Skip to comments.Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
Posted on 10/05/2020 11:34:24 AM PDT by knighthawk
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."
The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
How often is a decision to not grant CERT accompanied by an opinion?
It must be hiding in the penumbra somewhere..................
Roberts is FOR GAY MARRIAGE because he is .......fill in the blank.
Roberts dissented in Obergefell but there’s no way in hell that he’d overturn it now. That’s obvious when we see how he switched sides in the recent abortion restriction case to affirm an opinion that he himself had dissented from. Gorsuch & Kavanaugh are very establishment (i.e., LGBT-friendly), and likely have no stomach to overturn. It’s gonna take Barrett plus 2 new justices if/when Breyer & Sotomayor retire.
It was Kennedy that provided the 5th vote, not Roberts. Roberts said it was completely outside of the authority of the Court to redefine the meaning of words.
And now we have the S.Ct. decision that transgenders are protected by federal civil rights laws, although obviously that is not true. Pedophiles will be next, under the same reasoning.
As I understand it, current Kentucky law is:
402.005 Definition of marriage.As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, “marriage” refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.Effective:July 15, 1998History:Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998.
The Supreme Court may have declared said law unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court can’t legislate and so far as I know the above legislation was never replaced with Supreme Court compliant legislation.
How can Kim Davis or anyone else issue a marriage license to anyone at all when there is no underlying legal basis for the issue of said license? Can they issue a license for something that is undefined in Commonwealth law? What’s the license for if there’s no such definition?
Agree. Roberts votes like a cowed back bencher in Parliament. When his vote doesn’t matter, he’s “allowed” to dissent but when they need him, he has to toe the party line. If this is true, wonder who is pulling his strings and how.
I hate homos as much as anyone. But we gave a republic to save
Disappointed for Kim and her denial of her day in court.
Yes, that is the pattern that I have: When needed, Roberts will toe the Party line, blindfold on, reading what he is told to read, wherever he can find it. That’s why we expect a 4-4 no decision for EVERY 2020 election issue - so Pelosi can cause more delays and confusion in the House.
By Gods grace and power, this gets reheard by a sane court and overturned.
Except Barrett will be confirmed between Oct. 24 and Oct. 26.
After that, Roberts will be “remarkably” conservative as his swing vote won’t matter.
All of the many knives that have been shoved into the back of our Republic will have to be removed to save her. This is but one.
He’s being blackmailed; imo.
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.