Supreme Court considers Kim Davis petition to overturn same-sex marriage ruling

[WorldWatcher]

By sex I assume that you mean sexual orientation. The fact is that like race, the courts have consistently treated sexual orientation as an innate , immutable characteristic , So you are wrong -wrong- wrong

Anti-Same sex marriage laws were not written based on sexual orientation. They were written based on biological sex (man, women) - not to whom they are attracted.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

They are not the same thing, you are adding the subset of "immutable characteristic" which is meaningless.

Sex is an immutable characteristic right?

Man / Woman.

WW

 

[Crepitus]

Supreme Court is reviewing as we speak whether to hear a case that could overturn Same Sex Marriage. SCOTUS policy is if four or more vote to take the case, the case is taken. We should hear Monday.​

​

Supreme Court considers Kim Davis petition to overturn same-sex marriage ruling​

Supreme Court considers Kim Davis petition to overturn same-sex marriage ruling

The Supreme Court on Friday will consider the appeal of former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who has asked the justices to overturn same-sex marriage rights.

abcnews.go.com

The justices will vote during a private conference on whether to hear the case.

Supreme Court considers Kim Davis petition to overturn same-sex marriage rulingThe justices will vote during a private conference on whether to hear the case. ABC News' Devin Dwyer reports.

The Supreme Court on Friday will consider whether to take up the appeal of former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who has directly asked the justices to overturn the landmark 2015 decision that extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide.

Davis gained international attention after she refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple on religious grounds in open defiance of the high court’s ruling and was subsequently jailed for six days. A jury later awarded the couple $100,000 for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees.

In a petition for writ of certiorari filed in August, Davis argues First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial of marriage licenses.

She also claims the court’s decision in Obergefell v Hodges -- which rooted marriage rights for LGBTQ couples in the 14th Amendment’s due process protections -- was "legal fiction."

They will, of course, do it. The wholly owned RWNJs on the court have been waiting for the chance.

 

[Crepitus]

So it begins.

After Obergefell the fascist right will go after Lawrence, then Romer v. Evans – making it again constitutional to criminalize homosexuality and to discriminate against gay Americans.

They will also likely make interracial marriage illegal again too, while moving on to persecute anyone else they dislike.

 

[martybegan]

Clergy isn't forced to perform same sex weddings, clergy isn't forced to do interracial marriages either.

WW

But if discrimination is an absolute concept as you are implying, they would have to be forced.

 

[martybegan]

Sex is an immutable characteristic right?

Man / Woman.

WW

sexuality is about actions, not something intrinsically biological.

 

[martybegan]

They will also likely make interracial marriage illegal again too, while moving on to persecute anyone else they dislike.

No one is calling for that, you ******* liar.

 

[Zincwarrior]

No one is calling for that, you ******* liar.

Same argument. Same people.

 

[martybegan]

Same argument. Same people.

Not the same argument. the left's childish need to combine everything into the same concept is infuriating.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Race and sex are not the same thing, and the attempts to equate the two are idiotic.

You're right that they are not the same thing, but they are both immutable characteristics that cannot be changed.

 

[MostBoringManInTheWorld]

They will also likely make interracial marriage illegal again too, while moving on to persecute anyone else they dislike.

I wonder what Clarence Thomas would have to say about that.

He would probably be the only dissenting conservative justice.

I assume.

And you know what I do when I assume.

 

[WorldWatcher]

But if discrimination is an absolute concept as you are implying, they would have to be forced.

:LOL:

Hyberbole, clergy have never been requried to vilate the tenates of their religion when performing clearical duties.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

sexuality is about actions, not something intrinsically biological.

Anti-Same Sex Marriage laws are written in terms of biology not action.

It's right in the laws.

Let's look at the old DOMA law as an example:
"Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Existing as a man (or woman) is a biological thing, not an action.

WW

 

[martybegan]

You're right that they are not the same thing, but they are both immutable characteristics that cannot be changed.

since they are actions, they can be, or bisexuality wouldn't be a thing.

 

[martybegan]

:LOL:

Hyberbole, clergy have never been requried to vilate the tenates of their religion when performing clearical duties.

WW

Not hyperbole, just calling out your attempts at absolutism only when it suits you.

 

[martybegan]

Anti-Same Sex Marriage laws are written in terms of biology not action.

It's right in the laws.

Let's look at the old DOMA law as an example:
"Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Existing as a man (or woman) is a biological thing, not an action.

WW

The actions are the basis of the identity, not biology. gay men are still men, lesbians are still women.

 

[TNHarley]

Since govt got involved with marriage, it has no place to discriminate against gays. State or Fed.
It would be different if the religious didnt let govt take over their ritual. But alas. Just like every-*******-thing else.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The actions are the basis of the identity, not biology. gay men are still men, lesbians are still women.

Correct.

And none of the laws were written based on actions.

They were written based on biological sex.

No where in the country was it illegal for two homosexuals to civilly marry. A gay man could marry a lesbian and they were legal.

WW

 

[martybegan]

Correct.

And none of the laws were written based on actions.

They were written based on biological sex.

No where in the country was it illegal for two homosexuals to civilly marry. A gay man could marry a lesbian and they were legal.

WW

Sexuality isn't sex, just like both aren't race.

 

[pknopp]

Not going to hear the case.

Supreme Court rejects call to overturn its decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide