Same-sex marriage is now in jeopardy

[edhopper]

we already have two Justices who have said they want to revisit Obergefell. We now know where Kavinaugh, Gorsuch and Barret line up when it comes to "religious liberty"
They just need a State to pass a law that allows discrimination against Gay marriage, like this:
https://thegrio.com/2020/11/25/indiana-asks-supreme-court-to-take-away-rights-of-same-sex-parents/

And bye to Gay marriage throughout the United States.

Maybe they can reverse Loving v Virginia while they are at it.

[MineralMan]

1. I don't think that will be overturned.

The problem that would face the court is that there are so many same-sex marriages that have already been celebrated and recognized by states all across the nation. The court cannot undo those. Equal protection comes into play for future same-sex marriages, since there are so many of them already in place.

Individual states would also be unable to undo those marriages, since the constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.

[edhopper]

3. Not undo

but allow discrimination towards same sex couples based on religion and allow States to prohibit future marriages.

[dsc]

7. If any civil servant in the SS office can see Jesus tells me not to send that couple their check

then what kind of marriage does that couple have? The fact is laws protecting LGBTQ rights will become suggestions that invoking Jesus will render those laws not worth the paper upon which they are printed. Want to fire a gay employee invoke Jesus. What to keep a trans woman out of the bathroom invoke Jesus.

[uponit7771]

26. +1, you can then say you see GIA and sent it anyway and not be fired according to the USSC. This ...

... slope they're touching with the current COVID ruling is beyond stupid as they act like they don't know that religious gatherings are super spreading events.

[Buckeyeblue]

10. I agree. I think marriage equality is settled law

But I do think the court will establish that the precedent set does not apply to religious institutions. They will be permitted to apply religious doctrine which may end up discriminating against LGBTQ individuals.

In other words, the court is going to stack rank civil rights. Religion will come first.

[edhopper]

16. Alito and Thomas

have said it is not settled law and want to reverse it.

To the new majority Roe is not settled law either.

[euphorb]

23. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has held repeatedly that the prohibition on ex post facto laws . .

. . . applies only to criminal matters, not civil.

[uponit7771]

24. They wouldn't undo current marriages just allow discrimination against them which COULD make it

... much harder to get or be gay married.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. I just saw that Indiana may be teeing up a case for them to at least weaken it.

[edhopper]

4. That is the link

in my post.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

5. Loving v. Virginia...

Will NEVER be overturned. Clarence Thomas would never make his marriage invalid.

Though he is callous enough to forbid others from enjoying the Constitutional rights he has.

[edhopper]

6. That was sarcasm

on how backward the new court will be.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

29. Clarence Thomas also ruled against the VRA

Section 4 regarding Pre-clearance in Voting Law changes. Yet, he is a beneficiary of said Act himself. Since then, states have tried to make voting more difficult for POC .

Clarence Thomas expresses no shame in how he decides who has rights and who does not.

[Demsrule86]

8. All you "but her email voters" must be so proud

[NurseJackie]

13. The "she voted for AWR" voters too.

[StarfishSaver]

42. As is the "She gave paid speeches on Wall Street" crowd

[bottomofthehill]

14. Paging the Bernie bro's and the Susan Sarandon crowd

Thank you for your cooperation.

[Ellen Forradalom]

18. My (very white, male) bro is one of those

I call him a horseshoe-theory Trumpanzee

[Cracklin Charlie]

9. Good grief

You’d think they could do just one thing to actually help their country.

Just one thing.

Nope...all hate, all the time. This kinda stuff usually backfires, though.

[edhopper]

20. How so?

The GOP was rewarded for pushing through Barrett.

[AmericanCanuck]

11. The Roberts court would not want any part of this

Roberts knows that putting toothpaste back in the tube doesn't work and creates a huge mess.

[SoonerPride]

12. Roberts doesn't get to decide what cases the court hears

He can be outvoted by the religious wing

[barbtries]

15. The court should be brought into balance.

Cannot overstate how important the GA races are.

