marriage system.

          Libertarians, however, always claimed to want such a thing. That is until the left told them gay marriage was tolerant. Then all of that went out the window.

          1. You always want to paint libertarians as simplistic binary folk, when this is a perfect example of the nuance with which libertarians view this issue.

            In general libertarians would rather the state not get involved, but if it is going to be involved, don’t agree with prohibitions against gay marriage. At the time this was all being legislated/judged, the area of disagreement was largely around what the cost on the other side would be- i.e. how many freedoms would cake bakers lose. And rather than ignore these differences, libertarians were split. Some denied it was a problem, others felt that those problems could be decoupled and dealt with separately.

            Then there is this third class of Liberaltarians. They do not feel too interested in fighting principled battles for people they don’t respect. And that is where you get the current cadre of party members like Gary Johnson and Jo Jorgenson who would rather those deplorables not assert their rights, because it puts them in the position of having to defend distasteful (to them) persons rather than cheering on the perfect alignment of libertarian thought with the liberal agenda.

            1. Even on your scenario, most would rather it be done legislative where a political will is involved rather than judicially.

            2. […] the area of disagreement was largely around what the cost on the other side would be- i.e. how many freedoms would cake bakers lose.

              Which was always a disinformation campaign.

              Most of the infamous “cake baker” stories happened in states that had non-discrimination law that included LGBT folk, but did not have same-sex marriage. Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop fall into that crowd: he got sued before Colorado had same-sex marriage.

    5. Stable heterosexual relationships have a demonstrable benefit for raising children. That is why the institution of marriage exists and why the inheritance and tax laws surrounding it exist.

      It is unclear what, if any, benefit to society there is in stable same sex relationships, and why the government should take an interest in them.

      1. The argument was that it would get gay men to settle down and stop being so promiscuous and reckless. I am not kidding. That was Andrew Sullivan’s original reason for supporting it. And Sullivan pretty much started the gay marriage movement.

        1. I am aware of that argument. Not sure t hff at is actually an important enough issue.

          It is annoying, though, when people talk about the laws that have accrued to marriage as if they cannot discern that there were reasons for them being there.

        2. Gay men were free to design contracts Ike state marriage laws where assets and rights would be split if they broke up. Notnsure what the issue here was.

          1. As always, the left’s destruction of language to further degrade society.

            1. It was more than a destruction of language.
              It is a degradation of the norms of societies and cultures the left desires.
              “Burn it all down” is more than an empty slogan.

    6. if you work for the state and the state law saw you have to give a marriage license to any 2 people wanting to get married, you have no religious right to refuse to do your job. You have the option to resign and find a different job.

      if you work for yourself and bake and decorate wedding cakes, you have both your religious freedom and your artistic (free speech) rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment, and, since no one lives in or rents out a wedding cake for a hotel room, it’s not a public accommodation.

      1. As I recall, that county clerk refused to issue any licences in the wake of Obergefell. On the idea that there was no controlling law regarding issuing marriage licenses until the state legislature addressed the issue. Since, the SCOTUS has no authority to write law in Kentucky.

        1. The Supreme Court has no authority to write law anywhere.
          Article 1, Section 1, US Constitution:
          All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

        2. I recalled at the time thinking in some level of amazement that every state suddenly had to instantaneously comply with Obergefell, ignoring items like “the license shall be issued by the county in which the woman resides” written into state laws and the forms having “Husband” and “Wife” entries. How is a county clerk supposed to follow state law when two men who live in different counties come to the office (which county should issue the license)?

          Meanwhile, D.C. still is not complying with Heller years later.

      2. Actually even the government has religious accommodations applied to them.

    7. because marriage long predated the state. This is an idiotic question. Marriage and family are the foundation of society, not our government.

