The Supreme Court decided on Monday morning not to take up a case involving former Rowan County Clerk and forever fashion icon Kim Davis, the Christian woman who took the law into her own hands when she decided not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the grounds that her religious beliefs were being violated. But the bigger story is that two Justices — conservatives Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — issued a statement in which they harshly criticized the historic Obergefell v. Hodges case from 2015 that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
To back up a bit, two same-sex couples whose marriage license requests were denied by Davis were given the go-ahead in lower courts to seek damages from her. Davis’ lawyers wanted the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling, arguing she had “qualified immunity” to exert her Christian beliefs in her government role.
The Supreme Court will not take up the case, and the earlier ruling that the couples may file lawsuits against Davis stands. We expect we still haven’t heard the name Kim Davis for the last time.
While Thomas and Alito did say that they agreed the case should not be taken up by the Supreme Court, they also squeezed in — on page 55 — that same-sex marriage is a big problem that the Court needs to deal with.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Here’s how it reads:
In Obergefell v. Hodges…, the Court read a right to same-sex marriage into the Fourteenth Amendment, even though that right is found nowhere in the text.
…
Davis may have been one of the first victims of this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last. Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws.
…
By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have “ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”
Did you catch that last part about how same-sex marriage is a problem that only the Supreme Court can fix?
While only two Justices signed their names to the statement, it’s a troubling development given the fact that conservative Catholic Amy Coney Barrett stands poised to join the Court and give it an overwhelmingly right-leaning slant.
Catholicslutbox
#gays for trump
ShiningSex
gays for trump are scum
barryaksarben
worse than scum they are self hating scum. IF gay marriage is overturned they will be complicit in this reversal of our equal rights. Their ignorance is mind boggling
malpeli
Don’t call them that. Call them what they REALLY are.
Gay Nazis are scum
There. Accurate from first word till last
Cam
No such thing. They got some play in the media, but remember, when they FINALLY had their big national event less than a dozen people showed up.
The ONLY thing that the phony group Gays for Trump was good at was sending out P.R emails to convince the press they actually had a membership larger than 12 people.
Cam
Typical Republicans: They think protecting bigotry is far more important than anybody’s civil rights.
UlfRaynor
Religious bigotry was the very reason both Jefferson and Madison wrote extensively on the tyranny of the masses, cautioning that the majority always oppresses the minority.
This is the very thing the Supreme Court was supposed to protect against.
Liquid Silver
On the up side, Thomas may very well…need replacement…in the next term or so. Alito could as well.
iron
l think this supremo,s need to term their limits. 10 max. skew the lifetime bit.
malpeli
Biden is 14pts up and Trump is as good as dead. If you think Trump’s Nazi followers are going to get out the vote for a monumental cuck like Pence, you’re very much mistaken.
It’s over.
Sister Bertha Bedderthanyu
I can only wonder why RBG did not look down the road and see this coming when she refused to resign so that Obama could replace her. That is why I say its time to end this lifetime appointment to the court. Whether liberal or conservative the nation does not need to be under one ideology for twenty years or better, which will be the case with these newly appointed justices. The only hope for a change now will be Clarence Thomas waking up one morning and realizing that he is black.
ejkranz
Brazil, where I live, is very far from being a perfect country, but here the Supreme Court Judges MUST retire before they are 75; and there are talks of taking this age down to 70.
Kangol2
@Sister, you’d be surprised about Clarence Thomas; he’s quite aware that he’s Black and, though most conservatives don’t know it, openly praised Rev. Louis Farrakhan, and agrees with him on many points. He hates liberalism, he believes in by-your-bootstrap advancement, he despises affirmative action, etc. Uncle Thomas has a serious inferiority complex, but he was a rabid Black nationalist in his youth and loved Malcolm X too. If you look at some of his rulings carefully, you’ll see he has sometimes come down against overt prejudice against Black people, yet he seems incapable of grasping how the larger racially oppressive system works. So long as he can attack liberalism he’s happy. The scariest thing is he is now the most influential conservative on the court, at least based on the weight his rulings and dissents have had on his fellow conservatives.
