"Gay Americans and their allies had been on alert since the Supreme Court’s conservative majority eliminated the nationwide right to abortion after 50 years, showing a willingness to undo longstanding legal precedent. In that decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately to urge reconsideration of the
Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which recognized gay marriage nationwide."
From
"Supreme Court Denies Request to Revisit Same-Sex Marriage Decision/Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, had asked the court to reconsider its landmark 2015 opinion" (NYT).
I'm glad to see this precedent left alone. There's so much reliance on it.
Posts
60 comments:
Trump administration’s targeting of programs and funding that benefit L.G.B.T.Q. individuals."
Nonsense framing. Gays have never had anything to fear from the Trump administration. Trans people aren't gay and their issues don't overlap with gay people's issues. Everybody who comes after the B is free-riding off someone else's labor and status. (I also agree that the ruling should be left alone; given the plethora of laws and regulations that distinguish between married/unmarried people, excluding gays is violation of equal rights protections.)
I absolutely despised Kennedy’s touchy-feely reasoning in that case, despite being a long-time proponent of gay marriage. I expect that if they did revisit, we’d wind up with a Gorsuch-driven equal protection support instead, which would be my preference. But I’m really glad we’re not going to start that debate again or open the door to the risk I’d be wrong.
"There so much reliance on it."
4 years of Biden and some with a Democratic majority in Congress, yet no effort made to codify the ruling as actual law.
I just attended the gay wedding of my dear goddaughter. The "reading" during the service was - oh boy - an Anthony Kennedy passage from the Obergefell decision.
I do not want to reopen this debate. My stance remains the same - straight marriage benefits the couple and society, while gay marriage benefits only the couple - but I don't want to rehash it. There is much other work to be done.
They had to pervert and corrupt the law and we saw the result
I would prefer a closer examination of permitting gay couples to adopt children. Who knows what the hell goes on there.
- Krumhorn
Trans marriage of couplets through the principle of political congruence ("=')? Also, no discrimination for sexual orientation (e.g. homosexual, pedophile). A kakistocracy celebrated in parade under albinophobic banners and rhetoric.
That said, civil unions for all consenting adults. #NoJudgment #NoLabels
Socially distancing homos from sims was a mistake. There are material differences between individuals and practices in the transgender spectrum, which are irreconcilable and progressive under "=".
Associating trans and human rites performed for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress is a mistake. #HateLovesAbortion
CJinPA said...
I just attended the gay wedding of my dear goddaughter
You seemed to have been remiss in your role.
Gospace said...
CJinPA said...
I just attended the gay wedding of my dear goddaughter
You seemed to have been remiss in your role.
-------------------
I left myself open to that shot. Shame on me for sharing too much online.
All weddings are or should be gay celebrations, otherwise you're doing it wrong.
I think that it has always been a not necessarily uneasy, but at least not firm alliance between the the L's, G's, B's, and the T's and recently the Q's. The groups are definitionally distinct. Sexual Orientation is different than incongruent gender identity. Also temperamentally the T's seem to be more extreme than the three other letters, (though I think there is data to show that the B's are actually the highest in various social dysfunctions like mental health issues, substance abuse, domestic violence etc.) Also I think culturally and politically the other groups, especially the G's have been moderating and moving rightward. A few months ago Althouse posted an article that was ostensibly about Gay Republicans in D.C. The underlying purpose seemed to be paint them unpopular out-group folks, and warn Republican-curious gays, "don't join up with them or you'll be othered too."
As far as Obergefell goes I don't mind the outcome that much but think it was absolutely wrongly decided. I don't think one can be intellectually honest and think that the 14th amendment which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the civil war held within the legislative intent to mandate the allowance of same-sex marriages. Homosexual activity was criminal in most parts of the country at the time, no one was speaking about the need to decriminalize it, how can the 14th amendment hold within it the mandate that same-sex marriage must be allowed but not that marriages between adults and 13 year olds must be allowed which was a practice that occurred and was legal in many states at the time? Part of the fundamental precepts of the rule of law is that the law is supposed to mean what the law is supposed to mean and that meaning is created when the law is written and ratified. That meaning can not change unless the law itself changes, and the only allowable way for the law to change is to go through the legislative process.
But again I don't don't get all wee-wee'd up about Gay marriage itself and it would be a political disaster for Republicans if Obergefell was overturned.
First comment nailed it. Well said Tim.
Trans marriage is not a conservative issue. It is a liberal conundrum with progressive consequences so long as it remains unresolved. #HateLovesAbortion
https://share.google/WniPuy9fb3ZZH6dN5
You SCOTUS watchers perhaps might tell the rest of us how and why a case like this might make it to the docket and is it for the purpose of sending a message with such a dismissal?
n.n said...
