SCOTUS Won’t Hear Challenge to Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
The decision shouldn’t shock anyone.
Oh, look! Another Democratic scare tactic falls flat on its face!
The Supreme Court won’t hear a challenge to Obergefell, which ruled in favor of same-sex marriage.
SCOTUS did not explain why they wouldn’t hear it or note any dissents.
Former county clerk Kim Davis challenged the ruling after she lost her job when she wouldn’t issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple due to her religious beliefs.
The Democrats have been trying to scare people that President Donald Trump would ban gay marriage, even though he never said he would.
They grew louder when SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade, even though the majority said they would not touch Obergefell or other cases that ruled in favor of birth control and sexual conduct with members of the same sex.
Trump has hosted same-sex weddings at Mar-a-Lago and continues to have Richard Grenell at his side.
Guy Benson always knew this would happen.
—> Now that SCOTUS has officially declined to revisit same-sex marriage, I’m appealing to the many people who sent me articles & tweets about how Obergefell might be doomed, then scoffed when I responded with sound analysis: Please consider who was correct & who was scaring you… pic.twitter.com/qg4kuTgj30
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) November 10, 2025
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The damage is already done. Marriage is redefined. It used to be a recognition of the domestication of certain permanent attitudes between men and women.
Wm. Kerrigan:
We are men and women. It almost always matters which we are. Men and women are aggressive. Their regard for each other is clouded by grudges, suspicions, fears, needs, desires, and narcissistic postures. There’s no scrubbing them out. The best you can hope for is domestication, as in football, rock, humor, happy marriage, and a good prose style.”
That is, it’s a celebration of domestication of differences.
Gay marriage is just about jerking off, which is what marriage has been redefined as.
Average duration of a gay “marriage” is around 5 years. (slightly less for f/f, slightly more for m/m)
Average duration of ALL marriages (this includes gay) is 19 years, or 21 years for first marriages.
Averages don’t really speak to the issue, but there ya go.
I recall reading at the time that legalizing same-sex unions was being bruited about, that the average length of gay “marriages” in the Netherlands (where it had been legal the longest) was 18 months.
That seems like a problem about divorce. Easy fix would be to eliminate ‘no fault’ divorce and require one of the traditional reasons, infidelity, physical abuse to be proven to establish reasonable grounds to grant the divorce.
Failing that have a two track marriage option; traditional or modern. Then restrict ‘no fault’ divorce to ‘modern’ marriage. Eliminate no fault divorce from Traditional marriage option. Likewise we’d need to retain alimony/child support for traditional marriage option but eliminate them from the modern marriage option.
I believe that Louisiana has a two-track option. I wonder how that has worked out.
Personally I’d prefer to just adapt the Family Court to our modern society. Unfortunately people don’t view divorce negatively anymore or at least not sufficiently shameful to discourage it with social stigma/shame. Many denominations seem to be welcoming divorced and remarried or divorced and back on the street/dating not just into their congregation but keep them in leadership positions.
We’re probably not getting rid of no fault divorce. Therefore we gotta reform Family Court. No alimony should be the presumption with any award limited to no more than 24-30 months. Child custody should be 50/50 both physical and legal guardianship absent proven crimes that would disqualify an individual as an unfit Parent. End the potential for a payout using antiquated 1950’s or earlier Family Code that no longer reflects modern society/marriage and I strongly suspect that the rate of divorce will drop right along with the potential for a payout.
Alimony should be restricted to couples that agree one party will stay at home and raise the kids. If you’ve been out of the workforce for 15+ years, it’s going to take a minute to get an education or training that will enable the stay at home partner to have any decent standard of living. That’s on both parties because it was a joint decision.
Sanddog,
Alimony for up to 30 months seems reasonable in that situation. If standard of living is a consideration then I’d respectfully suggest not walking out on a marriage where one has that standard. 2 and 1/2 years (30 months) is plenty of time to get an MA or go to vocational college to get trained up and enter the workforce. It is not on both parties IMO instead it is 100% on the party who filed the divorce absent proven traditional justification for the divorce. With proven claims then I’d agree about fault/blame but still set 30 months as the cap for alimony.
