Supreme Court weighs longshot appeal to overturn decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide

[Kamaji]

Supreme Court weighs longshot appeal to overturn decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide

By  MARK SHERMAN
Updated 2:02 PM EST, November 7, 2025

WASHINGTON (AP) — A call to overturn the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide is on the agenda Friday for the justices’ closed-door conference.

Among the new cases the justices are expected to consider is a longshot appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky court clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Davis had been trying to get the court to overturn a lower court order for her to pay $360,000 in damages and attorney’s fees to a couple whom she denied a marriage license.

The justices could say as early as Monday what they’ll do.

*  *  *

Source:  https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-kim-davis-cf8de49d51872e55eda46947f8ea8231

[Hoodat]

Obergefell was an even more egregious decision than Roe.  The Court does not get to pick and choose which State laws get to be forced on other States.  They ruled that it is OK to subject every other State to Vermont marriage law.  But refuse to do the same when it comes to Texas gun laws or Mississippi abortion laws.

[Fishrrman]

This is an issue which can't be "sent back to the states". That just won't work.

It must either be affirmed (i.e., a refusal to hear the case), or reversed.

[Luis Gonzalez]

This is an issue which can't be "sent back to the states". That just won't work.

It must either be affirmed (i.e., a refusal to hear the case), or reversed.

I've been desperately searching the net for an old site that detailed the process that's followed when State Laws conflict re: First cousins can legally marry in 18 States of the Union, Alabama being one of them.

So Billie Jean and Bobbi Joe get hitched in 'Bama, then their job transfers them to Idaho. What then?

IIRC In spite of the fact that Idaho does not allow first cousin hookups, they will recognize the Alabama marriage as legal and afford the couple all rights that come with the it.

So in theory, it could be left to the States.

[Kamaji]

This is an issue which can't be "sent back to the states". That just won't work.

It must either be affirmed (i.e., a refusal to hear the case), or reversed.

It can, and it ought to, be sent back to the states.  The case itself should be overturned - i.e., the holding that there is a constitutionally protected right to same-sex marriage should be undone, because none of the necessary predicates existed, and because the case of Loving v. Virginia is utterly aposite since the case in question was not about a state affirmatively denying the right of a same-sex couple to live together as partners.  Loving v. Virginia was about a VA law that make it a crime for a white and a black person to even live together as partners; it wasn't just about VA refusing to grant recognition to a marriage between a black and a white person.

[Kamaji]

So the Court has rejected her appeal without comment or dissent.

[Hoodat]

Still looking for that section of the Constitution which empowers the federal government to establish marriage laws in the 50 States.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It can, and it ought to, be sent back to the states.  The case itself should be overturned - i.e., the holding that there is a constitutionally protected right to same-sex marriage should be undone, because none of the necessary predicates existed, and because the case of Loving v. Virginia is utterly aposite since the case in question was not about a state affirmatively denying the right of a same-sex couple to live together as partners.  Loving v. Virginia was about a VA law that make it a crime for a white and a black person to even live together as partners; it wasn't just about VA refusing to grant recognition to a marriage between a black and a white person.

Yeah... about that.

The right to marry is firmly rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, particularly in its Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The Due Process Clause prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to protect fundamental personal freedoms that are not explicitly enumerated in the text—among them, the right to marry. This right reflects a deeply personal choice essential to individual dignity, autonomy, and the pursuit of happiness. It recognizes marriage as one of the most intimate and significant relationships a person can form.

The Equal Protection Clause complements this protection by requiring states to apply laws fairly and uniformly. It ensures that no individual or group is denied equal protection under the law, preventing states from discriminating or drawing arbitrary distinctions between citizens. Together, these clauses confirm that constitutional rights are universal—they apply to all individuals without exception for gender, race, or sexual orientation. The Constitution does not confer rights selectively; it affirms that liberty and equality belong to everyone, including the freedom to marry the person of one’s choice.

While marriage is recognized under U.S. law as a civil right, it has historically carried deep religious and cultural significance. This intersection between civil and religious understandings of marriage continues to generate tension in public discourse. Many religious groups view marriage through the lens of sacred tradition, often defining it according to specific theological doctrines. Consequently, some advocate for laws that align civil marriage with their faith-based definitions, seeking to bind legal recognition of marriage to religious belief.

However, under the Constitution, civil marriage exists independently of religious doctrine. The government’s role in marriage is secular—it concerns legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities, not spiritual validation. The First Amendment explicitly protects both freedom of religion and freedom from religious imposition, meaning no single religious interpretation can dictate civil law. Allowing religious beliefs to determine who may or may not marry would contradict the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of liberty and equal protection, creating inequality before the law.

