With the Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v Wade, should and will the Court overturn Obergefell v Hodges?

Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.

Roberts filed a dissenting opinion in which Scalia and Thomas joined.

Quote:

---

Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex. But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise "neither force nor will but merely judgment."

---

Scalia filed a dissenting opinion in which Thomas joined.

Thomas filed a dissenting opinion in which Scalia joined.

Quote:

---

The Court's decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a "liberty" that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the ideacaptured in our Declaration of Independencethat human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.

---

Alito filed a dissenting opinion in which Scalia and Thomas joined.

Quote:

---

Until the federal courts intervened, the American people were engaged in a debate about whether their States should recognize same-sex marriage. The question in these cases, however, is not what States should do about same-sex marriage but whether the Constitution answers that question for them. It does not. The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State.

---

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Not going to happen.

Greg Abbot argued that marriage is a "state sponsored subsidy".
He lost in court with that.

NicosMachine said:

---

It was a poorly reasoned decision with little to no Constitutional basis. Same sex marriage failed regularly at the ballot box on the state level. The court usurped the states by claiming non-existent Constitutional authority.

---

In early 2000's it lost on the California ballot with 7 out of 10 blacks voting against it.

its not going to happen

First: You'd first need a state to stop a gay person from getting married. When is that going to happen?

Then state would need to win at district and circuit court level. Extremely unlikely.

Then if you do make it to SCOTUS, you have Gorsuch who expanded civil rights to include sexual orientation. Really think he will vote down gay marriage?

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

It wasn't good law is my understanding from reading most analysis of the case, but the support and/or tolerance for gay marriage is so overwhelming now that it's just best to let sleeping dogs lie IMO.

---

If that's the case, states will begin adopting the practice as the people of that state will it. Other states won't adopt it if the people of that state don't will it. It's kinda like a democratic republic would behave.

NicosMachine said:

---

It was a poorly reasoned decision with little to no Constitutional basis. ...... The court usurped the states by claiming non-existent Constitutional authority.

---

Unfortunately that has happened thousands of times and it continues to cost taxpayers hundreds of billions $$ every year. A large majority of what the U.S. federal government does, is involved in, taxes the populace for and spends $$ on is 1000% unconstitutional and they have no authority to be doing so or forcing it on the states.

Yes, the same-sex ruling should be repealed, it is a State issue. I have no problem with same-sex marriage, and I would argue that if CA allows it and TX does not allow it TX would still need to recognize it if a CA moved to TX (similar to a drivers license). But it is not a federal issue and is example 100000000 of items forced on the State with no constitutional basis.

SCOTUS should reverse it and let the states decide, in accordance with the 10A.

Jarrin' Jay said:

---

NicosMachine said:

---

It was a poorly reasoned decision with little to no Constitutional basis. ...... The court usurped the states by claiming non-existent Constitutional authority.

---

Unfortunately that has happened thousands of times and it continues to cost taxpayers hundreds of billions $$ every year. A large majority of what the U.S. federal government does, is involved in, taxes the populace for and spends $$ on is 1000% unconstitutional and they have no authority to be doing so or forcing it on the states.

Yes, the same-sex ruling should be repealed, it is a State issue. I have no problem with same-sex marriage, and I would argue that if CA allows it and TX does not allow it TX would still need to recognize it if a CA moved to TX (similar to a drivers license). But it is not a federal issue and is example 100000000 of items forced on the State with no constitutional basis.

---

That would be fine with me, as soon as they have to recognize Texas' gun laws. Not sure what "recognize" means at the state level for SSM, but I have no problem with it. I do have a problem with Texas having to recognize other states' licenses and them not recognizing ours.

Jarrin' Jay said:

---

NicosMachine said:

---

It was a poorly reasoned decision with little to no Constitutional basis. ...... The court usurped the states by claiming non-existent Constitutional authority.