I looked it up. It’s called “covenent marriage.” and in the three states that offer it (Louisiana, Arkansas, Arizona) the rate of those marriages is 1%-5% of the total.
I think it might be wrong anyway. I don’t think the average duration of marriages these days is that long unless it is including much data when divorce was more complex and rarer. I do wonder if this is an apples/oranges comparison.
I agree about no fault ; stupid idea.
Same-sex couples are more likely than opposite-sex couples to have been together before marriage, and for a longer time. This is the case in my same-sex marriage. Last summer was our 10th wedding anniversary but was really our 15th. Marriage wasn’t possible until 2015. Had same-sex marriage been possible before ’15, I don’t think we’d have done it before being together for three or four years.
In any case, that shorter time to divorce is somewhat misleading. Also, it’s worthwhile to distinguish between female couples and male ones. One thing that surprised me when I heard of it is that male couples are less likely to divorce than female couples; about three-quarters of the same-sex divorces are among females.
This became less surprising when I read elsewhere that the wife in an opposite-sex couple is much more likely to initiate the divorce than the husband is. So much for the “unfaithful male” stereotype.
The most stable marriages if we use divorce as the measurement is ‘gay’ marriage between two men. The highest divorce rate is among lesbian marriages. In traditional marriage between opposite sex couples the female files for divorce on average 70%+. When the female is college educated (BA+) that rate goes above 80%. The highest correlation for a divorce is when the wife begins earning more than a husband. Not always true but there is a correlation.
Unfortunately we’ve seen our culture adopt a sort of dispose/replace mindset instead of repair mindset across our society and that’s seeped into our relationships and marriages.
One fix might be to require a ‘no fault’ divorce to have a majority of their wedding guest attendees to support the divorce. Bring them all together into a room and make the case to them …if y’all wanted their approval in celebrating your union then it seems fair they should have a role in dissolving the union for a ‘no fault’ proceeding…unless the wedding guests were viewed as mere accessories to the wedding and/or as an ATM to offer gifts…in which case earning their support for a no fault divorce would be interesting.
Your last sentence isn’t logical. It makes perfect sense for a woman to ask for a divorce due to her husband’s infidelity. Melinda Gates is a classic example.
Well I wouldn’t use Melinda Gates and classic in the same sentence.
I don’t try to understand the straights, other than to think you’re not nearly as stable as you want everyone to think. LOL
I have zero sympathy for Davis. The law was changed. She refused to perform her duty as a clerk. She doesn’t get to pick and choose what she does and does not do.
I felt the same way when greasy newsom encouraged same sex marriages in SF when he was mayor before the law was changed in CA to allow them
(through a dubious CA supreme court ruling). I feel the same way about any official that cherry picks which laws they follow and which they ignore.
Agreed. It would be like a Judge refusing to impose the death penalty due to religious beliefs. People are free to believe whatever they wish but when the broad public makes it choices via the legislature passing and the executive signing the bill into law then public officials must be willing to follow. enforce and apply the statutes. If they can’t/won’t b/c their wish to substitute their religious or other beliefs for the ‘will of the people’ then they should resign.
As I understand it from a quick glance, the real problem is not that she personally refused, but that she ordered her staff to refuse as well. She could certainly have personal religious beliefs that prohibit her from acting in a same-sex marriage, but the law is the law and she cannot extend her religious beliefs to prevent others from complying with the law.
Yes, she used her beliefs and her position as Clerk to refuse to allow same sex couples to obtain a marriage license in the County.
Mixed feelings. Yeah, she should have done her job, but if I were on the jury I wouldn’t have given a big settlement to the plaintiffs.
That’s ridiculous. I wouldntt bake a cake or preside over a gay marriage
I believe they should have been given permanent status but not marriage
Marriage is between a woman and a man
So says God
Last time I check baking a cake isn’t something done by a governmental official. She was a governmental official. She either does her job or leaves. I expect the same for any governmental official. Period. End of story.
Probably God does… but unless you want to live under a theocracy then we live under the laws of fallible men. Keep in mind the religion of that theocracy might not be your own. Even it was broadly similar say ‘Christian’ ..there’s a whole bunch of differences among various denominations ….differences thought large enough and incompatible enough to break/splinter off into a new denomination and on many occasions fight multiple wars over which particular religious viewpoint would prevail.