      1. It predated both church and state, and AFAICT it predates H. sapiens.

  5. When are we going to revisit straight marriage?

    1. Once is enough.

      1. My ex wife has revisited it three times!

        1. Rufshaad: I can see you’re no stranger to pain.
          Denton: I’ve been married.
          Rufshaad: Ah.
          Denton: Twice.
          Rufshaad: Oy!

  6. Marriage is between a man an a woman, that is God’s law. Barrett knows this and will make sure that God’s law is our law.

    1. God’s Law is not the State’s Law. The two are distinct concepts. Even under the Judeo-Christian conception, much of Leviticus was administrative. People who whine about God’s Law and thump Leviticus, but have indoor toilets, or eat shellfish, or women who wear pants or men who trim their burns, etc., are hypocrites. And the Bible has a lot to say about hypocrites.

      1. “Judeo-Christian” is one of the worst terms on the planet because Jews and Christians are very different and have very different values, customs, and beliefs.

        1. The term was an early attempt at inclusivity.

      2. Now read the rest of the Bible, and try to understand it as one text.

    2. It’s also science. We use language to understand nature and science. Now we equate the word marriage with man/woman, man/man or woman/woman. Yet man/woman is different than man/man or woman/woman but now we don’t have legal language to differentiate them.

      The body parts fit differently and there is potential for offspring with man/woman but not with the others. Should there not be a distinction in wording to describe their unions?

      1. lots of man/woman marriages are also lacking the potential for offspring, but they are still marriages.

        1. Yet this is not the norm, is it?

      2. Same sex couples can never engage in sexual intercourse.
        All they can do is practice mutual masturbation.
        A homosexual “marriage” has never been consummated.

    3. Right. You can’t cite any case or statement of hers to back this, it’s simply more hyperventilating nonsense on your part. If you’re going to read minds, set up a table somewhere with a crystal ball.

    4. Barrett’s god is a paltry and illusory being, fit mainly for gullible children of all ages.

      She is entitled to believe as she wishes. No one should interfere with that.

      She is not entitled to have her superstitious delusions treated with respect in reasoned debate among competent adults.

      1. I feel sad for you, so mired in your hate and ignorance.

        1. Arty should be put to sleep.

          1. Instead, the bitter clingers like you will spend the rest of their deplorable lives complying with my preferences.

            America is great!

            1. Notice how they always imagine themselves as getting to run things after the revolution? When in reality most of the “useful idiot” revolutionaries get put against the wall soon after the revolution by their more ruthless comrades…

    5. You’re a progressive. You’re incapable of considering the idea that what you believe shouldn’t be public policy. You assume the same of the rest of us. It isn’t. I’m perfectly fine that the state doesn’t exist to legislate my whims and inflict my all my beliefs on everyone.

  7. He argues that the Obergefell decision cut off the opportunity for Kentucky to craft legislation that might have given both sides what they want…

    The very worst kind of judicial deference: believing that legislatures are capable of anything but debacle and self-service.

    1. The other side of this coin is that they fully understand the legislature is a shitshow and also understand that it isn’t their job to do anything about it.

      If we elect a bunch of unqualified simpletons who do nothing but screech at each other all day, well that’s the will of the people and who is the judge to stop us?

      1. […] and also understand that it isn’t their job to do anything about it.

        To the contrary, the courts have always been an avenue of redress when the legislature behaves poorly.

  8. Racism, gay-bashing, misogyny, and other forms of bigotry are not improved by being cloaked in superstition. They’re still just low-grade bigotry practiced by obsolete, objectionable bigots.

    Bigots should not be appeased through use of euphemisms such as “traditional values,” “family values,” “conservative values,” or “religious values.”

    Competent citizens neither advance nor accept superstition-based arguments in reasoned debate among adults, particularly with respect to public affairs.

    1. Bigots should however be appeased through use of euphemism such as ‘anti-racist,’ ‘winning the culture war,’ ‘competent citizens,’ ‘reasoned debate.’ It’s well-established that the people you represent and laud view minorities and the disadvantaged as bargaining chips and political chattel, yet, here you are again pointing the finger.

