Supreme Court declines to revisit landmark same-sex marriage precedent

So happy for her to be in the news saying she still owe's $360K! "She was sued by multiple couples in the county, and a jury ordered her to pay $360,000 in damages and legal fees. " smh

She is like a cicada you forget about them then after five years or so they show up and make a shit load of noise and annoy the hell out of everybody.

Given all the rest of the terrible shit going on, I can. In fact the big surprise is that they declined. Wonder how that might go with the Texas case

That's going to be damn hard to do without resorting to a purely religious angle.

Trans people who just lost their (our) passports:

Consider that the only difference between a woman marrying a man and a woman marrying a woman is the sex/gender of one of the people. They have to figure out how to overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1964 first. That's the one that says you can't discriminate based on sex/gender (not sure which term is most appropriate here).

That's exactly the argument that Roe v Wade made.

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, in this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the (due process rights of the mother).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

When Trump's activist judges overturned it, they argued that not criminalizing abortion gave women rights that the constitution did not explicitly protect(?)

Because according to incompetent/corrupt Trump judges, that's how the constitution works now.

If they can invent presidential immunity despite there being absolutely nothing in the constitution to justify it, I'm sure they have no problem writing an opinion that allows bans on gay marriage.

My best guess would be that they would frame it as being about the right of the states to regulate marriage. If the state can decide how many people can be in a marriage, how old you have to be to marry, how closely related you can be and still marry, the requirements for starting or ending a marriage, and so on, then what's one more criteria? Add some tangents about the history of marriage in the US, some comments about how government is involved in marriage specifically because of how it connects to issues relating to reproduction, cite some cases from the 19th century, and twist some more recent precedent to reverse its meaning so that you can pretend to be following existing case law and you have a pretty standard ruling for this court.

I’m going to have to disagree that personal, physical autonomy is a valid discussion up for debate in the public sphere.

The only discussion should be between the person carrying the fetus who bears all the risk and responsibility and their medical professional.

The fact that it is even considered valid to be debated shows just how much propaganda works.

Pretty much.

You go to lower court, lose, go to appeals court, lose, and then you can petition the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court usually says no just because they get a thousand petitions a year, and have enough time for like ten. That's still true with this heavily conservative court.

Except for the fact that there was enough right-wing bankrolling to keep the case going, it doesn't mean much.

Thank you for the example, it's not one I'd come across before. But am I reading it right - did it not take (a civil war and) several constitutional amendments to overturn the SCOTUS case?