General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSame-sex marriage is now in jeopardy
we already have two Justices who have said they want to revisit Obergefell. We now know where Kavinaugh, Gorsuch and Barret line up when it comes to "religious liberty"
They just need a State to pass a law that allows discrimination against Gay marriage, like this:
https://thegrio.com/2020/11/25/indiana-asks-supreme-court-to-take-away-rights-of-same-sex-parents/
And bye to Gay marriage throughout the United States.
Maybe they can reverse Loving v Virginia while they are at it.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)The problem that would face the court is that there are so many same-sex marriages that have already been celebrated and recognized by states all across the nation. The court cannot undo those. Equal protection comes into play for future same-sex marriages, since there are so many of them already in place.
Individual states would also be unable to undo those marriages, since the constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.
edhopper
(33,556 posts)but allow discrimination towards same sex couples based on religion and allow States to prohibit future marriages.
dsc
(52,155 posts)then what kind of marriage does that couple have? The fact is laws protecting LGBTQ rights will become suggestions that invoking Jesus will render those laws not worth the paper upon which they are printed. Want to fire a gay employee invoke Jesus. What to keep a trans woman out of the bathroom invoke Jesus.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... slope they're touching with the current COVID ruling is beyond stupid as they act like they don't know that religious gatherings are super spreading events.
Buckeyeblue
(5,499 posts)But I do think the court will establish that the precedent set does not apply to religious institutions. They will be permitted to apply religious doctrine which may end up discriminating against LGBTQ individuals.
In other words, the court is going to stack rank civil rights. Religion will come first.
edhopper
(33,556 posts)have said it is not settled law and want to reverse it.
To the new majority Roe is not settled law either.
euphorb
(279 posts). . . applies only to criminal matters, not civil.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... much harder to get or be gay married.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,402 posts)edhopper
(33,556 posts)in my post.
ProudMNDemocrat
(16,783 posts)Will NEVER be overturned. Clarence Thomas would never make his marriage invalid.
Though he is callous enough to forbid others from enjoying the Constitutional rights he has.
edhopper
(33,556 posts)on how backward the new court will be.
ProudMNDemocrat
(16,783 posts)Section 4 regarding Pre-clearance in Voting Law changes. Yet, he is a beneficiary of said Act himself. Since then, states have tried to make voting more difficult for POC .
Clarence Thomas expresses no shame in how he decides who has rights and who does not.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)bottomofthehill
(8,327 posts)Thank you for your cooperation.
Ellen Forradalom
(16,159 posts)I call him a horseshoe-theory Trumpanzee
Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #8)
Ellen Forradalom This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cracklin Charlie
(12,904 posts)Youd think they could do just one thing to actually help their country.
Just one thing.
Nope...all hate, all the time. This kinda stuff usually backfires, though.
edhopper
(33,556 posts)The GOP was rewarded for pushing through Barrett.
AmericanCanuck
(1,102 posts)Roberts knows that putting toothpaste back in the tube doesn't work and creates a huge mess.
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)He can be outvoted by the religious wing
barbtries
(28,787 posts)Cannot overstate how important the GA races are.
edhopper
(33,556 posts)even with GA Dems, Manchin has said he will vote against Court expansion.
barbtries
(28,787 posts)if we lose gay marriage, abortion rights, etc, etc, etc
Sure worth a try imo
edhopper
(33,556 posts)are opposed by the majority in his State.
Celerity
(43,283 posts)Sinema, Feinstein, Mark Kelly, Hickenlooper, Angus King, Ossoff (if he is elected), Tester (but he was open to ending the filibuster) Gary Peters, maybe Warner
some of the ones who lost were against it too, Cunningham, Harrison, Greenfield, Gideon, Hegar, Bullock, Bollier,
McGrath
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/23/senate-hopefuls-supreme-court-expansion-420650
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/521494-push-to-expand-supreme-court-faces-democratic-buzzsaw
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/gop-bets-democrats-won-t-expand-supreme-court-progressives-say-n1244721
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/517704-democrats-shoot-down-talk-of-expanding-supreme-court
https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2020/10/14/sen-kyrsten-sinema-opposes-court-packing-some-democrats-want/3645042001/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2019/03/18/daily-202-decrying-court-packing-michael-bennet-pleads-with-democrats-to-care-more-about-electability/5c8e9dfe1b326b0f7f38f1ad/
barbtries
(28,787 posts)if the shoe was on the other foot bet we all know what republicans would do.
Celerity
(43,283 posts)I said all along that even with a 53-47 or 54-46 Dem majority in the Senate, much of what people assumed would sail through (like the Public Option, 15 USD national minimum wage, a reduced form of xlimate change bill, etc etc) would not happen. Too many institutionalists and moderates on over to moderate conservatives (which is what Manchin calls himself and which is how Sinema votes as well) to pass that type of big ticket items, especially if the Rethugs simply had invoked a filibuster.
The Senate is, along with the EC, a long wave constitutional suicide pact, as it gives a radical RW minority tge whip hand far too often. I truly fear we lose the House as well in 2022. The last two Dem POTUS 1st midterms (1994 and 2010) were cataclysmic disasters for us. In 2010 we lost a net 63 House seats and lost a net 7 Senate seats.