Thus, while individuals and faith communities are free to uphold and celebrate their own religious definitions of marriage, the state’s definition must remain neutral and inclusive, grounded in constitutional principles rather than religious preference. Civil marriage, as a constitutional right, belongs to all people equally—regardless of gender, faith, or orientation—and its protection under the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that personal liberty is not subject to religious approval.

In essence, the Constitution draws a clear boundary: religious freedom protects belief, while civil rights protect equality. The right to marry resides in the latter, ensuring that every individual enjoys equal access to one of life’s most meaningful commitments without interference from either government prejudice or religious constraint.

[Kamaji]

Yeah... about that.

The right to marry is firmly rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, particularly in its Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The Due Process Clause prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to protect fundamental personal freedoms that are not explicitly enumerated in the text—among them, the right to marry. This right reflects a deeply personal choice essential to individual dignity, autonomy, and the pursuit of happiness. It recognizes marriage as one of the most intimate and significant relationships a person can form.

The Equal Protection Clause complements this protection by requiring states to apply laws fairly and uniformly. It ensures that no individual or group is denied equal protection under the law, preventing states from discriminating or drawing arbitrary distinctions between citizens. Together, these clauses confirm that constitutional rights are universal—they apply to all individuals without exception for gender, race, or sexual orientation. The Constitution does not confer rights selectively; it affirms that liberty and equality belong to everyone, including the freedom to marry the person of one’s choice.

While marriage is recognized under U.S. law as a civil right, it has historically carried deep religious and cultural significance. This intersection between civil and religious understandings of marriage continues to generate tension in public discourse. Many religious groups view marriage through the lens of sacred tradition, often defining it according to specific theological doctrines. Consequently, some advocate for laws that align civil marriage with their faith-based definitions, seeking to bind legal recognition of marriage to religious belief.

However, under the Constitution, civil marriage exists independently of religious doctrine. The government’s role in marriage is secular—it concerns legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities, not spiritual validation. The First Amendment explicitly protects both freedom of religion and freedom from religious imposition, meaning no single religious interpretation can dictate civil law. Allowing religious beliefs to determine who may or may not marry would contradict the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of liberty and equal protection, creating inequality before the law.

Thus, while individuals and faith communities are free to uphold and celebrate their own religious definitions of marriage, the state’s definition must remain neutral and inclusive, grounded in constitutional principles rather than religious preference. Civil marriage, as a constitutional right, belongs to all people equally—regardless of gender, faith, or orientation—and its protection under the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that personal liberty is not subject to religious approval.

In essence, the Constitution draws a clear boundary: religious freedom protects belief, while civil rights protect equality. The right to marry resides in the latter, ensuring that every individual enjoys equal access to one of life’s most meaningful commitments without interference from either government prejudice or religious constraint.

Civil marriage for same sex couples was never recognized until just very recently, and therefore it does not carry the same imprimatur that marriage did for heterosexual couples in Loving. 

Loving is simply not applicable to same-sex marriages, and therefor Obergefell was wrongly decided.


That being said, it doesn’t look like it will be overturned by the current Court; hopefully, they’ve got something even better in exchange.

[roamer_1]

@Luis Gonzalez

Yes, but...

What your lengthy post describes is pretty true - Except in that it it fails in the exception... That being the redefining of the word 'Marriage' as suddenly including same-sex couples, multiple partners, animals, and cheese...

When marriage by definition has always been between a man and woman, and normally for the purpose of creating an household for the purpose of a stable platform in which to raise children.

THAT's what it is, and THAT's what it's for.

[Luis Gonzalez]

@Luis Gonzalez

That being the redefining of the word 'Marriage' as suddenly including same-sex couples, multiple partners, animals, and cheese...

You're neither serious nor capable of maintaining an intelligent debate.

[roamer_1]

You're neither serious nor capable of maintaining an intelligent debate.

 

Answer the charge.
Marriage has never been for any other purpose, throughout history.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Civil marriage for same sex couples was never recognized until just very recently, and therefore it does not carry the same imprimatur that marriage did for heterosexual couples in Loving. 

Loving is simply not applicable to same-sex marriages, and therefor Obergefell was wrongly decided.


That being said, it doesn’t look like it will be overturned by the current Court; hopefully, they’ve got something even better in exchange.

