View Full Version : USA: Supreme Court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex marriage ruling.
Anyone with a brain and teeth would have guessed this would happen.
The Supreme Court has received an official request to overturn the same-sex marriage bill. Hopefully it'll get thrown out but at least while t'sunder threat the "why do you need pride" brigade will go quiet.
This Kim Davis has been married four times to three men. She realllllly cares about the sanctity of marriage, bless her.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kim-davis-kentucky-supreme-court-gay-marriage-b2805727.html
Niamh.
12-08-2025, 08:44 PM
Ridiculous, not sure why people care so much about who other people marry. And like you said bit rich for her to be "standing up for marriage" or whatever when she's been divorced multiple times
You should be able to marry who you want:fist:
But what his marriage these days.:shrug: just a bit of paper that ends up costing some of us blokes a shed load of dosh.
So good luck, whatever outcome you want I hope it's the one that happens.:blush:
Quick question though, who would come of worst, financially in a divorce settlement.:shrug:
You should be able to marry who you want:fist:
But what his marriage these days.:shrug: just a bit of paper that ends up costing some of us blokes a shed load of dosh.
So good luck, whatever outcome you want I hope it's the one that happens.:blush:
Quick question though, who would come of worst, financially in a divorce settlement.:shrug:
Depends on the prenup i guess.
Divorce rates are lowest in gay men compared to lesbian couples of heterosexual couples so I guess there isn't too much data on that as yet :laugh:
Crimson Dynamo
12-08-2025, 08:52 PM
please put USA in the thread title
Depends on the prenup i guess.
Divorce rates are lowest in gay men compared to lesbian couples of heterosexual couples so I guess there isn't too much data on that as yet :laugh:
That's something to be proud off. The divorce rates.
It shows good character.
That's something to be proud off. The divorce rates.
It shows good character.
It's an interesting stat and it would be interesting to know the reason. Perhaps men expect less from one another. Studies have shown that marriage between gay men is not only more successful, but happier.
I can only speak for what I hear from straight friends, but there is still such an imbalance in domestic labour, childcare, in the women carrying the mental load. I think that they leads to pushback and resentment by the woman in the relationship, rightly so. It seems from what I have heard that when children are involved, marriage between a man and a woman often becomes this constant negotiation with one another. "You went out last night so I want to go out today so you need to look after the kids" or "You need to have them for X hours this morning because you're out all day and I want some time to myself before that" and I totally understand why this happens.
Perhaps that's it - perhaps it's because gay marriage is by and large less likely to include kids, which adds a very complex angle and often a huge strain to a couple. But then lesbian couples have the highest divorce rate, so who knows.
There is an old cliche that lesbian couples tell one another they love each other after the second date, and they move super quick. I think there is a little truth behind that, but not much. Maybe women just have a higher standard for themselves - perhaps men are too scared to call something quits for worry of looking like a failure.
All I know is someone who has constantly remarried should not be worrying themselves about gay people marrying who they love.
Mystic Mock
13-08-2025, 06:11 AM
Ridiculous, not sure why people care so much about who other people marry. And like you said but rich for her to be "standing up for marriage" or whatever when she's been divorced multiple times
Agreed.
As long as they're both consenting adults, they should be eligible to get married if they so choose.
Society around the world is going backwards, whilst pretending to be progressive.
It's honestly insufferable.
Mystic Mock
13-08-2025, 06:12 AM
please put USA in the thread title
Whatever happens over there will come to the UK within the next few years.
Agreed.
As long as they're both consenting adults, they should be eligible to get married if they so choose.
Society around the world is going backwards, whilst pretending to be progressive.
It's honestly insufferable.
Not just insufferable, it's scary.
People said this would happen, for the last few years and definitely if Trump got into power again. People get bolstered by stuff like that, they feel like they are safe to be bigoted.
First they came for a woman's right to choose, then they came for trans rights, then migrants, and next they will try for gay rights.
Unfortunately there will be people who are part of marginalised groups who sat back and supported them coming for another group, thinking they were safe. They were not and they are surprised, for some reason.
Mystic Mock
13-08-2025, 06:20 AM
Not just insufferable, it's scary.
People said this would happen, for the last few years and definitely if Trump got into power again. People get bolstered by stuff like that, they feel like they are safe to be bigoted.