No one would ever want me to bake a cake. LOL
If this was permitted (it’s essentially discrimination against gay people) it would be difficult to argue someone couldn’t refuse to marry a black couple because they didn’t think such should be allowed to breed.
The law is what it is. She has an absolute right to refuse to perform gay marriages. It’s just that she can’t do that and have her job at the same time.
I’m gay, and don’t think she should have to perform ANY marriage. Her role should be limited to giving out the forms and registering them.
Honestly, this woman took this job upon election knowing that she may have to issue a same-sex marriage license under the law. The religious exemption nonsense is silly. She’s not a private citizen in that capacity nor is she in a private business. She is a government agent in a government agency. This is worse than a Muslim taking a job at a slaughterhouse and expecting not to touch unclean animals on religious grounds.
I might be wrong, but I think she took the job before the Obergefell ruling in ’15.
There were several cases popping up in Minneapolis when I first heard about the Somalis that infuriated me. The first was Somali tax drivers refusing to take service dogs. Illegal. The second was a grocery store hired a Somali women. She refused to handle certain items at checkout. She wanted to call over someone else to handle them. The store owner reportedly accommodated her. Like I said. Pissed me off.
Just don’t force religious marriages to officiate SSM.
And please define marriage as a legal contract between TWO consenting ADULTS.
I’m in a same-sex marriage, but if I were emperor all of this would be different. All “marriages” would be “civil unions” in legal terms: contracts of mutual responsibility and rights now attached to “marriage,” with extra provisions in case there were children and custody needed definition. Civil unions would, as you suggest, be limited to two consenting adults.
“Marriage” would still exist but would be entirely private and would carry no legal force except in very limited emergency circumstances. The Mormon bishop or the orthodox rabbi or the hard shell Baptist rabbi won’t perform a same-sex ceremony? None of the government’s business. County clerks wouldn’t ever officiate. For legal purposes, the union would begin at the moment the two parties signed the form in front of witnesses (a county clerk, or other notary) and the document was notarized, filed, and stamped as accepted into the record.
Agreed with the provision that polygamy should be legal. It’s a civil union now. The government does not get to stick its nose into it. All must be adults of course.
Marriage is solely a religious affair. It’s the government’s job to enforce contracts, not spiritual unions. They already issue a “marriage license,” just require a contract be filed at the same time. It’s no different than having a “living will” or an “advance directive.” Then instead of dissolution penalties based on a judge’s or jury’s whims, follow the liquidated damage provisions in the contract. You can get civilly married without religious sanction, like people do every day in front of Justices of the Peace, with no penalty (short of the afterlife). You should also be able to become spiritually married without civil recognition, like people do every day shacking up… however, the penalties for this involve legal legitimacy of progeny and screwed up estate distribution. But to certain classes, like senior citizens and welfare queens, those problems either don’t arise or they just don’t care.
To anyone who objects that it’s a proper role of government to encourage strong nuclear families, I typically respond that they’re doing such a bang-up job of it now, they could hardly do worse.
Absolutely agree. Keep the govt away from regulating as many areas of life as possible. An enforceable contract would be a vast improvement.
It was a bad decision, but too many people have relied on it to order their private lives, Marriage is a state law issue.
Ah, but what about Virginia v. Loving? VA’s `1844 law stated that Blacks and Whites couldn’t marry, But if they were married in another state, that would be recognized.
Plus VA did have an early mixed race marriage: Pocahontas and John Rolfe.
God declared marriage as a union between a woman and a man
I don’t deny true love between 2 men or women but it is against Gods law
So a civil union would have been a win/ win
But no, they had to shove it in our faces
And not soon after the trans train went off the tracks , which is exactly what I told my daughter… just wait… this is just the beginning
Other way around. Prior to that decision, several states had forbidden not just same-sex marriage but same-sex civil unions. God or you quoting the Bible can say whatever, and maybe I wind up in the fiery pit of hell, but if I had my way the government would not be in the marriage business at all.
