To "recognize" implies that it exists, which it does not. There right to same sex "marriage" is in the constitution next to the right to abortion. /sarc
(sarcasm tag needed for the Sooners cheer section driving the wagon)
Posted on 11/10/2025 6:55:20 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat
The Supreme Court on Monday morning turned down a request from Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky, to reconsider its 2015 decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In a brief, unsigned order, the justices rejected Davis’ petition for review of a ruling by a federal appeals court upholding an award of $100,000 to a gay couple to whom she had refused to issue a marriage license. That petition had also asked the justices to overrule the 2015 decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, arguing that a right to same-sex marriage “had no basis in the Constitution.”
As is generally the case when it denies petitions for review, the court did not provide any explanation for its decision not to hear Davis’ case. If any justices disagreed with the decision not to take up the case, they did not note that disagreement publicly.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Ouch
The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was tainted by Justice Kennedy's non-Constitutional assertions.
Sad.
In other news, homosexuality is still immoral, regardless of what the law and society say.
To "recognize" implies that it exists, which it does not. There right to same sex "marriage" is in the constitution next to the right to abortion. /sarc
(sarcasm tag needed for the Sooners cheer section driving the wagon)
Perhaps they did not desire to enter all that mentally ill transtesticle stuff, XX and XY along with the fake extrapolated “laws” from it. Will guess that is a result from the DEI slapdown mess.
Title is misleading. USSC made the right call.
...and a man still cannot become a woman, and a horse is still incapable of mooing like the cow she thinks she is.
Davis had an uphill battle on this all along:
1. she was a government official who was supposed to provide a government service according to prevailing law.
2. her argument that homosexual marriages aren’t constitutional gets blown up immediately since heterosexual marriages aren’t in there either.
My contention is that you can’t fight this on religious grounds... at least not in this day and age. It has to be done as a public policy argument... that it is inherently beneficial to society and the government to recognize and encourage heterosexual marriages due to culture and biology. (I’d also argue mental health, but there will always be left-loonies to shoot that down).
It was unlikely to succeed from the start.
My contention is that you can’t fight this on religious grounds... at least not in this day and age.
The more cautious Supremes are probably thinking about the big negative social reaction to the nullification of Roe vs Wade a few years ago. The Court Intern suspected of leaking that decision to the media has never been named or penalized for committing this professional breech of trust.
Agreed. At the end of the day this is a states’ issue, like abortion. Gay marriage (and as you point out, heterosexual marriage) isn’t in the Constitution and, therefore, the federal govt has no say in it.
Well the United States is doomed anyway as the National Debt is consuming more and more resources anyway. God is giving it over to it’s folly and the People will vote for it as Israel did the same thing back in the day.
Really, the federal government should be out of the marriage business altogether but that's a conversation for another time.
When the epitaph of America is written, it will have the Judiciary named as the villains who undid it all.
A Free Society is one where the laws are made by popular assent. The social norms of said society are thus enshrined in law.
Marriage between men and wo-men is one such norm which perpetuates the society and sustains it. In fact, it is central to the society and far more ancient then legislatures, bureaucracies, big buildings in Virginia, or other late term developments.
Marriage appears biologically, i.e., organically: mating habits of all sorts of species show such behavior, because it is evolutionarily optimal. Groups that do not exhibit this behavior many times suffer extinction. Thus the behavior becomes enshrined as law in successful groups, because their very existence AND success is due to such behavior...which we then memorialize as an Institution.
Where does the “Supreme Court” get the authority to deny the right of such law to a group that created said court?
It is the foundation of our success. Only the grubby, filthy, jealous loser known as “Marx” came up with the abolition of marriage and family because he was a failure at all of it.
But our courts deny that we have a right to order our society in such a way, based on specious interpretations of a vaguely written paragraph in the aftermath of one of the most vicious wars in history.
There is no history of any successful society that parodied marriage between a biological man and woman by applying the same label to humans incapable of producing children of their own.
When this subject came to a vote of the populace of the state famous for ignoring and destroying virtually all of the ancient norms, even they voted against it: Prop 8 in California. This was overturned by the so-called “Supreme” court of that State with the clever logic that the Amendment to the California Constitution would in fact be Un-Constitutional under the Federal Constitution. One can only arrive at such a conclusion by finding things in the Federal Constitution that do not exist there.
And thus a society is dismembered by the very people trusted to maintain it. The judges of a jungle tribe are always the elders with the most experience and would do a far better job.
The Judiciary in this country wields far more power then they were ever intended to have. It is their lust for such unmerited power and narcissism of those same judges that has lead to the destruction of our society.
If democrats and homosexuals could find a way, they would petition God, asking why he (she?) would not allow homosexuals to reproduce.
But, a liberal judge somewhere, could try to reverse God’s decision, deeming it unconstitutional, and calling God homophobic.
“In a brief, unsigned order, the justices rejected Davis’ petition for review of a ruling by a federal appeals court upholding an award of $100,000 to a gay couple to whom she had refused to issue a marriage license. “
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?
CAN SHE GET FUNDED BY GIVE-GET-GO TO RAISE THE MONEY?
SHE IS CORRECT-—COURT IS WRONG, IMO.
That’s absolutely right.
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.