SCOTUS asked to revisit gay marriage

[kan...@aol.com]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/07/politics/supreme-court-consider-same-sex-marriage-precedent-obergefell

They won't; but they should refuse to even take up this issue. The whole thing is being propelled by the Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses for gay couples. She was fired, punished, etc. 

Irony of irony, she anoints herself as Avatar of Christian morality, AFTER having divorced three times. 

Scary notion, Sam-I-AM Alito says that he's not prone to overturning Obergefell because of Stare Decisis. But that didn't stop him from voting to end Roe. 

If these ideologues had a sense of decency, which they don't, they'd refuse to listen to this woman's  complaint. Her case is not reason to overturn Obergefell, any more than a school massacre is reason to overturn 2A. Not how it works. 

[B Keg]

They should hear the case snd resolve that government has no authority to issue marriage licenses in the first place. 

Be nice, even when you don't want to!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kansas City Diversity Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/d0914764-9016-400d-b4d5-9c1a774194b8n%40googlegroups.com.

[kan...@aol.com]

That would be a good solution. 

But even though marriage is often done as a religious rite, isn't it also a 'contract" that has a lot of financial implications? 

All those issues about inheritance, powers of attorney, etc, etc. Can all those be resolved without gov't involvement? 

I remember when AIDS was first around, gay partners often were denied access to their dying loved ones because of family interference. It was an ugly time. 

How does the partner get the privileges of marriage in your scenario? If that's resolved, then I'm on board. 

The marriage vows talk about "forsaking all others". I suppose that means other partners; but it also might imply putting spouse above family too. 

Get that figured out without the gov't, and the churches, and we're good to go. 

[Brian Kegerreis]

Yes all of these issues can be resolved with a prenuptial. 

Problem solved. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/c92ce5a5-31df-4d52-a500-d7b98ffa0ebfn%40googlegroups.com.

[kan...@aol.com]

Sort of the way some primitive societies do this. Get a tattoo or some other minor ritual and, presto, your married. Bang your spear on the ground three times and say, "I divorce you" and it's done. 

I wonder what the lobby AGAINST this would look like. Obviously the large religious institutions would be up in arms. Add in all the wedding industries and even the cake bakers. Suddenly even they might be willing to bake for ANYONE who wants a lavish wedding cake. 

Changes make strange bedfellows. 

It sort of goes along with the current overall move away from religious supremacy. Yes, more that half of Americans identify as religious to some extent; but the numbers are dropping. 

Maybe this is the logical progression.