[edhopper]

17. It won't happen

even with GA Dems, Manchin has said he will vote against Court expansion.

[barbtries]

22. He might be persuaded

if we lose gay marriage, abortion rights, etc, etc, etc

Sure worth a try imo

[edhopper]

34. Those issues

are opposed by the majority in his State.

[Celerity]

38. it is not just Manchin, multiple other Dem Senators are against expansion too

Sinema, Feinstein, Mark Kelly, Hickenlooper, Angus King, Ossoff (if he is elected), Tester (but he was open to ending the filibuster) Gary Peters, maybe Warner

some of the ones who lost were against it too, Cunningham, Harrison, Greenfield, Gideon, Hegar, Bullock, Bollier,
McGrath


https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/23/senate-hopefuls-supreme-court-expansion-420650

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/521494-push-to-expand-supreme-court-faces-democratic-buzzsaw

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/gop-bets-democrats-won-t-expand-supreme-court-progressives-say-n1244721

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/517704-democrats-shoot-down-talk-of-expanding-supreme-court

https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2020/10/14/sen-kyrsten-sinema-opposes-court-packing-some-democrats-want/3645042001/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2019/03/18/daily-202-decrying-court-packing-michael-bennet-pleads-with-democrats-to-care-more-about-electability/5c8e9dfe1b326b0f7f38f1ad/

[barbtries]

45. that's horrifying.

if the shoe was on the other foot bet we all know what republicans would do.

[Celerity]

46. It is basically the same for ending the filibuster, a few less perhaps

I said all along that even with a 53-47 or 54-46 Dem majority in the Senate, much of what people assumed would sail through (like the Public Option, 15 USD national minimum wage, a reduced form of xlimate change bill, etc etc) would not happen. Too many institutionalists and moderates on over to moderate conservatives (which is what Manchin calls himself and which is how Sinema votes as well) to pass that type of big ticket items, especially if the Rethugs simply had invoked a filibuster.

The Senate is, along with the EC, a long wave constitutional suicide pact, as it gives a radical RW minority tge whip hand far too often. I truly fear we lose the House as well in 2022. The last two Dem POTUS 1st midterms (1994 and 2010) were cataclysmic disasters for us. In 2010 we lost a net 63 House seats and lost a net 7 Senate seats.

Our best shots at flipping Senate seats from red to blue are the two open seats in NC and PA, Loeffler (if she wins the runoff)and maybe Johnson in WI, Rubio is more of a stretch. Grassley may retire, so that woukd be an open seat as well.

Depending on the GA runoffs we have 3, 4 or maybe 5 possible (not saying they will flip) blue to red danger states. Warnock (if he wins the run-off) Kelly, Cortez-Masto, Hassan, and (least danger) Bennet.

[RKP5637]

21. Demonstrating, yet again, religion is amongst one of the most evil things wandering earth! n/t

[Bettie]

27. Yep, it really is the single most corrosive element in society

easily and constantly used as a weapon and an excuse for all kinds of horrific behavior.

[Marius25]

25. I think Gorsuch and Roberts would side with the liberals

on that case to uphold it. And even if they don't, Biden might be able to pass gay marriage into law.

[edhopper]

35. Not with the current

House or Senate.

[Hortensis]

28. Was before. As Sanders said at every appearance, the

Democrats are really mostly the same as Republicans. And those who believed what was unbelievable failed to stand against the extremely religious and authoritarian Republican Party.

Attacks from the left.
Attacks from the right.
Attacks from enemy states.

And here we are: A nation full of people who either don't know what to believe or are so screwed they think right is wrong, good is bad, lies are truth, and Democrats are the problem they have to solve.

[SlogginThroughIt]

30. With all the talk of civil war

With all the talk of civil war that gets thrown around, and it is just talk but if it weren’t just talk, I say this time let them go if they want to secede. Don’t fight em. Just let them go and let them see how it fares for them. No bloodshed. No shots fired. Just let them go and have their christo-fascist jesus land. And when they starve and are left behind in the dust they will come crawling back.