Mack
With what Moscow Mitch did to Merrick Garland do you really expect him to process RBG’s replacement? He wasn’t going to let ANY Supreme Court nominee through. He didn’t even allow Federal Judges to be appointed. He stopped them so that the Republican President could stock the courts.
Sister Bertha Bedderthanyu
“The most influential conservative” but yet he is passed over for the top job of chief justice by a young white male who got appointed to the court fifteen years or so after he did? You started off having me think you knew when and where he parted the river for his people to cross but came up very short.
mykelb
They both need to be impeached and banned from public service.
phillycap
this textualist approach to the Constitution is dumb. The framers hoped you had a modicum of common sense and wouldn’t be led by the hand like a dumb ox to a decision. And they keep talk about religious freedom. But it’s not only freedom OF religion. It’s also freedom FROM religion. And again, marriage is a civil contract at its core. It’s not some religious, down from the heavens of god construct.
mike_TNYC
Why is this even news? They voted against marriage equality the first time and they’re still against it.
DarkZephyr
Its news Mike because thanks to Trump, the Supreme Court is about to be slanted in their favor.
ShiningSex
Anyone republican are scumbags. They say they’re for equality and most do say such crap. They’re against anyone not like them. BORING!!!!
Being gay and republican is like being a person of color and in the KKK
barryaksarben
Why does the one statement put religious liberty over equal rights as this country has a separation of church and state so any groups religious beliefs should have ZERO bearing on others rights as citizens. ANd we are citizens no matter what these troglodytes think
Florida Guy
Why do you think Trump is in such a hurry to get a new Supreme Court judge.She is bigoted like the other two I don’t buy people saying Trump is the most pro LGBTQ president if you do take another sip of Kool-Aid
Mack
What I can’t figure out is a recent poll stating that 48% of the LGBTQ community SUPPORTS TRUMP. That’s a lot of people with their heads up their asses.
Cam
@Mack
That was a phony poll. Done online only, self selecting, and put out by a conservative site that pushed it out to it’s members.
Other legitimate polls she a much MUCH lower number.
Wolfwalk
Didn’t even have to read the article to know that the two “justices” were the most homophobic, anti-civil rights, anti-environment, pro-corruption (for big business and Republicans) of the bunch: Thomas the Sexual Assaulter and Alito the Arrogant. Only surprise was that Thomas’ fellow sexual assaulter, Kavanaugh the Kreepy, didn’t join them in their ignorant opinion.
fur_hunter
There is a principle that was established by the founding fathers called Separation of church and State. The purpose of this principle is to prevent ANY religion influencing any rules, regulations or laws of the government. It also establishes that no government rulings and regulations should affect religious institutions. It seems our elected officials have forgotten this principle?
ShowMeGuy
Yes, end marriage equality and dissolve Thomas’ inter-racial marriage. Elephants have two faces.
cuteguy
If this would to happen, then maybe the young gays would appreciate that all the older gays had to fight for, things this generation takes for granted like marriage equality
James
Are you kidding. Do you really think losing marriage equality makes everyone appreciate everyone more. It is more important to be free than to worry about what a bunch of useless people think.
James
Republicans are nazi trash. Get rid of them.
justyouandi
They didn’t say a thing about overturning marriage equality! They said ONLY that people with religious convictions should be protected from the SAME indignities of their personhood that gays claimed they had before. No one should be forced to march in a parade, wear a pin, or to participate in something that they find personally objectionable. Live and let live!
You still had a story here even if you had told the truth, so why sensationalize it?
DarkZephyr
Oh really? And what kind of a fix for a “problem” that wasn’t, in their opinion, created “democratically” be if not overturning it?
And gays “claimed” they had before? Are you suggesting that we didn’t?
justyouandi
DarkZephyr, READ what I wrote! As the law is written now people with religious convictions have no protection from discrimination. Nothing is said about taking away marriage equality. If you want to confront those people with those convictions start with Muslims, then, after that, if you make it move on to religious Jews, Catholics and Baptists.
Den
In addition to the intellectual and ethical shortcomings you regularly demonstrate here, you also have a real issue with reading comprehension.
Their central claim is that the 14th Amendment in no way supports the marriage equality supported in Obergefell v. Hodges, But beyond that they go on to imagine that denying the right of Christians to foist their odd concepts of sin on anyone and everyone, even in the discharge of secular professional duties is somehow impairing their ability to worship free from governmental interference.