First they came for a woman's right to choose, then they came for trans rights, then migrants, and next they will try for gay rights.
Unfortunately there will be people who are part of marginalised groups who sat back and supported them coming for another group, thinking they were safe. They were not and they are surprised, for some reason.
I agree with you by and large, although I do think the Trans stuff is a bit of a minefield tbf to a lot of people in Government.
The other stuff though makes me think what group is being targeted after gay people, will it be the disabled?
I honestly believe that we're already in a scary time period, but the next decade could see INGSOC become a reality.
It's an interesting stat and it would be interesting to know the reason. Perhaps men expect less from one another. Studies have shown that marriage between gay men is not only more successful, but happier.
I can only speak for what I hear from straight friends, but there is still such an imbalance in domestic labour, childcare, in the women carrying the mental load. I think that they leads to pushback and resentment by the woman in the relationship, rightly so. It seems from what I have heard that when children are involved, marriage between a man and a woman often becomes this constant negotiation with one another. "You went out last night so I want to go out today so you need to look after the kids" or "You need to have them for X hours this morning because you're out all day and I want some time to myself before that" and I totally understand why this happens.
Perhaps that's it - perhaps it's because gay marriage is by and large less likely to include kids, which adds a very complex angle and often a huge strain to a couple. But then lesbian couples have the highest divorce rate, so who knows.
There is an old cliche that lesbian couples tell one another they love each other after the second date, and they move super quick. I think there is a little truth behind that, but not much. Maybe women just have a higher standard for themselves - perhaps men are too scared to call something quits for worry of looking like a failure.
All I know is someone who has constantly remarried should not be worrying themselves about gay people marrying who they love.
…also, just a little random thing that someone once said to me/a gay friend who was married…that he and his partner tend to ‘admire’ the same people in terms of who they find attractive…they can both say, oh yeah he’s gorgeous etc…because they have a mutual attraction to the same gender…?…that’s not the case with heterosexuality, is it…so for some that can create a jealousy I guess…
Whatever happens over there will come to the UK within the next few years.
I usually do agree, but I am not actually sure in this instance. I think if anything (and may have said elsewhere a while back) this will go the way of abortion, where states get to choose.
However, I think they'd have a really hard time implementing such an overturning here in the UK. Attitude towards gay marriage is really strong, a very small percentage of the population care. Around 77% of the country support it and that figure has remained consistent for a long while.
I think even if Nigel Farage got into power, the most right-wing politician likely to do so, he would quite probably just leave it alone. It's not worth the fight for him and there isn't the same strength or passion on opposition here than in the USA.
However the fact that I say that with little confidence is telling, and that it could ever be a conservation on the table shows why pride matters and why sexuality is political. Governments make homosexuality political by constantly talking about it.
…I don’t understand though…one person can randomly appeal a Supreme Court judgement and that’s all it needs to create a hearing…/…I’m not really confident either atm, sadly…wasn’t Wade V Roe overturned/regarding abortion rights…
…also, just a little random thing that someone once said to me/a gay friend who was married…that he and his partner tend to ‘admire’ the same people in terms of who they find attractive…they can both say, oh yeah he’s gorgeous etc…because they have a mutual attraction to the same gender…?…that’s not the case with heterosexuality, is it…so for some that can create a jealousy I guess…
Perhaps! I also think that's another thing, there does tend to be some more 'openness' within gay relationships. Not a huge amount, but some, which in turn could reduce infidelity which will be a huge cause of separation and divorce.
I myself don't have an open marriage, but a couple of people I know do. Different folks and all that, but all they seem happy.
I usually do agree, but I am not actually sure in this instance. I think if anything (and may have said elsewhere a while back) this will go the way of abortion, where states get to choose.
However, I think they'd have a really hard time implementing such an overturning here in the UK. Attitude towards gay marriage is really strong, a very small percentage of the population care. Around 77% of the country support it and that figure has remained consistent for a long while.
I think even if Nigel Farage got into power, the most right-wing politician likely to do so, he would quite probably just leave it alone. It's not worth the fight for him and there isn't the same strength or passion on opposition here than in the USA.
However the fact that I say that with little confidence is telling, and that it could ever be a conservation on the table shows why pride matters and why sexuality is political. Governments make homosexuality political by constantly talking about it.