You’re right that same-sex marriage wasn’t legally recognized until recently, but that doesn’t actually weaken Obergefell — it reinforces why it was necessary. The same logic applies to Loving v. Virginia: interracial marriage wasn’t widely accepted for most of American history either, but the Court didn’t base its decision on tradition or popularity. It based it on the Constitution — specifically the guarantees of liberty and equality in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Those rights don’t depend on how long something’s been accepted. They exist to protect everyone, especially when the majority has been slow to catch up. The right to marry is about personal freedom and human dignity — not about gender, race, or who society happens to approve of.

And remember, marriage in the legal sense is a civil institution, not a religious one. Churches can define marriage however they want — that’s their First Amendment right. But civil marriage is about equal access to the legal rights and protections that come with it. The government can’t base those rights on religious definitions or moral preferences.

So saying Loving doesn’t apply to same-sex marriage misses the point. The Court in Obergefell didn’t create a new right — it applied the same constitutional principles to people who had been unfairly excluded. Equality under the law means equality for all. That’s the whole idea of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Kamaji]

You’re right that same-sex marriage wasn’t legally recognized until recently, but that doesn’t actually weaken Obergefell — it reinforces why it was necessary. The same logic applies to Loving v. Virginia: interracial marriage wasn’t widely accepted for most of American history either, but the Court didn’t base its decision on tradition or popularity. It based it on the Constitution — specifically the guarantees of liberty and equality in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Those rights don’t depend on how long something’s been accepted. They exist to protect everyone, especially when the majority has been slow to catch up. The right to marry is about personal freedom and human dignity — not about gender, race, or who society happens to approve of.

And remember, marriage in the legal sense is a civil institution, not a religious one. Churches can define marriage however they want — that’s their First Amendment right. But civil marriage is about equal access to the legal rights and protections that come with it. The government can’t base those rights on religious definitions or moral preferences.

So saying Loving doesn’t apply to same-sex marriage misses the point. The Court in Obergefell didn’t create a new right — it applied the same constitutional principles to people who had been unfairly excluded. Equality under the law means equality for all. That’s the whole idea of the Fourteenth Amendment.

No.  The length of time is one of the crucial factors in determining whether the state is impinging on a fundamental right.  Marriage, as a fundamental human right, has only been recognized for heterosexual couples, and only for consenting adults of the age of majority. 


It was never recognized as a fundamental right for same-sex couples, and nothing in the equal protection clause requires that the benefits accorded to heterosexual couples be granted to same-sex couples because the two sets of individuals are materially different from each other.


So, yes, Obergefell invented a new right - the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry under civil law.

[bigheadfred]

Obergefell was not a faithful interpretation of the Constitution but rather a policy choice imposed by unelected judges. It bypassed democratic processes, where states and the people could have continued debating and refining marriage laws.

[Bigun]

No.  The length of time is one of the crucial factors in determining whether the state is impinging on a fundamental right.  Marriage, as a fundamental human right, has only been recognized for heterosexual couples, and only for consenting adults of the age of majority. 


It was never recognized as a fundamental right for same-sex couples, and nothing in the equal protection clause requires that the benefits accorded to heterosexual couples be granted to same-sex couples because the two sets of individuals are materially different from each other.


So, yes, Obergefell invented a new right - the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry under civil law.

 

[Fishrrman]

Kamaji wrote:
"So the Court has rejected her appeal without comment or dissent."

Again, refer to what I posted in reply 2 above.

They're afraid to reverse it, because of the chaos that would cause if they "left it up to the states".

So they took the easy way out -- refuse to hear the case, without even commenting.

[roamer_1]

Obergefell was not a faithful interpretation of the Constitution but rather a policy choice imposed by unelected judges. It bypassed democratic processes, where states and the people could have continued debating and refining marriage laws.

Yes, but therein lies the crux of the problem - this is all really a state reciprocity argument. It doesn't mean anything to disallow same-sex marriage in state if they can go get married in Massachusetts, and then have the marriage recognized by their state through reciprocity... Which was the first condition in the degradation of marriage.

[Hoodat]

Yeah... about that.

The right to marry is firmly rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, particularly in its Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The Due Process Clause prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to protect fundamental personal freedoms that are not explicitly enumerated in the text—

So according to this vacuous interpretation of Amendment XIV, a person living in New York or Massachusetts has the same fundamental personal freedom right of firearm open-carry as does a person living in Texas or Florida.

But the high court doesn't believe that at all.  They pick and choose what rights they allow and deny based on their own personal beliefs, and then attach some Amendment number to it to give it validation.  But the bottom line here is that the Fourteenth Amendment in no way gives the Supreme Court the right to selectively overturn Georgia law, Kentucky law, or even the California State Constitution just because the State of Oregon or the State of Vermont chooses to exercise its own Tenth Amendment right.