---

Unfortunately that has happened thousands of times and it continues to cost taxpayers hundreds of billions $$ every year. A large majority of what the U.S. federal government does, is involved in, taxes the populace for and spends $$ on is 1000% unconstitutional and they have no authority to be doing so or forcing it on the states.

Yes, the same-sex ruling should be repealed, it is a State issue. I have no problem with same-sex marriage, and I would argue that if CA allows it and TX does not allow it TX would still need to recognize it if a CA moved to TX (similar to a drivers license). But it is not a federal issue and is example 100000000 of items forced on the State with no constitutional basis.

---

My only quibble is, CA does not recognize out of state concealed carry permits. So screw their gay marriage license.

1) No they should not. Do not relitigate this issue.
2) I'm giving it a 90/10% chance of Obergefell staying as is/being overturned. It's highly unlikely they will gut the decision, but I do think some state is going to give it a college try. And if it's any state, it will probably be Texas.

Clob94 said:

---

Who cares.

I've got 2 gay cousins. I literally do not care who they want to marry. We've got an economy about to send us all to bread lines-- both gay and straight people.

Eye on the ball.

---

Exactly... I can't even fathom why this is an issue.

No and no.

BMX Bandit said:

---

its not going to happen

First: You'd first need a state to stop a gay person from getting married. When is that going to happen?

Then state would need to win at district and circuit court level. Extremely unlikely.

Then if you do make it to SCOTUS, you have Gorsuch who expanded civil rights to include sexual orientation. Really think he will vote down gay marriage?

---

Yeah, it's not going to happen, but it was incorrectly applied law. I supported gay marriage in Iowa when the issue came up, but its not in the federal purview.

BigRobSA said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

its not going to happen

First: You'd first need a state to stop a gay person from getting married. When is that going to happen?

Then state would need to win at district and circuit court level. Extremely unlikely.

Then if you do make it to SCOTUS, you have Gorsuch who expanded civil rights to include sexual orientation. Really think he will vote down gay marriage?

---

Yeah, it's not going to happen, but it was incorrectly applied law. I supported gay marriage in Iowa when the issue came up, but its not in the federal purview.

---

oh we know. congrats by the way! #loveislove

It's a moot question. There will never be a case that gets to the supreme court for them to rule on.

It's absolutely bad law, and a prime example of legislating from the bench, and a terrible decision, IMO, not because of the impact of legalizing gay marriage, but because it is fundamentally at odds with the separation of powers that are detailed in the Constitution.

But, whether or not it is bad law will have no bearing on whether or not it will be overturned, because there will never be an appeal by a state asking for it to be overturned.

NicosMachine said:

---

It was a poorly reasoned decision with little to no Constitutional basis. Same sex marriage failed regularly at the ballot box on the state level. The court usurped the states by claiming non-existent Constitutional authority.

---

Agreed. 10th amendment should have some meaning. Case has nothing to do with the constitution.

That being said, I don't care if they make whatever federal benefits they're arguing for the same for same sex marriages.

Since the argument has moved from "what the people will allow the government to do and with the money they give to it" to "what the government will allow the people to do and with the money it allows the people to keep", this issue has gone by the wayside.

Bad decisions like this will stand until we tell the Federal Government that it is not the arbiter of morality and nor is it the source of rights.

No and no.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

It wasn't good law is my understanding from reading most analysis of the case, but the support and/or tolerance for gay marriage is so overwhelming now that it's just best to let sleeping dogs lie IMO.

---

If that's the case, states will begin adopting the practice as the people of that state will it. Other states won't adopt it if the people of that state don't will it. It's kinda like a democratic republic would behave.

---

Doesn't matter, perception is reality and the perception would be republicans are trying to ban gay marriage again. There's very few ways the GOP could lose in 2024, this is one of them.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

It wasn't good law is my understanding from reading most analysis of the case, but the support and/or tolerance for gay marriage is so overwhelming now that it's just best to let sleeping dogs lie IMO.

---

If that's the case, states will begin adopting the practice as the people of that state will it. Other states won't adopt it if the people of that state don't will it. It's kinda like a democratic republic would behave.

