Will same-sex marriage survive a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Alito have recently said the Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage poses a threat to religious liberty.

Said the justices: “By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right [to same-sex marriage] over the religious liberty interests explicity protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem that only it can fix.” (Thomas and Alito attack same-sex marriage ruling with court in flux - CNNPolitics)

For the record, I am flummoxed by the notion that two people who wish to marry, and are joined together by a willing officiant, are interfering with anybody's "constitutional right." Except, possibly, the right to insist upon how another person lives their life -- which as far as I am aware is not actually guaranteed constitutionally.

But I suspect that objection not-withstanding, we may in the not-too-distant future see millions of people be returned to unfairness and misery.

So, two questions, only one of which is on the poll:

Do you think that SCOTUS will reverse same-sex marriage? Yes, no.

Second: which of your religious rights is denied you when a gay couple marries. Please be specific.

 

[epronovost]

I don't think it will be reversed. The argument against marriage equality are extremely weak and don't rely on universal principles. These judges opinion is difficult to defend in an official ruling and competent conservative judges who are homophobic bite the bullet on that point.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

They can deny fair and equal treatment under the law and refuse to legally recognize same-sex marriage, but they can't stop same-sex marriage.

 

[Jesster]

I think it will survive. There might be a real fight to make sure it does, but people in this country aren't going to go back into the closet.

 

[Estro Felino]

I hope and I am sure it will survive
In law it is called aberratio juridica when someone states that the legitimate exercise of a right (homosexual marriage) is equivalent to a code violation, or worse, is equivalent to violate another's right. In this case freedom of religion and freedom to believe in heterosexual marriage only.

For all these reasons it is unjuridic to try to outlaw gay marriage just because some religious people disapprove of it.

 

[Windwalker]

I'll bet a number of Americans are hoping they will, because gayness makes them personally uncomfortable, and it's best for them to push openly gay people back into closets where they don't have to imagine gay sex, like they do now. Best to not legitimize their temptations legally.

Also, what of those who are uncomfortable with white women marrying black men? Now that they've got their majority, they can roll things back ever further.... possibly, some likely hope, to pre-civil war laws. Owning slaves should be covered under the religious liberties act, as slavery is supported by the Bible.

But let's not stop there. burning witches is a religious right too for some believers in history. So, getting rid of false religions should be protected constitutionally as well. I'm sure some would hope for that right too. Donald has done more for religion, than any person since the 1600s.

Make America Great Again, is in reference to the antebellum South, and all the way back to the arrival of Puritans on American soil.

 

[pearl]

As far as the religious liberty is concerned, could mean that no one in a public office that issues marriage licenses must do so against their religious beliefs. Business, the right to refuse service to homosexuals on religious grounds etc.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, if only because ACB says her personal beliefs would not affect her ruling on legal cases.

So unless there was a secular argument against same-sex marriage, it's not likely to change.

 

[crossfire]

I don't think the Court will nullify it. In states that make same-sex marriage difficult to come by, couple can just go out of state to get married and then their state would have to recognize their marriage.

US Constitution, Article 4 Section 1:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec1.html
​

 

[Twilight Hue]

Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Alito have recently said the Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage poses a threat to religious liberty.

Said the justices: “By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right [to same-sex marriage] over the religious liberty interests explicity protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem that only it can fix.” (Thomas and Alito attack same-sex marriage ruling with court in flux - CNNPolitics)

For the record, I am flummoxed by the notion that two people who wish to marry, and are joined together by a willing officiant, are interfering with anybody's "constitutional right." Except, possibly, the right to insist upon how another person lives their life -- which as far as I am aware is not actually guaranteed constitutionally.

But I suspect that objection not-withstanding, we may in the not-too-distant future see millions of people be returned to unfairness and misery.

So, two questions, only one of which is on the poll:

Do you think that SCOTUS will reverse same-sex marriage? Yes, no.

Second: which of your religious rights is denied you when a gay couple marries. Please be specific.

I doubt it. People for the vast majority accept that love shouldn't be regulated and the government needs to keep out of a persons private bedroom.