    2. Yup. Basically he wants to overturn the ruling so that bigots can feel better about themselves.

      1. Oh bigots like you and Kirkland? Because your strawmanning and hatred of anyone to your right is bigotry also.

        1. ‘Calling a bigot a bigot is bigotry’

          ‘Democrats are the real racists’

          The limp lamentations of the culture war’s casualties.

          1. Hatred of people who are different from you is bigotry, bigot. And any sad attempt to detract from that is just a total lack of self awareness on your part.

          2. big·ot

            noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots

            a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

            You fit this to a T.

    3. Bigots should not be appeased through use of euphemisms such as “traditional values,” “family values,” “conservative values,” or “religious values.”

      The name’s Arthur Kirkland… Speech Police!

      1. We should be policing political euphemisms and other forms of propaganda. A lot of people fall for that shit.

  9. Racism, gay-bashing, misogyny, and other forms of bigotry are not improved by being cloaked in superstition. They’re still just low-grade bigotry practiced by obsolete, objectionable bigots.

    Bigots should not be appeased through use of euphemisms such as “traditional values,” “family values,” “conservative values,” or “religious values.”

    Competent citizens neither advance nor accept superstition-based arguments in reasoned debate among adults, particularly with respect to public affairs.

    1. Do you have some kind of a bot that writes these posts? It is always the same semi random collection of buzzwords and incoherence.

      1. I just thought he was drunk, but some kind of bot makes sense too.

      2. Nahh.
        A random bigoted asshole will do just fine.

    2. big·ot
      noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots

      a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

      1. That’s Arty. Fortunately his kind are weak and cowardly.

  10. They will likely not over turn gay marriage fully, though they might. They will just use religious freedom to make gay marriage a special sort of marriage that the state doesn’t force everyone to recognize like other marriages.

    The result will be gays will get all of the restrictions of their freedom that come with family law but none of the goodies of forcing their enemies to recognize their marriages that they wanted. Ogberfell is a terrible results driven opinion that Kennedy pulled out of his ass because he liked gay marriage but didn’t like polygamists and people who wanted incestuous marriages. It is the most comically absurd decision ever written, though Gorsuch thinking the CRA covered gays and transgendered is a respectable second.

    1. “Goodies” like equality?

      1. Convincing people that buggering someones asshole, deserved the same kind of legal protection as being black or female, was GLAAD’s greatest achievement.

  11. People used to object to interracial marriage on religious grounds too. And integrated services.

    Funny how none of them are willing to say it’s ok to discriminate because you hold those beliefs.

    1. No actually they didn’t. Not in significant numbers anyway.

      Regardless, if they had, the CRA would have pounded them. And for that reason it is arguable that the CRA ended religious freedom in this country. It just took gay marriage for the government to get around and make it official.

      1. Oh yes they did. It was mainline thought that God did not want the races to mix. In fact this is still believed by many in the US.

        1. No it wasn’t you ridiculous liar, not even the Southern Baptists believed that. They came up with weaselly secular reasons for frowning on interracial dating.
          The closest you could get to that would be the Mormon’s old doctrine called Curses of Cain and Ham and even it wasn’t about miscegenation.

          In fact during the heydays of Scientific Racism in the 30’s secularists used religious tolerance of miscegenation to attack religious institutions for being “unscientific”.

          1. Actually you’re the ridiculous liar. The trial court judge in the Loving case literally invoked religious beliefs as part of the justification for his ruling. This is a direct quote from his decision:
            “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.”

            1. One court case doesn’t prove it was widely held. Citing it as such is an example of confirmation bias.

              1. Watching bigots squirm, flail, and cry as they are painted into increasingly small, desolate corners of our society is much more fun than I expected it to be.