….hmmmmmm, I’m not entirely confident either, like Mock…you know the saying…whenever America sneezes, the UK catches cold….
Perhaps! I also think that's another thing, there does tend to be some more 'openness' within gay relationships. Not a huge amount, but some, which in turn could reduce infidelity which will be a huge cause of separation and divorce.
I myself don't have an open marriage, but a couple of people I know do. Different folks and all that, but all they seem happy.
…and obviously with same sex male partnerships…no disagreements over room decor because they both have great taste…:laugh:…I mean, that’s a given isn’t it…
Mystic Mock
13-08-2025, 06:33 AM
I usually do agree, but I am not actually sure in this instance. I think if anything (and may have said elsewhere a while back) this will go the way of abortion, where states get to choose.
However, I think they'd have a really hard time implementing such an overturning here in the UK. Attitude towards gay marriage is really strong, a very small percentage of the population care. Around 77% of the country support it and that figure has remained consistent for a long while.
I think even if Nigel Farage got into power, the most right-wing politician likely to do so, he would quite probably just leave it alone. It's not worth the fight for him and there isn't the same strength or passion on opposition here than in the USA.
However the fact that I say that with little confidence is telling, and that it could ever be a conservation on the table shows why pride matters and why sexuality is political. Governments make homosexuality political by constantly talking about it.
I'm glad that this country supports people's freedoms by such a large margin.
Tbh I have no real issues with Pride personally, it's not really harming my life so I've never really saw the issue with it's existence.
Mystic Mock
13-08-2025, 06:34 AM
….hmmmmmm, I’m not entirely confident either, like Mock…you know the saying…whenever America sneezes, the UK catches cold….
Exactly, Ammi.
…and obviously with same sex male partnerships…no disagreements over room decor because they both have great taste…:laugh:…I mean, that’s a given isn’t it…
I am looking at a lamp my husband just bought and begging to differ ... :laugh: :laugh:
…I don’t understand though…one person can randomly appeal a Supreme Court judgement and that’s all it needs to create a hearing…/…I’m not really confident either atm, sadly…wasn’t Wade V Roe overturned/regarding abortion rights…
The Supreme Court, I believe, gets asked to hear thousands of cases. They then decide which ones they want to listen to/look at and decide on. This is one of those thousand of cases...which is why the fact it's gotten so much publicity is interesting and concerning.
I am looking at a lamp my husband just bought and begging to differ ... :laugh: :laugh:
…that’s kind of a right of passage to any/all relationships, though…we all have a lamp like that…that’s how we know whether they’re ‘keepers’ or not….sometimes it’s a chair, sometimes it’s a lamp, sometimes it’s wall art….etc…if we still adore them regardless, though…?….then we know our heart is true…
The Supreme Court, I believe, gets asked to hear thousands of cases. They then decide which ones they want to listen to/look at and decide on. This is one of those thousand of cases...which is why the fact it's gotten so much publicity is interesting and concerning.
…it’s very, very concerning that one person has asked for it to be overturned and the it was enough to create a hearing…I’d like to be confident but I’m sadly not in today’s world …
Glenn.
13-08-2025, 07:22 AM
Imagine thinking your fourth heterosexual marriage is holier than anyones first gay one. MAGA morality is just hypocrisy in a red hat.
This is one reason I can't watch the Handmaidens Tale. It's too close to actually happening. The religious fanatics in America have always been insane, but now they have power and influence to do what the hell they want. They want women to lose voting rights, divorce to be illegal and the list goes on.
Tell me .... what is the difference between what the USA wants to do and the muslim county's like Saudi, Iran and Afghanistan. From my perspective, their aims are completely aligned.
The other thing worth noting is that this doesn't disappear with Trump, this shitfest is here to stay
…thing is though…Kim Davis has the freedom to marry and us marry as many times as she wants under the law/I don’t know what her religion follows…but she wants to remove that law right from others to all have those same rights…which doesn’t follow any type of democracy…while citing her own freedoms, she’s advocating to stifle those of others…anyway, returning the same negativity and intolerance that is being displayed isn’t great either so…I wish that I was confident that this will all be dismissed but I’m not quite so much…
Mystic Mock
13-08-2025, 07:39 AM
…also, just a little random thing that someone once said to me/a gay friend who was married…that he and his partner tend to ‘admire’ the same people in terms of who they find attractive…they can both say, oh yeah he’s gorgeous etc…because they have a mutual attraction to the same gender…?…that’s not the case with heterosexuality, is it…so for some that can create a jealousy I guess…
Do people really care about Celebrity crushes though?:laugh:
Like if I ever get a girlfriend and she were to dislike the fact that I find people like Ella Langley or Maya Jama to be goodlooking women, then that would be daft for quite a few different reasons.:joker:
The main reason being that they wouldn't even know who I am.