Our best shots at flipping Senate seats from red to blue are the two open seats in NC and PA, Loeffler (if she wins the runoff)and maybe Johnson in WI, Rubio is more of a stretch. Grassley may retire, so that woukd be an open seat as well.
Depending on the GA runoffs we have 3, 4 or maybe 5 possible (not saying they will flip) blue to red danger states. Warnock (if he wins the run-off) Kelly, Cortez-Masto, Hassan, and (least danger) Bennet.
RKP5637
(67,102 posts)Bettie
(16,086 posts)easily and constantly used as a weapon and an excuse for all kinds of horrific behavior.
Marius25
(3,213 posts)on that case to uphold it. And even if they don't, Biden might be able to pass gay marriage into law.
edhopper
(33,556 posts)House or Senate.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Democrats are really mostly the same as Republicans. And those who believed what was unbelievable failed to stand against the extremely religious and authoritarian Republican Party.
Attacks from the left.
Attacks from the right.
Attacks from enemy states.
And here we are: A nation full of people who either don't know what to believe or are so screwed they think right is wrong, good is bad, lies are truth, and Democrats are the problem they have to solve.
SlogginThroughIt
(1,977 posts)With all the talk of civil war that gets thrown around, and it is just talk but if it werent just talk, I say this time let them go if they want to secede. Dont fight em. Just let them go and let them see how it fares for them. No bloodshed. No shots fired. Just let them go and have their christo-fascist jesus land. And when they starve and are left behind in the dust they will come crawling back.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)the decline that would face the South if its clueless right ever got their way. Devastation and regional warfare from climate change and loss of fresh water, devastation from being cannibalized and persecuted by authoritarian ruling classes who couldn't be voted out, devastation by incompetent-bad government and religious extremists in power, devastation by the kinds of criminal cartels currently ravaging to our borders but not beyond. Business and jobs would be gone, and many refugees would be trying to cross into the United States.
Same for many other conservative areas. One thing we know, hard-core conservatives in power couldn't govern anything resembling a democratic republic competently even if their goals hadn't become extremely different from those of liberal democracies.
Same for the illiberal left fringe.
intheflow
(28,460 posts)There was a case in the lead up to the SCOTUS confirming gay marriage as an equal right. The United Church of Christ in NC successfully argued that making gay marriage illegal violates the 1st Amendment right to religious freedom for churches whose faith compels them marry GLBTQ couples.
https://www.ucc.org/north-carolina-marriageequality-10102014
Stallion
(6,474 posts)hadn't thought of that
if marriage is a construct of religion (rather than the state) then a church founded on the principle of gay marriage would be entitled to 1st Amendment protection
intheflow
(28,460 posts)The UCC have American religious roots going back to the Mayflower. John Adams was a member of the Congregational Church (the forerunner to the UCC). Thus, this church evolved alongside and in conjunction with the founding of the US. The weight of this religious tradition cannot be easily dismissed by anyone looking to protect the 1st Amendment, even though their Christian interpretation is very, very liberal.
Mike 03
(16,616 posts)dickthegrouch
(3,172 posts)Respecting an establishment of religion. That does NOT read as "Respecting the establishment of a religion". As written in the language of the 1700's it means no underpinnings of religions can be legislated. Such as the communion rites, marriage, funeral, service content etc. cannot be legislated.
The whole 1200+ federal rights that go with a marriage are IMHO unconstitutional and should all be rescinded unless they are available under equal protection clauses to ALL.
The SCROTUS cannot use a religious argument to take away Same sex marriage, or their hypocrisy will be apparent in the very document that they write to achieve it. They should be forced to explain in their adverse ruling how they are not violating the initial clause I cited. It will be the most contorted explanation in history.
edhopper
(33,556 posts)they will still do it.
Just read any Kavinaugh opinion.
Orangepeel
(13,933 posts)They seem to he of the pro-corporate flavor of the right wing, and big business doesn't want to overturn marriage equality. It costs money to have different laws in different states.
edhopper
(33,556 posts)he voted for the religious exemption in the current gathering case.
Orangepeel
(13,933 posts)Piasladic
(1,160 posts)That sounds like some old ass having a hard time with same-sex marriage. Not saying that's you.
Behind the Aegis
(53,939 posts)It's just a style thing for me, but I get what you are saying too. However, I do feel marriage equality is at risk, and I wonder how many will really get upset if it is struck down.
edhopper
(33,556 posts)Rstrstx
(1,399 posts)...what a church considers to be a marriage. For legal purposes the governments position will be the one that wins out. Roberts voted against the 2015 case but hes a believer in stare decisis and I would bet that one or both of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are too. To undo existing marriages would be unworkable, the genie is out of the bottle. Thats one of the biggest reasons we adhere to stare decisis.
Just allow States to pass laws that stop new ones and allow people to not acknowledge ones that exists.
beaglelover
(3,465 posts)SSM has a high approval nationwide. The USSC wont touch it.
edhopper
(33,556 posts)the polls.