                1. What the fuck are you yapping about?

                  1. The Rev. is best just ignored.
                    And, you’re right. That judge may have held that belief, but it is not supported in any kind of religious text.
                    If one is to go the religious route, not the logical natural reasoning against homosexuals pretending to be married, one cannot use the old anti-miscegenation laws. The former has religious doctrines prohibiting it, the latter doesn’t.

                2. big·ot

                  noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots

                  a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

      2. Religious opposition to interracial marriage is actually part of the court record of Loving v. Virginia (1967).

        And interracial marriage was far more opposed by the general populace in 1967 then same-sex marriage was in 2016.

    2. Whenever the powers that be set forth a new party line for everyone to obey because it’s fundamentally important, they don’t want anyone to remember how until recently they either ignored the issue or took the opposite position.

      Imagine this scenario: It’s 1964 and some Mississippi Senator says the Civil Rights Act will lead to businesses being hassled by the government for upholding man/woman marriage or referring to men as “he.” That argument would have been hooted down and cited as evidence of the Senator’s craziness, dishonesty or both.

      Now there’s been a sudden change of line so that a position which was concocted only recently is now the position which all decent people have always had – or they ought to have had, anyway.

      We have always been at war with Eastasia.

  12. If you work for the government and have religous objections to doing your job you should get another job.

    1. Especially if you’re an elected official, like Kim Davis was.

    2. Begs the question. What is her job? The people of Kentucky said her job was to enforce the one-man-one woman rule which back in 1972 the Supreme Court believed so obviously constitutional as not to even be worth arguing.

      Davis simply didn’t whirl around on a dime when the Court changed its mind and start proclaiming that We Have Always Been At War With Eastasia.

      1. No, her job was to obey the law. If the law changes then you still obey it.

        1. Begs the question.

          The law didn’t change, a 9-0 interpretation of the law was replaced by (I believe) a 5-4 interpretation.

          One of these interpretations is wrong – it’s the law of non-contradiction, a law which stands unrepealed despite attempts to repeal it.

          1. A ruling denying a petition for writ of certiorari has no precedential effect, so there was no such “9-0 interpretation of the law.”

            1. The decision said “The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.”

              This was a decision on the merits, and indeed when confronted with the decision, the Court in 2015 formerly overruled the 1972 decision, which would not have been necessary for a denial of certiorari.

              Again – we have always been at war with Eastasia!

        2. A court decision isn’t a change in the law.

        3. Jawohl, mein fuhrer!

      2. Her job, partly, was to hand out marriage licenses but she stopped doing her job. Please read the case which notes:

        “One day after the Supreme Court released Obergefell, Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses. She didn’t discriminate against same-sex couples, though; she stopped issuing licenses altogether.”

        Also this is just about immunity, it doesn’t find her guilty, the decision which was allowed to stand is that the lawsuit can proceed. Seems to me she could also be tried by the state or county for neglect of duty and/or [mal, mis, non]feasance in office assuming which, if any, are codified.

        1. Yes, our traditional enemies, the Eastasians!

          1. I hear you Big Brother. If your religion disagrees with a SCOTUS decision you’re free to jack off all day while at work because you’re just being an observant slave to your deity and it has nothing to do with not doing your job and denying everyone else due process or the services they pay you to perform.

            Don’t get me wrong. But I don’t have a problem if the jack boot behind the counter doesn’t want to perform your NICS check for the next three weeks and hold up the purchase of your firearm because they have a religious objection. How fortunate the sale can proceed within 3 days but a wedding can’t.

            She can object all she wants but she can’t wield state authority to enforce her beliefs.

      3. Brown v. Board was not merely Orwellian propaganda either.

  13. I think the concern about religious liberties explains Roberts citing with the majority in the Bostock case. When Gorsuch fell in love with that bizarre logic that equated sexual orientation with sex, if Robert’s had not joined the majority the. Ginsburg would have the right to assign who wrote the opinion. She would have assigned writing the opinion to one of the Leftist justices hostile to religious liberty. By voting with the majority, Roberts could assign writing the opinion to Gorsuch.