Do people really care about Celebrity crushes though?:laugh:
Like if I ever get a girlfriend and she were to dislike the fact that I find people like Ella Langley or Maya Jama to be goodlooking women, then that would be daft for quite a few different reasons.:joker:
The main reason being that they wouldn't even know who I am.
…actually it wasn’t so much celebrity crushes that I was thinking of…:laugh:…
Mystic Mock
13-08-2025, 07:41 AM
…actually it wasn’t so much celebrity crushes that I was thinking of…:laugh:…
Oh.:laugh:
Admittedly that might be a bit different lol, I would keep that a secret if I found another woman physically attractive that I also happen to know.:joker:
…I don’t understand though…one person can randomly appeal a Supreme Court judgement and that’s all it needs to create a hearing…/…I’m not really confident either atm, sadly…wasn’t Wade V Roe overturned/regarding abortion rights…
Roe v Wade was never Constitutional. It's been a controversial ruling that has been widely discussed as such both in public discourse and in the educational system even though it has good intentions, it was so flawed by design that there was always speculation it would be overturned in the future. And so it was. That ruling wouldn't have been surprising to people who paid any attention during civics.
My understanding is they're trying to overturn a prior court ruling from SCOTUS on gay marriage, which is based upon marriage being a right. Except, marriage isn't defined as an inherent right anywhere in the Constitution.
From what I'm understanding they're mainly testing the ruling under the logic that she was discriminated based upon her religious practice which caused loss of employment (among other things). Religious discrimination is a big deal here seeing as many migrated here to avoid religious persecution. It's in large part why the Constitution is written out the way it is and designed so that States hold separate sovereign powers from the Federal Govt. That's why when Roe was overturned, abortion wasn't outright banned, it just went back to the States.
I suspect the people backing & funding her case are probably hoping it'll knock down the entire ruling because it sounds like the argument is that her rights were violated because of the original ruling overstepped. I've heard very mixed reactions as to whether it'll be successful.
Marriage Laws: Where In The Constitution?
https://lawshun.com/article/where-in-the-constitution-does-it-talk-about-marriage-laws
The US Constitution does not explicitly mention marriage, and therefore, it is not a power delegated to the federal government to regulate. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to recognize the existence of a fundamental right to marry, which is not expressly stated. This right to marry has been upheld in various cases, such as Loving v. Virginia, where the Court struck down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage, and Zablocki v. Redhail, where the Court invalidated a statute prohibiting individuals from remarrying if they owed overdue child support. Despite this interpretation, some argue that the Supreme Court's creation of a Constitutional right to marriage violates the 10th Amendment, which reserves rights not delegated to the federal government for the states and the people.
The 14th Amendment (https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/) is where the basis is made for same-sex marriage, which was written in 1868. They're making the argument that the ruling is not good because it violates the 10th. The language in the 14th is very broad, so not surprising they could rule within its logic, but it does not mention marriage...
10th:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That's the problem with rulings that reference language in the Constitution that doesn't exist. If it's inserting things that aren't there, it's likely it'll be overturned at some point. An Amendment would need to be passed instead of relying on psychic "interpretations".
Wiki:
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. The Court overruled its prior decision in Baker v. Nelson, which the Sixth Circuit had invoked as precedent.
So Obergefell v Hodges had overturned a ruling prior that determined that restricting same-sex didn't offend the Constitution lol. Wonderful. 5-4 is actually a pretty weak ruling.
That said, there's some precedence where the 14th Amendment has been used in this way (https://constitutionworld.com/14th-amendment-and-marriage-equality/), so imo there's a higher likelihood it holds:
Key Supreme Court cases interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment include:
-Loving v. Virginia (1967): Struck down state laws banning interracial marriage.
