Supreme Court declines to revisit landmark same-sex marriage precedent

CNN.com ^ | 11/10/2025 | John Fritze

[Beave Meister]

They are correct in not reviewing Roe v Wade. It is, and should have always been, up to the states...

[irishjuggler]

Uh, this is about not revisiting the Obergefell same-sex marriage ruling, not about Roe.

[Beave Meister]

This too should have been left up to the states.

[Beave Meister]

Sorry, I hit post before I finished my response. These darn computer have a mind of there own.

[wardaddy]

Shame
It was the benchmark of homosexual mania in our culture
Coupled with their prevalence in Hollywood and media

[MinorityRepublican]

Did they say why?

Even Roberts was against the Obergefell decision in 2015.

[Engraved-on-His-hands]

Homosexuality is still immoral. Better say so now while you can. People have already been arrested in other countries for saying so.

Oh, and those folks on “our side” who are conscientious objectors in the Culture War. They are our enemies, too. It is best to understand that.

[dpetty121263]

Proving the United States is a immoral nation....not to mention uplifting mental illness as a national standard.

[Savage Beast]

"The court did not explain its reasoning"

I can: lack of courage and intellectual altitude and clarity.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

This was a terrible decision, almost indefensible legally.

That being said, this is one of the very few issues where stare decisis should be given alot of weight.

[sueuprising]

I agree that this was a huge mistake on the part of the Supreme Court and a surprising one. They had the opportunity to right a wrong in this country and they chose not to ,

[Republican Wildcat]

recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage

Correction: INVENTING a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, in total contradiction to biology and language.

[Mr. Lucky]

Hello?

[KrisKrinkle]

“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. “

I’ve never understood charging her for refusing to issue marriage licenses no matter what her reason. To the best of my memory:

-SCOTUS declared the Kentucky definition of marriage in the Kentucky Constitution unconstitutional under the US Constitution.

-SCOTUS can declare a law unconstitutional but has no legislative authority to establish a new law, although current law can sometimes be reinterpreted after the SCOTUS decision. I don’t recall that that is the case with Kentucky’s definition of marriage.

-The definition of marriage in the Kentucky Constitution had not been replaced at the time of Kim Davis’ refusal, not right up to now as far as I know. (The last I looked their Constitution hadn’t changed and I didn’t find it in their statutes.) It looks to me that “marriage” was and is undefined by Kentucky.

If marriage was and is undefined in Kentucky, by what authority was or is anyone authorized to issue a marriage license in Kentucky? How could Kim Davis be rightly charged for not doing something that was undefined in Kentucky? Are any Kentucky marriages since that time legal?

[unixfox]

They voted to keep only 2 genders on passports but can’t come to a decision about a man and a woman being the only recognized definition of marriage?

What a bunch of losers.

[nagant]

That’s right, the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” means that if a California guy and his horse decide to get married then Texas is responsible for enforcing alimony when they decide to get divorced. /s

[T.B. Yoits]

Once the court said marriage could be between two people of the same sex, separating marriage from biology, it set the precedent that marriage could be between any number of people.

Why stop at two people if marriage is not about families and procreation?

Why even stop at human beings?

"You can't evict me. My house is my spouse and we have rights."

[Dr. Franklin]

SCOTUS frequently disappoints those seeking justice. With six allegedly conservative justices they couldn’t find four who would vote to hear the case. That’s very sad.

[chiller]

Correction: INVENTING a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, in total contradiction to biology and language.

Agreed, but I don't want this issue on '26 ballots. Continuance of the MAGA agenda is crucial to the repair of the country that Donks have imparted and this proposition, imho, hurts MAGA's chances

Conversely, we need ballot props in '26 that will bring out R votes such as trans/gender issues , pronoun banning, etc.

[paudio]

Good. One issue that may throw Republicans to Bush era and split MAGA movement is now moot.