I realize you slavishly lick the posterior of the right wingers you see as superior beings with a higher level of humanness. But most of us with brains do not share that self destructive delusion, and understand our rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be on a par with (or even better supported intellectually) those of the holy idiot fundies and evangelifools.
Josh447
Josh447
You’re right. The 14th Ammendment of equality under the law trumps religious dogma as per the first amendment as government cannot support our endorse religions or their rules and regs. Tough spot for fundies.
These two yokles may want it another way but I do not see that prevailing, even w Barrett, who reakes of hypocrisy just looking at her. These two descented gay marriage anyway. What would anyone expect them to say.
It’s also noteworthy to view the fact that Kim Davis got her SCOTUS appeal denied is huge. It says the support for gay marriage is there.
How to quell “the problem” of the fundies being discriminated against for their “closely held bigoted beliefs” that will be a fun one to grapple with however, I don’t see us sitting only at the back of the bus, ever again.
DarkZephyr
“DarkZephyr, READ what I wrote! As the law is written now people with religious convictions have no protection from discrimination.”
Are you KIDDING ME?? I did read what you wrote Dude, but are you KIDDING ME? The religious DON’T HAVE protections? Have you NEVER heard of the Civil Rights Act?? Holy Sh** they are one of the most protected classes in this country! Their considerations and concerns over-fu**ing-ride EVERYTHING. Nobody else’s convictions or values enjoy HALF the legal reverence the religious enjoy in this country.
What “protections” do they need, Buddy? “Protection” against being told NOT to be discriminatory a**holes?? Why is it that LGBT people ALWAYS have to be the ones to give concessions? Why can’ the damned religious do it this ONE damned time?? Why are you so invested in protecting their hatred? Are you even LGBT? Why do yo label it “discrimination” for them to be told NOT to discriminate? Why should they get to discriminate on “sincerely held belief” grounds when you seem to think nobody else should be able to do the same thing (since that’s what you seem to think a desire for basic goods and services and decent human treatment is).
Cam
You’re lying. They were pushing the belief that someone who is a bigot, can claim religious freedom as a defense for them to attack LGBTQ people, and block us from access to state services.
nunya
A public official, above all else, needs to abide by the law. If any clerk of court has a religious objection to issuing a marriage license to a same sex couple, they need to resign their post or suck it up and issue the license. Issuing a license as part of ones job in no way suggests one agrees with the law. I, as an environmental engineer, find many of the laws I have to abide by silly and useless on a scientific level, but I don’t get to disregard them.
justyouandi
I can’t believe the bias you guys read into this. The only change anyone is looking for is for people like Kim Davis to be able to turn over certain duties to someone else in the same office. She was at that job before marriage equality became lawful. Just as gay people never wanted their jobs to be jeopardized because they are gay, Christians don’t want their jobs to be at risk because they hold certain principles. As written the law does not provide that protection. I worked in law enforcement and we always deferred to respect a suspects gender by providing same-gender searches and intakes, and we even had different procedures for suspects of certain religions, such as Muslims.
And speaking of Muslims, why does no one ever take them to task for their homophobia, including the murder of gays?
DK
Blatant lie. They said they wanted to overturn marriage equality.
I can completely believe that you’re defending it, because self-loathing Rethuglikkklan gays will always choose white supremacy first, will tell any lie to continue to suck up to and defend a party that hates you. Pathetic
Kim Davis did not just want to turn over her duties another total lie. She refused to sign the marriage certificates of gays, and she also refused to allow her assistants to do so either.
And if she did, so what? Conservatives have no right to cherry-pick from the Bible to single out groups they hate for discrimination. The Bible was once just to justify subjugation of blacks, should religious clerks and businsees be allowed to discriminate against black couples and interracial couples? Couples where one or both partners isn’t a virgin or has been divorced?
What’s it going to take for the gayKK right to understand that Republicans and their judges think you’re second class citizens and that you’re never going to get Daddy’s approval by defending right wing homophobia?