“All weddings are or should be gay celebrations, otherwise you're doing it wrong.”
And you should have a “gay ol’ time” watching The Flintstones, too.
Homosexuals transition after conception includes simulants who transition physically after birth.
Gay and Lesbian are cultural appropriations to socially distance homosexuals from others in the transgender spectrum. People need to lose their Pro-Choice religion. #NoJudgment #NoLabels #HateLovesAbortion
All's fair in lust and abortion?
Civil unions for all consenting adults. #NoJudgment #NoLabels #HateLovesAbortion
I'm glad to see this precedent left alone. There's so much reliance on it.
We might as well not have a constitution if we let people like this vote.
If you can’t read the 9th and 10th amendments what is the point of any of this.
The Left is constantly in a state of alarm.
The precedent for national injunctions, irregular taxation schemes, immigration reform, human rites, etc. The decision should have been for civil unions without judgment or labels but political congruence ("=") prevailed and another original compromise.
"I'm glad to see this precedent left alone. There's so much reliance on it." But I take it you were also glad when Kennedy swept a couple of centuries of "precedent" away. Can't keep relying on what everyone everywhere thought about marriage until the day before yesterday.
Nice illustration of the prog ratchet effect. 1. Ignore actual text and precedent. 2. Make some radical prog decision. 3. People change behavior. 4. No one can complain, nothing can be done: it's "precedent"! there's "reliance"! 5. On to to the next prog constitutional depredation.
This is one of those "ratchets" that is very difficult to undo. My preference would have been civil unions, with all of the rights and obligations of married couples, but without calling it "marriage." Why does it matter? I think the slope would be a bit less slippery. And to address a point made above, I don't believe adoption is a right, though I would not forbid gay couples in a civil union from doing so.
You can still address questions of freedom of religion and conscience but naw
Ironically, it is believed that homos transition after conception, and likely after six weeks when the nervous system evolves with brain development. A conflict between abortionists and albinophobes that can be neither resolved through the principle of political congruence ("=") nor under the Pro-Choice religion in progressive sects. What is the twilight fringe to do? Abort their "burden"? Celebrate in parades? Mutilate boys and girls? Push women to the back of the bus, throw girls under?
"eliminated the nationwide right to abortion "
Not factual. The Supreme court vacated the decision - and sent it all back to the states. Basic Federalism.
Many states have now enshrined abortion rights into their state constitutions - and abortions are UP.
Got that? Abortions are on UP in numbers.
In Colorado - late term abortions are legal and not rare.
At least 500 a year occur.
Gay couples cannot have babies. Why do they use this issue, and lie about this issue? oh right- leftists LIE.
If the "right" and the Supreme Court thought their decision would help ban abortion - they got it wrong.
It is surprising to me that a former professor of constitutional law should use (recent) precedent as a refuge to avoid commenting on the Constitutional issues involved.
The left need to keep homosexuals on the fear-plantation.
I know a women - an artist - (who I like, actually - she's otherwise a lovely person) ... This women ranted and screamed in horror when Trump won in 2016 - fearful that Trump would round up all the gays and kill them.
I'm not making that up.
Gay marriage led to gay adoption. As someone said up thread, who knows what’s going to occur behind closed doors? This is not a marriage between a man and woman which was what God mandated and has been accepted for centuries. Leave it to the Commies to screw things up.
Demos-cracides happen in darkness, wicked solutions, as do all homicides with rare exceptions. With moral progress under an ethical regime, the demand to perform human rites for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress were expected. No one is surprised. Still, we strive.
No one has an issue with trans (e.g. homos, sims) as individuals. The conflict progresses from an expectation to celebrate behaviors (e.g. child mutilation) and unions (e.g. couplets) that have no redeeming value to society or humanity.
The case was wrongly decided, and any future decisions that rely on it as precedent will be wrongly decided as well. When Justice Roberts said that the only reason for opposing it was just nasty people being bigots, he was practicing voodoo, not law--- that effing moron. But only time will tell whether that stupid decision will prove as damaging to the nation as Roe did. If it does, then it can and will be reversed in due time.
Again, I think their should be no civil unions, and keep the government out of marriages. Let any religious institution (or any one) perform the ceremony and you are married when you say you are.
"There's so much reliance on it."
Diddle, diddle, dumpling.
No marriage with government license. No civil unions without incorporation. Think of the "burdens"... liabilities. The taxation in multiplicity.
Kurt Schuler said...
It is surprising to me that a former professor of constitutional law should use (recent) precedent as a refuge to avoid commenting on the Constitutional issues involved.
Are you new here?
Constitutional Law means whatever rationale is convenient in order to ignore the obvious words in the constitution and make whatever we want true because.
