Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The SCOTUS receives more than 7,000 petitions for certiorari each year but only issues a writ in a fraction of cases (between 100 - 150 cases a year). The Court will only issue a writ if four of the nine Justices vote to do so.
Justice Clarence Thomas was joined by Justice Samuel Alito expressed a desire to hear the case.
Justices Thomas & Alito need to convince 2 more Justices to "fix the problems created by the Obergefell v. Hodges decision".
If their so called "fix" is successful, it will join these others:
If you had bothered to even read the title, you would know my post was completely relevant.
they declined to waste time on the KY magistrate's case.
in their "press release" announcing as much, they said "Obergefell has issues, and here's one of them"
in the KY magistrate case, anyone wanting to sue her and get damages is just being as/more vindictive as she was. They got their licenses approved quickly while she sat in jail for contempt for refusing to issue them.
"Marriage" is a religious ceremony. Union, the legal form of marriage, wouldn't be changed.
My marriage certificate from the state says marriage certificate, not union certificate, and my marriage was not performed in a church or by a religious leader.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 14 days ago)
35,652 posts, read 18,006,664 times
Reputation: 50689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
The article is a bit of hysterics and theatrics. Only 2 justices of the 9 wrote about issues with impinging upon religious freedoms.
I personally support gay marriage but I also recognize that there is a DIVERSITY of opinion on the topic and some people have religious views that I don't agree with but oh well.
It's almost election time so the trolling about (another thread) the dems taking away medicare or the repubs abolishing abortion are par for the course.
You old enough to remember when there was a frenzy to stop the roberts confirmation because he's overturn Roe vs. Wade? Don't be so easily trolled.
There was also a diversity of opinion on whether restaurant owners wanted to serve black people, and some were hiding behind the guise of religion.
And also whether black and white people could enter marry.
It's the exact same thing here, deciding whether an employee has to serve (and by that, I mean serve, not marry, serve as in process their legal documentation. No one is telling her to marry a gay person), gay people, vs. serve black people.
There was also a diversity of opinion on whether restaurant owners wanted to serve black people, and some were hiding behind the guise of religion.
And also whether black and white people could enter marry.
It's the exact same thing here, deciding whether an employee has to serve (and by that, I mean serve, not marry, serve as in process their legal documentation. No one is telling her to marry a gay person), gay people, vs. serve black people.
It's the same thing.
Sexuality, marriage and race are not the same thing at all.
As with abortion, the ultra right wing dominated SCOTUS will work to chip away at these rulings. They will allow many more restrictions making abortion very difficult. They will allow more religious exemptions in order to discriminate against the LGBTQ community. A majority of the court will not be happy until America goes back to the dark ages.
So not allowing murder is discrimination now? Allowing gays a civil union instead of a traditional marriage is discrimination?
Guess live and let live is too much for some people...
This is no different than what they wrote in dissent of Obergefell. This is not new legal thought, just reiteration. SSM is one of those genies in the bottle that can never be stuffed back in once it’s let loose.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Allowing gays a civil union instead of a traditional marriage is discrimination?
Yes because there are benefits which accompany marriage but not civil unions, depending on state law. The first is portability, marriage status is recognized by all states, civil unions weren't. There is no right to federal benefits associated with civil unions as there are with marriage. Social Security survivors' and spousal benefits, estate benefits, parental rights, property rights, spousal privilege, housing benefits, health care for spouses, the right to file joint federal tax returns all follow marriage but vary widely from state to state.
US v Windsor decided that Edie Windsor was discriminated against; she took a tax hit because the federal government did not recognize her marriage. One would think getting a US citizen lower taxes would be something conservatives would cheer about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