---

Doesn't matter, perception is reality and the perception would be republicans are trying to ban gay marriage again. There's very few ways the GOP could lose in 2024, this is one of them.

---

...and I am not arguing that the matter should be relitigated at this time.

But Constitutionally? Absolutely it was SCOTUS activism ignoring the document to come to a desired conclusion. It should be undone, just as Roe should be undone, just as some bad law in the past should and has been undone.

It won't be, but it should be on a Constitutional basis. If we want the feds to dictate SSM, there should be an amendment.

BusterAg said:

---

It's a moot question. There will never be a case that gets to the supreme court for them to rule on.

It's absolutely bad law, and a prime example of legislating from the bench, and a terrible decision, IMO, not because of the impact of legalizing gay marriage, but because it is fundamentally at odds with the separation of powers that are detailed in the Constitution.

But, whether or not it is bad law will have no bearing on whether or not it will be overturned, because there will never be an appeal by a state asking for it to be overturned.

---

I am not one percent convinced that the subject will never be heard again. Will need to see how far Dobbs goes.

That draft of Alito's was quite a flame thrower.

The left used this to say anything to the contrary is hate speech. They used it to advance teaching kindergarteners that it's normal. They used it to advance every aspect imaginable.
It never was about "marriage" to them. It was about advancing an agenda.

AGHouston11 said:

---

The left used this to say anything to the contrary is hate speech. They used it to advance teaching kindergarteners that it's normal. They used it to advance every aspect imaginable.
It never was about "marriage" to them. It was about advancing an agenda.

---

The left wasn't pushing that narrative before 2015, was hardly a political winner for democrats.

For gay people, real gay people and not the gay bogeymen you are imagining, it was about gay marriage.

aggiehawg said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

It's a moot question. There will never be a case that gets to the supreme court for them to rule on.

It's absolutely bad law, and a prime example of legislating from the bench, and a terrible decision, IMO, not because of the impact of legalizing gay marriage, but because it is fundamentally at odds with the separation of powers that are detailed in the Constitution.

But, whether or not it is bad law will have no bearing on whether or not it will be overturned, because there will never be an appeal by a state asking for it to be overturned.

---

I am not one percent convinced that the subject will never be heard again. Will need to see how far Dobbs goes.

That draft of Alito's was quite a flame thrower.

---

Who do you see as the plaintiff, and what would the complaint be, on the case that is filed that ultimately gets to the supreme court?

I honestly don't see how, but interested in your perspective.

These types of issues are where conservative pragmatism differs from libertarianism.

The nuclear family, along with personal property rights, are foundational to American culture. The idea of subsidizing, elevating, and protecting the institution of marriage makes sense in that the financial incentive drives more people to partake and/or remain.

Gay 'marriage' does not generate children, and doesn't merge the biologically different partners of traditional marriage - thus making it a lesser union.

Additionally, the idea that you can separate the state from the cultural Christian foundation is incredibly dangerous. You can't just bifurcate things to be 100% secular in one portion of society and religious in another. True secularism is just not realistic to human nature. (What the left sees as secular is showing itself to be a religious cobblings of another sort with it's own clergy, morality, liturgy, necessary works, and statements of belief.)

Should the court overturn it? Yes - all badly reasoned or out of scope rulings should be overturned as a matter of principle.

Is it on the list of 'top 5 things that government is doing wrong which are tearing apart our country'? No.

Obergfell was a ridiculously bad opinion. And, there was no reason for overruling Bowers v. Hardwick in Lawrence v. Texas other than the fact that the makeup of the court had changed. However, this topic is different from abortion in that there are reliance costs (lots of gay folks got married), so it would be hard to overrule either. In fact, even if the court had not overruled Bowers, liberal states deciding to sanction gay marriage would have presented issues that likely would have resulted in gay marriages being recognized in all 50 states thanks to the full faith and credit doctrine. So, while the reasoning in Obergfell is terrible, we were probably going to end up with that result any way you cut it.