[roamer_1]

No.  The length of time is one of the crucial factors in determining whether the state is impinging on a fundamental right. 

Right. Especially when the length of time is pretty much all of human history.

 

[Hoodat]

The Equal Protection Clause complements this protection by requiring states to apply laws fairly and uniformly. It ensures that no individual or group is denied equal protection under the law, preventing states from discriminating or drawing arbitrary distinctions between citizens. Together, these clauses confirm that constitutional rights are universal—they apply to all individuals without exception for gender, race, or sexual orientation. The Constitution does not confer rights selectively; it affirms that liberty and equality belong to everyone, including the freedom to marry the person of one’s choice.

Traditional marriage law does not violate this.  Equal protection still applies.  Every person has the same pool of candidates available to them for marriage.  The law applies equally without exception.

Now one could argue that Steve here can't marry David.  This is true.  But neither can Carl, Joe, or Fred.  The law applies equally.  So, the entire 'Equal Protection' argument is complete bullshit.  This isn't about equal protection.  This is about one special group getting the exclusive right to redefine state marriage laws through the tyranny of the federal judiciary, but not all special groups.  The polygamists get nothing from this.  No 'equal protection' for them.  Go figure.

[bigheadfred]

Traditional marriage law does not violate this.  Equal protection still applies.  Every person has the same pool of candidates available to them for marriage.  The law applies equally without exception.

Now one could argue that Steve here can't marry David.  This is true.  But neither can Carl, Joe, or Fred.  The law applies equally.  So, the entire 'Equal Protection' argument is complete bullshit.  This isn't about equal protection.  This is about one special group getting the exclusive right to redefine state marriage laws through the tyranny of the federal judiciary, but not all special groups.  The polygamists get nothing from this.  No 'equal protection' for them.  Go figure.

 

[Hoodat]

You’re right that same-sex marriage wasn’t legally recognized until recently, but that doesn’t actually weaken Obergefell — it reinforces why it was necessary. The same logic applies to Loving v. Virginia: interracial marriage wasn’t widely accepted for most of American history either, but the Court didn’t base its decision on tradition or popularity. It based it on the Constitution — specifically the guarantees of liberty and equality in the Fourteenth Amendment.  .  .  .

.  .  .  So saying Loving doesn’t apply to same-sex marriage misses the point. The Court in Obergefell didn’t create a new right — it applied the same constitutional principles to people who had been unfairly excluded. Equality under the law means equality for all. That’s the whole idea of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Hold on, Hoss.  Loving is not the same.  Loving was clearly an Equal Protection issue because the pool of candidates was not consistent among individuals of the same gender.  A white man had 88% of the female population to choose from, while a black man had only 12%.  This violated equal protection.

This isn't the case with traditional marriage.  Every man has the same pool to choose from, regardless of race or sexual preference.  No man can marry a 12-year-old girl no matter how much they prefer pedophilia.  And no man can marry two women regardless of any deeply held religious belief about polygamy.

See, that's what equal protection is all about.  Yet the Obergefell court has scrapped Equal Protection altogether.  They have created and elevated one protected class above all others and forced States to accommodate that class in direct violation of Amendment X.

[Hoodat]

The government’s role in marriage is secular—it concerns legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities, not spiritual validation.

The State government's role in marriage is to do what the people of that State choose to do through their representative legislature, or in the case of California, by statewide Constitutional referendum.  And the Federal Government's role is to abide by Amendment X which states:

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.

If the State of Vermont wants to legalize same-sex marriage, then they have that right under Amendment X.  If Oregon wants to legalize marriage between people and pets, their legislature can do so with the blessings of the people.  No one is stopping them from doing so.  But Vermont and Oregon do NOT have the right to impose their choice on other States.

[berdie]

The State government's role in marriage is to do what the people of that State choose to do through their representative legislature, or in the case of California, by statewide Constitutional referendum.  And the Federal Government's role is to abide by Amendment X which states:

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.

If the State of Vermont wants to legalize same-sex marriage, then they have that right under Amendment X.  If Oregon wants to legalize marriage between people and pets, their legislature can do so with the blessings of the people.  No one is stopping them from doing so.  But Vermont and Oregon do NOT have the right to impose their choice on other States.

That's how I see it as well. Much like already stated, 2A laws and others.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Obergefell was not a faithful interpretation of the Constitution but rather a policy choice imposed by unelected judges. It bypassed democratic processes, where states and the people could have continued debating and refining marriage laws.

That argument misunderstands what the Supreme Court is for. The Constitution isn’t a suggestion box for the states — it’s the framework that limits what majorities can do.