    1. Four dimensional chess.

      Assuming retardation is its own dimension, which in Roberts’ case may be true.

    2. Under the original vision of America, states could discriminate based on sex and religion if they so chose; only the federal government was prohibited from doing so.

      It’s just the combination of extending the Bill of Rights to states with the ever expanding federal power that has led to these absurd legal issues, and there just is no logical way of resolving them. If you insist that a country of 330 million people live under a single unified legal and moral framework, you end up with authoritarian government.

      1. Which vision would that be? It certainly isn’t the one codified in the U.S. Constitution which only allowed white men to vote. As far as religious discrimination goes the 1A only says;

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

        It says nothing of discrimination so long as folk are free to exercise their religion. We don’t see tax breaks and such being handed out to Pastafarians and Discordians. If we do I’m going to found a church of each and try to double up.

    3. Interesting

  14. “Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.”

    We should keep this in mind as Congress makes its play to regulate social media under the guise of antitrust. Regulating the religious rights of the American people isn’t far away from regulating our speech online. It’s all First Amendment stuff, and neither the progressives who run the Democratic party nor Joe Biden are interested in preserving our First Amendment rights. Their primary interest is regulating social media so as to get rid of hate speech and conspiracy theories.

    By banning hate speech, they mean banning opposition to affirmative action and BLM–because that’s racist. By banning hate speech, they mean banning opposition to gay marriage because that’s homophobic. By banning hate speech, they mean banning opposition to abortion because that’s misogynistic. By banning hate speech, they mean banning support for a border wall because that’s xenophobic. By banning conspiracy theories, they mean banning support for the things that conservatives care about.

    Our government has become far less tolerant than it was during the end of the Vietnam War era. During the Vietnam War, our military tolerated conscientious objectors on the basis of their religious beliefs. Nowadays, the government can’t even tolerate people with religious beliefs that won’t let them sign a marriage license? A society that can’t tolerate religious belief is an intolerant society. A society that can’t tolerate anything that might hurt someone’s feelings is an extremely intolerant society.

    1. How can the government take such a radical step as overturning the man/woman definition of marriage, and then suddenly become moderate and tolerant when it comes to dissenters? This sort of radicalism, based on burning down existing institutions and building new ones in their place, is hardly compatible with a tolerant and open-minded attitude.

      In contrast, under the prior regime same-sex couples could have public commitment ceremonies and businesses were free to cater (literally) to them. At least after Lawrence in 2003. And even before then, the number of prosecutions for voluntary adult sodomy in private was fairly small (though non-zero, which prompted many states to legalize voluntary private adult sodomy before the Supremes did it).

    2. A government official does not in any way have the right to allow their personal religious beliefs get in the way of their duties.

      1. Do you believe that to be true in the case of conscientious objectors?

        And please be aware that conscientious objection didn’t evolve merely as a way to let religious people refuse to be in the military. Conscientious objection is also a means to let those with religious convictions against killing serve in the military.

        Meanwhile, have you looked at the First Amendment lately?

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

        —-First Amendment

        Where in the First Amendment does it say that the government can compel its employees to violate their religious convictions? I see where it says the government can’t do that. The military doesn’t even do it? What makes the rest of the government more important than the First Amendment?

        Where in the 14th Amendment does it say that government employees are denied the equal protection of the laws if their religious convictions get in the way?

        Where in the Civil Rights Act does it say that it’s okay for the government to discriminate against their employee’s on the basis of religion?

        Do you have an answer for any of these questions–or are you just making pronouncements today?

      2. What was her duty under Kentucky law at the time?

        She simply refused to issue any marriage licenses at all, under the notion that there was no law in Kentucky controlling who is eligible for a license in the wake of the SCOTUS decision. Given that SCOTUS can throw out state law but cannot write new law, how was she not doing her duty?