[Hortensis]

37. The nation's geographically too mixed. But I often think of

the decline that would face the South if its clueless right ever got their way. Devastation and regional warfare from climate change and loss of fresh water, devastation from being cannibalized and persecuted by authoritarian ruling classes who couldn't be voted out, devastation by incompetent-bad government and religious extremists in power, devastation by the kinds of criminal cartels currently ravaging to our borders but not beyond. Business and jobs would be gone, and many refugees would be trying to cross into the United States.

Same for many other conservative areas. One thing we know, hard-core conservatives in power couldn't govern anything resembling a democratic republic competently even if their goals hadn't become extremely different from those of liberal democracies.

Same for the illiberal left fringe.

[intheflow]

31. Maybe, maybe not.

There was a case in the lead up to the SCOTUS confirming gay marriage as an equal right. The United Church of Christ in NC successfully argued that making gay marriage illegal violates the 1st Amendment right to religious freedom for churches whose faith compels them marry GLBTQ couples.

https://www.ucc.org/north-carolina-marriageequality-10102014

[Stallion]

33. That's an Interesting Argument That Might Appeal to Religious Oriented Justices

hadn't thought of that

if marriage is a construct of religion (rather than the state) then a church founded on the principle of gay marriage would be entitled to 1st Amendment protection

[intheflow]

43. Not even churches founded on the principle.

The UCC have American religious roots going back to the Mayflower. John Adams was a member of the Congregational Church (the forerunner to the UCC). Thus, this church evolved alongside and in conjunction with the founding of the US. The weight of this religious tradition cannot be easily dismissed by anyone looking to protect the 1st Amendment, even though their Christian interpretation is very, very liberal.

[Mike 03]

44. That's a brilliantly clever approach.

[dickthegrouch]

32. Congress shall make no law

Respecting an establishment of religion. That does NOT read as "Respecting the establishment of a religion". As written in the language of the 1700's it means no underpinnings of religions can be legislated. Such as the communion rites, marriage, funeral, service content etc. cannot be legislated.
The whole 1200+ federal rights that go with a marriage are IMHO unconstitutional and should all be rescinded unless they are available under equal protection clauses to ALL.
The SCROTUS cannot use a religious argument to take away Same sex marriage, or their hypocrisy will be apparent in the very document that they write to achieve it. They should be forced to explain in their adverse ruling how they are not violating the initial clause I cited. It will be the most contorted explanation in history.

[edhopper]

36. And yet

they will still do it.

Just read any Kavinaugh opinion.

[Orangepeel]

39. Gorsuch and Roberts?

They seem to he of the pro-corporate flavor of the right wing, and big business doesn't want to overturn marriage equality. It costs money to have different laws in different states.

[edhopper]

40. Gorsuch is a question mark

he voted for the religious exemption in the current gathering case.

[Orangepeel]

41. yeah, but I don't think that will cost corporations a lot of money

[Piasladic]

47. Do we really need to call it "gay marriage?"

That sounds like some old ass having a hard time with same-sex marriage. Not saying that's you.

[Behind the Aegis]

48. I use "marriage equality", but in a situation like this, yes, I prefer, same-sex marriage.

It's just a style thing for me, but I get what you are saying too. However, I do feel marriage equality is at risk, and I wonder how many will really get upset if it is struck down.

[edhopper]

49. You make a good point

[Rstrstx]

50. I think we'll start to see an increasing split between what government considers a marriage and...

...what a church considers to be a marriage. For legal purposes the government’s position will be the one that wins out. Roberts voted against the 2015 case but he’s a believer in stare decisis and I would bet that one or both of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are too. To undo existing marriages would be unworkable, the genie is out of the bottle. That’s one of the biggest reasons we adhere to stare decisis.

[edhopper]

51. Not do

Just allow States to pass laws that stop new ones and allow people to not acknowledge ones that exists.

[beaglelover]

52. I'm a married gay man and am not worried at all.

SSM has a high approval nationwide. The USSC won’t touch it.

[edhopper]

53. They don't care about

the polls.