Posted on 11/10/2025 7:16:07 AM PST by Beave Meister
The Supreme Court on Monday declined an opportunity to overturn its landmark precedent recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, tossing aside an appeal that had roiled LGBTQ advocates who feared the conservative court might be ready to revisit the decade-old decision.
Instead, the court denied an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who now faces hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and legal fees for refusing to issue marriage licenses after the court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges allowed same-sex couples to marry.
The court did not explain its reasoning to deny the appeal, which had received outsized attention – in part because the court’s 6-3 conservative majority three years ago overturned Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion that 1973 decision established. Since then, fears about Obergefell being the precedent to fall have grown.
The Supreme Court today is far different and far more conservative than the one that decided Obergefell in 2015, which is part of what had given LGBTQ advocates pause about the Davis appeal.
(Excerpt) Read more at lite.cnn.com ...
Excellent legal questions. But as a practical matter, homosexual marriage became recognized as legal in all 50 states because of the Supreme Court ruling.
Rather than getting into such legalities, all 50 states decided to issue sane sex marriage licenses. And nobody ever looked into issues such as you have raised. That’s where we are at.
Constitutional right to same-sex marriage
Anybody find they yet?.
“...sane sex marriage...”
Some might not agree with the “sane” part :)
Sad but true.
Sad but true.
Obviously.
Exactly!
This is a classic case of conservatives conserving leftist victories.
Pity, because it's the source of a lot of crazy stuff, like males in female sports.
There are good constitutional grounds to ban abortion nationwide.
The sad part is that they could have accomplished the same objective on gay marriage with a lot less disruption simply by using the full faith and credit clause.
Separate state and marriage.
LOL. crazy mistake on my part...m
Leftist victories are never good for free people.
>> That being said, this is one of the very few issues where stare decisis should be given alot of weight.
So I guess truth and righteousness doesn’t carry weight in your book of standards on justice, whatever that book might be...? But convenience is paramount?
Exactly.
Even some Conservative judges may have felt Kim Davis’ case was not the case to hang their hats on with a revisit of the “same sex” marriage ruling.
No, they do. That's why I said it was one of the "very few" issues where stare decisis should be given weight. Horrible decision, but extreme difficult to unwind/undo.
That being said, I personally think it probably should be undone anyway. I just don't think it will be undone because of stare decisis, so that even some of the justices who rightly dissented the first time around won't try to undo it.
Why?
it was- if you remember what happened
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.