        1. It all comes down to progressive feelz.

    3. We should keep this in mind as Congress makes its play to regulate social media under the guise of antitrust.

      I’m against “regulating social media”.

      I’m for removing special liability protection from social media.

      The two are entirely different.

      1. Forcing people or companies to answer in court for things they didn’t write is fundamentally unjust regardless of whether antitrust law is the appropriate forum in which to regulate defamation–but regulating defamation within the context of antitrust is regulation regardless of whether you approve of it.

        Because antitrust shouldn’t have anything to do with defamation, however, is another good reason to oppose Congress’ latest attempt to regulate social media. They shouldn’t use antitrust as a pretext to regulate religion or speech.

  15. Gay marriage and “pro-choice rights” should be established by legislatures, not by the courts.

    Obama/Biden, Clinton, Pelosi, and others had ample opportunity to do so and they failed. We have to assume that this is a deliberate, cynical strategy to cling to power, keep these issues alive, and pack the courts.

    1. If this was back in the 50’s-70’s, would you be saying “Black People’s rights should be established by legislatures, not by the courts” instead?

  16. I am not too concerned about Obergefell being overruled. That would likely require a state legislature again prohibiting sex marriage in order for the question to reach SCOTUS. I am skeptical of any legislature enacting such a measure, in that the sky has not fallen since SSM became universal.

  17. That should be prohibiting same sex marriage.

  18. Silly breeders, qualified immunity is only for governors who arbitrarily shut down churches and cops who blow unarmed people away!

  19. SSM is an outcome of cancel culture bigotry.

    The definition of marriage has always been, “between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”.

    This definition represents the only relationship that recognizes the continuum of life and the nuclear family.

    Unable to refute this argument, cancel culture bigots changed the definition of marriage instead.

    If you think definitions should change then the meaning of anything you say has changed before the words leave your lips.

    Non heterosexual couples have no right to the word marriage because nobody has the right to change the meaning of words.

    1. Words don’t have rights dude. I don’t like that “impact” is used as a verb, but there’s nothing we can do about definitions changing.

      Good I’m glad we cleared that up, now you can support equal rights for gay people.

      1. Haha

        You just admitted that you’re retarded.

  20. You have to understand that we won’t slide into theocracy by accident. It’s an actively pursued goal by important factions of the Republican establishment. You know they have to exist out there somewhere, and they probably have some political power since they’re Christians, so it’s not actually a stretch to figure out they have found a home in a major political party. They want conservative Christian sharia to be the law of the land.

    Among these are Alito and Thomas, who nobody thinks would be applying any kind of “textualism” as they reversed Obergefell. They are not where they are to call balls and strikes. They are there to make conservatard Jesus our dictator.

    If anything, carving out exception after exception for people who want to keep their jobs and serve the public while imposing their own personal religious views on them, is one of the more radical facets of this project.

    Half of libertarians are just fine with this, being Christian theocrats themselves, and the other half are just pleased to be shitting on a minority.

    1. Tony, you’re a far bigger bigot than any SoCon I’ve ever known.

      1. I know I can’t so much talk about voting rights without someone here getting triggered.

  21. Even if the court did revisit the issue, wouldn’t the reasoning laid out in the Bostock decision constitute a secular basis for same-sex marriage to be protected equally with opposite-sex marriage?

    Even if Barret chose to reverse from RBG’s position, that would still leave a 5-4 ruling if the rest of the court were to stick to their alignment on Bostock.

  22. Ah yes, nothing like a Shackford post to illustrate why libertarians, the supposed “natural allies” of LGBT folk (Shackford’s words) will never have a meaningful number of LGBT folk among their ranks.

    ’cause y’all just can’t keep from revealing your character.

  23. You sweet sweet summer child. How the fuck are we ever going to scare the lgbtqwertybbqs into voting for Democrats if we point out that the conservatives have basically zero chance of rolling back gay rights?

    1. The North remembers.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.