If there is any challenges it would be over the benefits afforded to married couples but I don't think that's likely either.

I'd be surprised if it did.

 

[Quintessence]

Second: which of your religious rights is denied you when a gay couple marries. Please be specific.

If priests whose traditions are opposed to homosexual marriages are expected to officiate ceremonies for such unions, that's a pretty blatant overstep in terms of religious rights.

 

[Quintessence]

Also, we're going to pack the courts. Because we're going to pack the courts. A court needs to represent the people, and a slanted court doesn't. Pack. The. Courts. I'd expand it to something like 13 at minimum, with an even split.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As far as the religious liberty is concerned, could mean that no one in a public office that issues marriage licenses must do so against their religious beliefs. Business, the right to refuse service to homosexuals on religious grounds etc.

There are plenty of marriages besides same-sex marriages that someone issuing marriage licenses might object to... for instance, marriages where one or both of the spouses is divorced from a previous marriage.

 

[crossfire]

If priests whose traditions are opposed to homosexual marriages are expected to officiate ceremonies for such unions, that's a pretty blatant overstep in terms of religious rights.

It's just the state public servants whose regular job is to issue marriage licenses or conduct weddings who would be expected to issue the license or conduct the wedding to anyone who is qualified. Clergy can follow the rules of their traditions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If priests whose traditions are opposed to homosexual marriages are expected to officiate ceremonies for such unions, that's a pretty blatant overstep in terms of religious rights.

The only case I can think of where that might come up is with a military chaplain.

... though chaplains sign up knowing that they might have to take part in religious ceremonies that aren't necessarily aligned with their particular denomination's religious tradition, so it seems to me that they had an opportunity to avoid this conflict and voluntarily chose to accept it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

If priests whose traditions are opposed to homosexual marriages are expected to officiate ceremonies for such unions, that's a pretty blatant overstep in terms of religious rights.

Would this same argument apply to priests who objected to, say, interracial marriage or marriage involving a previously divorced person? And if not, why should it apply to same-sex marriage?

 

[Windwalker]

Also, we're going to pack the courts. Because we're going to pack the courts. A court needs to represent the people, and a slanted court doesn't. Pack. The. Courts. I'd expand it to something like 13 at minimum, with an even split.

Nah, let's just pull a McConnell, and pack it with 50 progressives to counter the 6 conservatives. And then have them pass a law that says that the maximum. Why not? Republicans get to cheat. 53 to 6. Sure. Why not? Democracy means nothing to Republicans anymore. It's whose in power that gets to choose for Americans what's fair, regardless of what they have to say about it. If you're going to lie and cheat, do it big. Thanks Mitch for the lesson plan.

 

[pearl]

There are plenty of marriages besides same-sex marriages that someone issuing marriage licenses might object to... for instance, marriages where one or both of the spouses is divorced from a previous marriage.

In the Kim Davis case the Court refused to hear it and sent it back to the lower courts. I think the next Court will lean in favor of religious freedom.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would this same argument apply to priests who objected to, say, interracial marriage or marriage involving a previously divorced person? And if not, why should it apply to same-sex marriage?

It does apply for previously divorced people... and all sorts of other reasons why a priest might refuse to marry someone.

I think this is fine as-is, but it would be better if the priest had no special power in the eyes of secular law to marry people.

 

[crossfire]

As far as the religious liberty is concerned, could mean that no one in a public office that issues marriage licenses must do so against their religious beliefs. Business, the right to refuse service to homosexuals on religious grounds etc.

Except their job is not of clergy. Or of a private business. It is that of a public servant.

What would happen to a clergy person who did not follow the guideline of their religious institution?
Extend that answer to a public servant who would not follow the guideline of their public institution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the Kim Davis case the Court refused to hear it and sent it back to the lower courts. I think the next Court will lean in favor of religious freedom.

That decision wasn't about the status of same-sex marriage per se, but about whether public officials had the right to refuse to grant one.

Religious freedom wasn't at issue in the Kim Davis case, though: she wasn't forced to become a county clerk, so she wasn't forced to do any of the duties of the job. She had the option to resign; she voluntarily chose not to take it.