The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly restrains states from denying any person equal protection or due process. When a state law violates those guarantees, it’s not “democracy,” it’s discrimination. The Court’s job is to say so — even when it’s unpopular.

Obergefell didn’t make policy; it enforced a constitutional principle that was already there. The same argument was made against Loving v. Virginia, Brown v. Board, and even Roe v. Wade: that courts should “leave it to the states.” But civil rights don’t depend on a vote. The whole point of constitutional rights is that they protect minorities from majority rule.

Judges didn’t “impose” same-sex marriage — they recognized that the right to marry, already guaranteed to everyone, couldn’t be denied to some. That’s not legislating from the bench. That’s fulfilling the Constitution’s promise: equality under the law means equality for all.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The State government's role in marriage is to do what the people of that State choose to do through their representative legislature, or in the case of California, by statewide Constitutional referendum.  And the Federal Government's role is to abide by Amendment X which states:

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.

If the State of Vermont wants to legalize same-sex marriage, then they have that right under Amendment X.  If Oregon wants to legalize marriage between people and pets, their legislature can do so with the blessings of the people.  No one is stopping them from doing so.  But Vermont and Oregon do NOT have the right to impose their choice on other States.

That sounds persuasive until you remember that the Tenth Amendment doesn’t override the Fourteenth. States have wide authority to make laws — but not when those laws violate constitutional rights. The whole reason the Fourteenth Amendment exists is because states were using their power to deny equality.

So yes, Vermont can legalize same-sex marriage. But if another state bans it, that’s not “local choice” — it’s the government denying a fundamental right to a class of citizens. The Supreme Court didn’t “impose” Vermont’s values on anyone; it enforced the Constitution’s command that no state may “deny to any person the equal protection of the laws.”

And the comparison to people marrying pets isn’t serious — animals can’t consent, and the state’s interest in regulating consent and contract is totally different. Obergefell dealt with two consenting adults seeking equal treatment under civil law — exactly the kind of case the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to cover.

So the Tenth Amendment protects state powers. The Fourteenth limits them when they infringe on individual rights. That’s not federal overreach — that’s the Constitution doing its job.

State laws can reflect the people’s will — but not at the expense of someone else’s rights. That’s what equal protection means

[Luis Gonzalez]

Obergefell was not a faithful interpretation of the Constitution but rather a policy choice imposed by unelected judges.

That’s what every liberal said about Dobbs.

[bigheadfred]

Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice John C. Roberts in Obergefell v Hodges

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=5e6c09865f866845c9738e04be6179e24cd65cfbaff06b6ecb0731f759308520JmltdHM9MTc2MjczMjgwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=2bca0108-6b35-6c47-0f30-13ff6a766dfa&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9tZWRpdW0uY29tL0BlL2Rpc3NlbnRpbmctb3Bpbmlvbi1vZi1qdXN0aWNlLWpvaG4tYy1yb2JlcnRzLWY1ZTJhYjRmMTM0OQ

[Hoodat]

That sounds persuasive until you remember that the Tenth Amendment doesn’t override the Fourteenth.

It doesn't need to.  The Fourteenth doesn't apply since there is no Equal Protection violation (unless you count Obergefell itself).

States have wide authority to make laws — but not when those laws violate constitutional rights.

No Constitutional rights are being violated (unless you count the Obergefell decision itself).

The whole reason the Fourteenth Amendment exists is because states were using their power to deny equality.

The whole reason the Fourteenth Amendment exists is to guarantee the rights of former slaves as full US citizens after the War of Secession.

So yes, Vermont can legalize same-sex marriage.

Just as California can define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.

But if another state bans it, that’s not “local choice” — it’s the government denying a fundamental right to a class of citizens.

You keep using that term "fundamental right".  But you are woefully lacking in evidence supporting that characterization, especially considering that marriage is more limitation than right.  Sure, it may be nice that a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against you in criminal court (in most States, of course, according to laws those States independently enacted).  But a spouse also assumes all debts of the other, and also must share ownership of all assets equally.  "Fundamental right"?  Please.  If it was a fundamental right, then why is there no federal law guaranteeing it?  Fundamental, eh?  When our Constitution was drafted, women couldn't vote.  They couldn't even own property in some States.  Yet you say marriage was a "fundamental right" (except for that divvying up of property and such).  Fundamental - lmao.

The Supreme Court didn’t “impose” Vermont’s values on anyone

You should read the decision yourself.  Because that is exactly what it did.  Obergefell sued because Ohio wouldn't honor Maryland's marriage law.

it enforced the Constitution’s command that no state may “deny to any person the equal protection of the laws.”