Joshua333
What next? Reintroduce Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? Turn America in Chechnya and have gay purges?
dhmonarch89
they wouldn’t reintroduce it, they’d go str8 back to banning us entirely.
dhmonarch89
to all the gays voting for Trump…4 more years means maybe 2 more Supreme Court vacancies…2 now, but that new bitch will probably be #3 and Kavanaugh could cave in when it suits him and the 2 new ones, and we’re done
Jon in Canada
Fun Fact: Marriage appears nowhere in the Constitution of the United States, heterosexual or otherwise and yet….
Den
In US law, those things not specifically enumerated in the Constitution revert to the states.
In this case it was deemed proper for the Supreme Court to rule on Marriage Equality, just as they ruled on legalizing interracial marriage so as to protect both the concept of full faith and credit between states and (equally if not more important) equal treatment of individual under the law..
Hillers
When alleged religious freedom laws trump the Constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness, which right supersedes which? If a religion founded yesterday by a handful of people that held the sincerely-flt held religious belief that all blonde people should be denied service at restaurants and hotels, would that hold up in the Supreme Court?
Fname Optional Lname
Says Judge Clarence Thomas who sexually harassed Anita Hill and still wound up on the Supreme Court. His thinking has always been off but this is just blatant homophobia at it’s best. One does not need religion in their life to get married, one does not need a religious ceremony or a religio.us figure to get married. Kim Davis had the opportunity to allow another willing clerk to authorize the certificate but she refused to allow a co-worker to do it, that goes far beyond her religious faith, she extended her faith to others. If she would have stepped back and another clerk handled the transaction her faith would not have been in the equation at all. This is her bigotry in motion. Her faith certainly didn’t come in to play when she divorced now did it!
marcbruer777
Yup. I remember reading (this was before my time) that he harassed her over an alleged pubic hair on the edge of a Coke can or some nonsense. These people all suck, hard and low.
nm4047
clutching my pearls with one hand and typing with the other, breaking news, who would have thought.
IndependentForever
That a maniac like Trump will have appointed 3 SCOTUS justices literally makes a person physically ill. Obviously, one ( Scalia ) should not have been his appointment. The Grand Lady, RBG, fought valiantly to be here long enough to give Biden the chance to replace her. May she RIP.
THEN, there is Justice Kennedy. Yes, I understand he was 82 when he retired however 8 justices in history have served when older than Kennedy when he retired. I can’t help but think about something. Kennedy’s son Justin, was the former head of global real estate capital markets division of Deutsche Bank. YES THAT DEUTSCHE BANK. The only bank in the world it seems willing to loan money to Donald Trump. In fact, Justin Kennedy APPROVED a billion-dollar loan to Trump. Anyone have the feeling Kennedy’s retiring wasn’t as simple as it seems? Maybe somehow a favor to Trump? OR blackmail?
woodroad34
Clarence Thomas’ thinking is as suspect as Bill Barr’s–they both just pull something out of their a**es and think it’s ‘logic’. He’s proven he won’t listen to any arguments, he’s made up his mind and he thinks religion is the only right–he’s forgotten that his rights stop at my nose. No one is taking away someone’s right to religion; it’s just that their right can’t impinge on my rights. He’s one of those people that thinks “I’ve got mine…now the rest of you go f*ck yourselves”.
strap2900
Well, if laws were predicated on people’s beliefs, we wouldn’t have many laws.
Tombear
#Proudboys
Dick Gozinia
It won’t happen. Obergefell won’t be overturned. Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan will not vote with Thomas and Alito. They would need for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett to all 3 join them in a majority opinion. Kavanaugh and Barrett have said they are not likely to ever overturn prior SCOTUS decisions. Gorsuch has said he thinks gay marriage should be legal, but he believes Congress should have passed legislation to make it legal. Still, he said he thinks the 14th Amendment might provide justification. So, it COULD happen, but I would bet it doesn’t.
DK
Well, they’ll always have self-loathing, white supremacist gay Republican sellouts to defend their hate.
taylor94
Since she had a religious right not to perform a gay marriage. The four times married Davis admitted to committing adultery. Based on the argument presented by Alito and Thomas, it was someone’s religious right to stone her to death for the crime. If you are going to hide behind the Bible, don’t cherry pick the verse.