Make them all civil unions, with the legal responsibilities and rights the same as what now attaches to marriage, and leave what would henceforth be called marriage to whatever private entity this or that couple wanted to become involved.
Who remembers when Bob Hope was with Johnny.
.
“I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d better get out before they make it compulsory.”
I’ve tipped your waiter.
Too bad. Obergefell ought to be overturned. Marriage between man and woman is one of those pre-political things that simply needs to be respected. Obergefell opened the can of worms over religious freedom of which Scalia warned in his dissent.
SCOTUS live in mortal fear of the violent leftist extremist monster they helped create.
Huh. We have the unambiguous wording of the 2nd Amendment and recent Supreme Court decisions striking down gun control laws. That has not stopped Communist governors, legislatures and judges from flatly ignoring these facts and ramming through even worse laws. Also, in recent years we have been treated to an avalanche of “…except for Trump and his supporters” -type court decisions where #Resistance judges ignore the Constitution, the law, and judicial precedent to do as they please.
Obergefell falls in the “Roe v Wade” category where a majority of Supreme Court judges at the time made something up out of thin air to get the result they wanted. And since blue states and cities feel they can iengage in outright insurrection (to the point of trying to get ICE agents murdered), then turnabout is fair play. Ignore Obergefell and refuse to perform homosexual marriage. The present situation of Communists doing what they want while the rest of the country must obey the law is unsustainable and needs to end. All must obey the law or no one obeys the law: take your pick.
The communists declared homosexuality to be capitalist decadence, and the capitalists declared homosexuality to be communist decadence. But they all wanted to watch the movies as long as they were two women and they were hot. LOL
not the governments job to decide if adults of the same gender can be married
start defunding the welfare
You could find Roman era complaints about no fault divorce, moral panics are a both sides thing and the sky is falling/half of marriages end in divorce/there will be no second generation/young men and women only care about pleasure and disdain the marriage bed etc aren’t just common tropes being repeated you could find them all the way back in Augustus’ time.
There’s a SCOTUS opinion requiring “reasonable accommodation” in cases where religious objections stand in the way of an employee performing a normal requirement of a job.
The case was brought by a muslim grocery clerk who objected to handling alcohol. Essentially, the decision was that the employer had to respect his moral opposition to handling it, and the “reasonable accommodation” was that another employee could handle the alcohol sales as necessary.
This year, there was another SCOTUS case about religious objection to normal duties, relating to a postal worker not wanting to ever be scheduled to work on a Sunday. Again, the plaintiff won.
In this case, the obvious solution ought to have been to allow this particular government employee to NOT be involved in any way with same sex marriages, because it was easy enough to accommodate her objections by simply having another clerk affix the official government stamp (and, yeah, this particular lady had ordered her subordinates to NOT do this, so she’d have lost on that part but still should have personally been granted relief).
I get that SCOTUS probably didn’t want to deal with the challenge to their same sex marriage Opinion in this particular case, since it wasn’t really on point. But, they regularly tailor narrow rulings on one issue of a case while punting on other issues.
Note that the SCOTUS opinion throwing Roe v Wade in the trash essentially guarantees that they’ll have to trash their same sex marriage opinion. This is because the Dobbs Opinion tossed out, once and for all, “substantive due process” (which essentially allowed liberal judges to legislate from the bench at will, based on absolutely nothing). Justice Thomas’ dissent in the Dobbs case talks about this – and specifically mentions that ALL cases based on “substantive due process” needed to be re-examined and were presumptively unconstitutional. Obergefell (gay marriage) is the big one. Griswold v Connecticut (contraceptives). Lawrence v Texas (which abolished all laws that criminalized sodomy between two males). Note that this has nothing to do with anyone’s POLICY position on any of these cases. Rather, its about the fact that federal courts, SCOTUS in particular, had unconstitutionally usurped the State (and federal) legislative function to force their preferred political policy on the entire nation. Based on absolutely nothing.
If any/all of those opinions get overturned, the result would simply be a restoration of the Constitution to its proper place. State legislatures would pass laws on each issue (and existing laws mooted by the Court’s opinions that were still on the books would come back full force), and people could vote on them by referendum in each State. And the federal govt could pass laws for each issue that would apply in the territories and DC.