So, it was unconstitutional for Maryland to legalize same-sex marriage because that violated equal protection of the (state marriage) laws.  Got it.

And the comparison to people marrying pets isn’t serious — animals can’t consent, and the state’s interest in regulating consent and contract is totally different.

Ah, so it's not a fundamental right after all, but now requires "consent".  Go figure.  How about marrying your sister?  Your mother?  Your daughter?   A fifth grader?  They can all give consent.  Yet somehow, marriage is no longer that phantom "fundamental right" you insist it is (with zero evidence to back it up).

Obergefell dealt with two consenting adults seeking equal treatment under civil law — exactly the kind of case the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to cover.

No.  Obergefell dealt with two consenting adults seeking the treatment they were given in one State to be applied to them in another.  It would be like someone living in New Jersey enjoying their 'right' to full-serve gas.  Then that person moving to Ohio and then suing the State of Ohio for denying them their right to full-service anywhere they went.

So the Tenth Amendment protects state powers.

No, the Tenth Amendment limits Federal powers.

The Fourteenth limits them when they infringe on individual rights.

There was no individual right to marry someone of the same gender in Ohio.  Obergefell knew that.  He knew what the people of Ohio had established for their society through their legislature - a right reserved to them as stated in Amendment X of the Constitution of the United States of America.  Obergefell knew that same-sex marriage was not legal in his State.  So he found one where it was legal, left Ohio, got married, returned to Ohio, and then sued to get Maryland marriage law applied in Ohio in direct conflict with the people of the State of Ohio.

In other words, the people of the entire State of Ohio are having their rights infringed upon.  And it is the federal judiciary that is doing it, equal protection be damned.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Straightforward Tenth Amendment arguments leave out a key point: states can make their own laws only as long as those laws don’t violate the U.S. Constitution. The Tenth Amendment doesn’t give states free rein to pass laws that conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.

That’s exactly what was at issue in Obergefell. The Court didn’t say states can’t make marriage laws — it said that states can’t make marriage laws that discriminate. Just like in Loving v. Virginia, where states claimed they had the right to ban interracial marriage under the Tenth Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that those bans violated the Fourteenth. The same logic applies here: once marriage is recognized as a fundamental right, states can’t deny it to certain groups without a constitutionally valid reason.

And comparing same-sex marriage to “marriage between people and pets” doesn’t really hold up — it’s not the same legal category. The Constitution protects rights of persons, not animals. Two consenting adults have the capacity to enter into a legal contract; that’s what makes marriage a civil right. The comparison ignores the fundamental concept of consent, which is a legal and moral cornerstone of any contract or relationship recognized by law.

So, yes — states have the power to regulate marriage, but that power isn’t absolute. When a state law crosses the line into discrimination or violates individual constitutional rights, the federal government not only has the right but the duty to step in. That’s how our federal system is designed to balance state authority with individual liberty.

In short: the Tenth Amendment gives states authority, but the Fourteenth Amendment limits how that authority can be used. Equality under the law isn’t something states can opt out of by popular vote.

Irrespective of your arguments to the contrary, here we are.

[Bigun]

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.”

The Federalist No. 78, p. 465

[Smokin Joe]

No.  The length of time is one of the crucial factors in determining whether the state is impinging on a fundamental right.  Marriage, as a fundamental human right, has only been recognized for heterosexual couples, and only for consenting adults of the age of majority. 


It was never recognized as a fundamental right for same-sex couples, and nothing in the equal protection clause requires that the benefits accorded to heterosexual couples be granted to same-sex couples because the two sets of individuals are materially different from each other.


So, yes, Obergefell invented a new right - the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry under civil law.

Point well taken. Although the Age of Majority is something which has been subject to change, and even the decree of Monarchs who sought to use marriage as a means to seal alliances and bolster weak kingdoms. Grated, betrothal might precede consummation by years.

But for further complication, apply Obergfell to Islamic tradition of marrying very young women to considerably older men.
 
While not generally accepted within Judeo-Christian circles, the Muslims have been doing this for 1400 years. Does that mean their sometimes pedophillic version of 'marriage' must also be accommodated?

A caution: Allowing the erosion of deeply held Northern European traditional values in this area is just one more deep cut into the foundations of Western Civilization.
There is no way that any of the religions of the Middle East, whether Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, would have acknowledged any right for same-sex couples to marry, and two of those religions would have had the participants put to death.