Ann doesn’t actually refer to the constitution when defending Constitutional Law. No Constitutional Law professor would lower themselves to read the constitution.
Well its a question of which precedents count, some more than others
Peachy, FWIW here's Grok's summary about post-Dobbs trends:
National Increase Despite Bans: Abortions rose ~11% from 2020 (pre-Dobbs baseline) to 2023, reaching the highest levels in over a decade. In 2024, numbers held steady or slightly increased.
Regional Shifts: Total bans reduced abortions to near zero in affected states, but surges in protective states (e.g., Illinois, New Mexico) offset this, with ~208,000 "prevented" abortions in ban states since Dobbs redirected elsewhere.
Method Shift: Medication abortions (via pills like mifepristone) now dominate, rising from 53% of cases in 2020 to 63% in 2023, facilitated by telehealth and "shield laws" in 8+ states that protect providers shipping to ban states.
Access Barriers Persist: Travel increased (e.g., 155,000 out-of-state cases in 2024, down slightly from 170,000 in 2023 but up from 81,000 in 2020), but costs, logistics, and funding shortfalls limit equity. Self-managed abortions (outside formal systems) are rising but undercounted.
I’d be glad to see Obergefell overturned, (1) to punish those who enjoyed the harassment of the Colorado baker (including the entire leadership of the state of Colorado); and (2) to punish L’s, B’s, and G’s for supporting the invasion of biological males into women’s rest rooms, locker rooms, and other private spaces.
I concur with Professor Althouse. Stare decisis is particularly strong when people have relied on a prior case to arrange their lives, their businesses, etc., as here where millions of people have married and raised families based on Obergefell. I thought Obergefell was wrongly decided, and still do, but I’d let it stand if I were a Justice.
"I'm glad to see this precedent left alone. There's so much reliance on it."
Agree that the reliance interest is paramount on this one, but mostly because Obergefell didn't have a significant, real-world impact on anyone other than the gay couple wanting to get married in states that didn't permit it. In that sense, Obergefell is more like Griswold v. CT, another decision that doesn't make much sense as constitutional theory but should be left alone, than (say) Roe/Casey, where there was a significant impact (to say the least!) on unborn infants long past the point of viability (which kept getting shorter).
Of course it enabled the transmania that had erased womens sports at least for a time
I should probably add (3) to punish gays and their supporters for the actions of William and Zachary Zulock, a gay, married couple who adopted two boys and then sexually abused them for years, including pimping out the boys to other gay men.
Same sex marriage essentially panders to anti-Christian extremists. Marriage is a Christian sacrament and also describes Jesus’ relationship to the Church. Civil unions for same sex couples are the same as marriage but for dumping on the Church.
Civil unions do not have the same social cache that marriage carries to celebrate functional unions. Instead of civil unions a multiplicity could incorporate for liability and tax purposes.
Same-sex individuals in unions of two are a couplet. Gender refers to sex-correlated attributes (e.g. sexual orientation). Trans indicates a state or process of divergence. The precedents for inconsistency are a frst-order forcing of civil wars, progressive prices, progressive corruption, liberal license,
etc. With Diversity followed selective equality came womens' suffrage came equivocation and equity. Political congruence ("=") is a bigoted proposition, a dysfunctional principle. #HateLovesAbortion
"...I'm glad to see this precedent left alone. ..."
I think most Americans would agree. Or at least, they would have agreed - before someone was told to Bake The Cake and things started progressing to Drag Queens in the children's library, and Trannie T*ts Out on the White House lawn.
That's the problem with Progressivism. The thing you let happen against your better instincts, turns out it isn't the target after all - it's those bad faith secret goals that offend the crowd.
“I'm glad to see this precedent left alone. There's so much reliance on it.”
And that’s what makes it constitutional, just like Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson.
cachet... damn you, Andrea cum Genesis.
Douglas L said: “ I thought Obergefell was wrongly decided, and still do, but I’d let it stand if I were a Justice.”
A man of principle!! *cough*
Why are there "programs and funding that benefit LGBTQ individuals"??? Trump is right to "target" that kind of spending, if that's what he's doing.
Stare decisis is particularly strong when people have relied on a prior case to arrange their lives, their businesses, etc., as here where millions of people have married and raised families based on Obergefell.
Yes, though I'm not sure that overturning it would make that much material difference to these people. Either the existing "marriages" could be left in place, but new ones not allowed, or they could be declared civil unions. How would that materially disrupt their lives?
Tick,
Tick,
Tick,
. . .
. . .
. . .
Yes, only a court is so smart they can fuck something up so badly that it becomes worse to fix it.
Many thanks to the NYT for informing foolish Democrats that Trump is targeting programs “that benefit LGBTQ individuals.” It’s really not relevant that the programs benefit a larger population. See how that works?
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.