-Zablocki v. Redhail (1978): Examined restrictions on marriage for noncustodial parents.
-Turner v. Safley (1987): Addressed marriage restrictions for inmates.
-Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): Recognized same-sex marriage as a constitutional right.
I think it's incorrect to cause someone to violate their own conscience, i.e. forcing someone to tender a license that would violate important religious observations. (Whatever we may think of it). The same as forcing a nurse to put herself on the chopping block because she refuses to help perform an abortion. (Emergency life saving surgery is different)
I haven't seen the legal system really tackle that conflict well. It seems like it's very easy to lose rights as a religious person if they stumble onto the wrong side of the courts.. I understand in the UK it might be different, but in the US, religious observations (within reason) are fundamentally protected. I don't see the UK reversing course the same way because the reasons we're largely reversing laws aren't some kind of cultural trick. These are all rulings that have technical issues and so are easily reinterpreted.
For example, too many courts have just simply outright ignored the 10th Amendment to try to put in language at the highest level that only holds subjectively and don't seem capable of understanding that by having more of the weight at the State level, it guarantees an equilibrium between the States and the Federal Govt (and thus the political temperatures) because they have the sovereign duty to hold themselves accountable and also be held accountable by the People. All of which is very important for how the system was designed to function under the Constitution.
I think it's incorrect to cause someone to violate their own conscience, i.e. forcing someone to tender a license that would violate important religious observations. (Whatever we may think of it). The same as forcing a nurse to put herself on the chopping because she refuses to help perform an abortion. (Emergency life saving surgery is different)
I understand that in the setting of someones own business, but (and correct me if I'm am wrong) Kim Davis was employed by the Government, which is to say she is there to work for the public. Her own religious beliefs should not come into the delivery of her work in a way that impacts those she is there to 'serve'. That is discrimination.
If an NHS nurse refused to perform an abortion because of her religious beliefs, I would question why she became a nurse and would question why she should be employed if it's going to effect the outcome of her patient.
I understand that in the setting of someones own business, but (and correct me if I'm am wrong) Kim Davis was employed by the Government, which is to say she is there to work for the public. Her own religious beliefs should not come into the delivery of her work in a way that impacts those she is there to 'serve'. That is discrimination.
If an NHS nurse refused to perform an abortion because of her religious beliefs, I would question why she became a nurse and would question why she should be employed if it's going to effect the outcome of her patient.
Religious views and observations are generally broadly protected where there is reasonable expectation of accommodation, but laws haven't caught up for areas where there is a major conflict in rights. That's maybe what this case will help clarify for States making their own rulings, but that's if SCOTUS even takes it.
I don't think the couples requesting a license are at fault or the woman refusing on religious grounds. The agency is at fault for not providing an accommodation. No one is requesting the agency to not issue a certificate at all. Obviously such a nurse wouldn't apply to work at an abortion clinic, but it would be easy to accommodate them in a general hospital setting here.
thesheriff443
13-08-2025, 08:27 AM
…also, just a little random thing that someone once said to me/a gay friend who was married…that he and his partner tend to ‘admire’ the same people in terms of who they find attractive…they can both say, oh yeah he’s gorgeous etc…because they have a mutual attraction to the same gender…?…that’s not the case with heterosexuality, is it…so for some that can create a jealousy I guess…
It’s swings a round abouts
Some dirty bastards love watching their wife have sex with other men then you have swinging
I’m censored on what o can regarding the bad sid of gay men on here but they can be just as bad if not worse
I should also add accommodation is meant to work both ways. A person wouldn't decline to work Sundays (though that happens and can be honored) where some churches accommodate by being available at more days and times.
It has to be for perfectly legitimate reasons that makes sense why it is putting that person in a major conflict of conscience.
However, if an employer can't accommodate for perfectly legitimate reasons also, they can turn down employment altogether (generally). If a person needs to be on hand on Sundays and are in a management position, they're not going find an extra manager for one day. So they may have to change days and accommodate the employer.
In law enforcement, it wasn't possible to allow religious headwear for presentation\public-facing and safety reasons. Those rules were loosened by some agencies, but that restriction still wasn't considered a violation of personal freedoms where it simply wasn't practical.
Edit: Most of these things are worked out at hiring time here.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.