[Luis Gonzalez]

At the end of the day, Loving v. Virginia answered this question long before Obergefell v. Hodges ever reached the Court. In Loving, the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage, holding that marriage is not a state-granted privilege but a fundamental civil right protected under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for a unanimous Court:

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes… is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

That ruling rested squarely on the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses — the same constitutional principles later applied in Obergefell. The issue in Loving wasn’t just about race; it was about whether the state could exclude a class of people from a fundamental right. The Court said no then, and it said no again in Obergefell.

Obergefell didn’t create a new right to same-sex marriage — it reaffirmed the existing right to marry, recognized in Loving, and extended its protection to those who had been denied it. The Fourteenth Amendment’s promise is not limited by time, place, or popular opinion; it guarantees that no state may deny to any person the equal protection of the laws or the liberty guaranteed to all.

Marriage, as the Court recognized in both cases, is a civil institution, not a religious one — a matter of personal dignity and autonomy that the government cannot withhold on arbitrary grounds.

Because equality under the law doesn’t depend on where you live, how you vote, or who you love. That’s not judicial activism — that’s the Constitution keeping its word.

Good night all. Thanks for the chat.

[Hoodat]

Straightforward Tenth Amendment arguments leave out a key point: states can make their own laws only as long as those laws don’t violate the U.S. Constitution. The Tenth Amendment doesn’t give states free rein to pass laws that conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.

You keep regurgitating this.  And on these points alone, you are correct.  States cannot pass unconstitutional laws.  I get that.

But the part you don't get is that traditional marriage laws don't conflict with the Amendment XIV.  Ohio's marriage law was just as Constitutional in 1868 as it was in 2013.  Think about that.  For 145 years, Ohio's marriage law was in place.  And not once did any court suggest that it violated the Amendment XIV.  Yet in 2013, magically overnight, it gets deemed unconstitutional.  And why?  Because it doesn't match Maryland's marriage law which only recently had been enacted.

So by your words Ohio did not  "pass unconstitutional laws".  Let's please stick with the facts of the case here and drop all the platitudes about 'equal protection' that have zero bearing in this case.

That’s exactly what was at issue in Obergefell.

Again, that is not at all what was at issue in Obergefell.  The case is about an Ohio resident who took advantage of a BRAND NEW LAW in Maryland that allowed a marriage between two people of the same gender, and then filed suit in Ohio demanding that the State discard marriage laws that had been on the books since it was admitted to the union in 1803, and accept Maryland's BRAND NEW LAW as their own.

The Court didn’t say states can’t make marriage laws — it said that states can’t make marriage laws that discriminate.

Ohio's law didn't discriminate.  Under 145 years of Amendment XIV, Ohio's law was applied equally to everyone.  This was pointed out to you before.  And you have not produced a single fact that disputes that truth.  Instead, you simply ignore it and recite your errant speech about the Fourteenth Amendment that has zero bearing on this case.

Just like in Loving v. Virginia .  .  .

Covered that already.  Did you not read what I posted?  Equal protection was violated because the pool of candidates was unequal.  Again, Loving has zero to do with this case.

The same logic applies here: once marriage is recognized as a fundamental right

Your "fundamental right" nonsense has already been addressed.  You come off as a complete fool by reciting it again.

And comparing same-sex marriage to “marriage between people and pets” doesn’t really hold up —

I didn't compare it.  I used that example to point out that Obergefell violates Equal Protection by elevating one special class over the others.  Did you not read what I posted?

Two consenting adults have the capacity to enter into a legal contract; that’s what makes marriage a civil right. The comparison ignores the fundamental concept of consent, which is a legal and moral cornerstone of any contract or relationship recognized by law.

So according to you, if a consenting father wants to marry his consenting daughter, it is his "civil right" to do so (according to all that "fundamental right" bullshit of yours), and every State has to sanction it even if they've had laws on the books for two centuries banning such practice.  See how your argument falls short?

So, yes — states have the power to regulate marriage, but that power isn’t absolute. When a state law crosses the line into discrimination or violates individual constitutional rights, the federal government not only has the right but the duty to step in.

AGAIN, NO INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED !!!!  AND YOU HAVEN'T SHOWN A SHRED OF EVIDENCE SHOWING OTHERWISE !!!

Equality under the law isn’t something states can opt out of by popular vote.

Equality under the law died with Obergefell.  One special class was created that trumps over the rights of everyone else.  States are forced (at the point of a gun and in direct violation to the will of their citizens) to accept one specific type of marriage, but ignoring all the rest.

[Cyber Liberty]

 

[Hoodat]

At the end of the day, Loving v. Virginia answered this question long before Obergefell v. Hodges ever reached the Court. In Loving, the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage, holding that marriage is not a state-granted privilege but a fundamental civil right protected under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for a unanimous Court:

Warren cited Skinner v. Oklahoma as the basis for that "fundamental" right.  And here is the wording from that case:

Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

Now how, praytell, does that "fundamental" definition apply to a couple that cannot procreate and contribute the very existence and survival of the race?

[Cyber Liberty]

Now how, praytell, does that "fundamental" definition apply to a couple that cannot procreate and contribute the very existence and survival of the race?

Hmmmmm.  If a couple cannot procreate, is there any purpose to getting married at all?

[Hoodat]

The Constitution places some constraints on self-rule—constraints adopted by the People themselves when they ratified the Constitution and its Amendments. Forbidden are laws “impairing the Obligation of Contracts,”[3] denying “Full Faith and Credit” to the “public Acts” of other States,[4] prohibiting the free exercise of religion,[5] abridging the freedom of speech,[6] infringing the right to keep and bear arms,[7] authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures,[8] and so forth. Aside from these limitations, those powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”[9] can be exercised as the States or the People desire. These cases ask us to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment contains a limitation that requires the States to license and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex. Does it remove that issue from the political process?

Of course not. It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution since, as the author of today’s opinion reminded us only two years ago (in an opinion joined by the same Justices who join him today):

“[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”[10]

“[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.”[11]
But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification.[12] We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification. Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.

But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.[13] That is so because “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . ”[14] One would think that sentence would continue: “. . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution,” or perhaps “. . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation.” But no. What logically follows, in the majority’s judge-empowering estimation, is: “and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”[15] The “we,” needless to say, is the nine of us. “History and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.”[16] Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.[17]

This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.

Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers[18] who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans[19]), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.[20] They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago,[21] cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.
The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.[22] Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”[23] (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”[24] (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, “n any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.”[25] (What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses “converge in the identification and definition of [a] right,” that is only because the majority’s likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.) I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop-philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas - dissenting opinion

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/644/#tab-opinion-3427259

[Luis Gonzalez]

No.  The length of time is one of the crucial factors in determining whether the state is impinging on a fundamental right.  Marriage, as a fundamental human right, has only been recognized for heterosexual couples, and only for consenting adults of the age of majority. 


It was never recognized as a fundamental right for same-sex couples, and nothing in the equal protection clause requires that the benefits accorded to heterosexual couples be granted to same-sex couples because the two sets of individuals are materially different from each other.


So, yes, Obergefell invented a new right - the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry under civil law.

There’s a recurring claim on this thread that Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) “created” a new right to same-sex marriage.
That’s not true — and the record is clear on why.

1. Marriage as a Fundamental Right Predates Same-Sex Bans

The U.S. Supreme Court recognized marriage as a fundamental right long before Obergefell, and it never limited that right to heterosexual couples.

Loving v. Virginia (1967) — struck down interracial marriage bans, calling marriage:

“one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness", and affirming that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

The Court didn’t define marriage as “between a man and a woman.”
It defined it as a freedom of personal choice — central to individual dignity and autonomy.

Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) and Turner v. Safley (1987) reaffirmed this principle — even for prisoners who cannot procreate.
Those cases show that marriage is about commitment, autonomy, and legal recognition, not gender pairing or reproduction.

Obergefell didn’t “invent” anything — it simply applied an already recognized right equally.

2. Equal Protection and Due Process Forbid Arbitrary Exclusion

The Fourteenth Amendment requires the government to treat similarly situated individuals alike unless a compelling reason exists.

Same-sex couples are:

• consenting adults,
• entering committed relationships,
• seeking the same legal and social recognition as opposite-sex couples.

There’s no material difference between these groups regarding the state’s interest in marriage — stability, responsibility, and family structure.

Excluding one group based solely on the sex of their partner violates Equal Protection.

3. The “New Right” Framing Is Misleading

Obergefell did not create a “new” right; it reaffirmed that the existing right to marry cannot be denied based on sexual orientation.

From the Court’s opinion:

“It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples… The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”

That’s the same logic used in Loving v. Virginia.
The right to marry wasn’t “new” for interracial couples — it was the same right others already had, unfairly withheld.

4. The “Material Difference” Argument Fails Under Constitutional Scrutiny

Courts reject the idea that “biological differences” justify unequal treatment in civil marriage.

• Marriage law regulates civil status, not reproduction.
  
• Infertile, elderly, or non-procreative heterosexual couples can still marry.
• The state’s interests — stability, inheritance, child welfare, autonomy — apply equally to same-sex couples.
  

If procreation were the defining criterion, many heterosexual marriages would be invalid. Clearly, that’s not the standard.

5. Tradition Doesn’t Override Constitutional Rights

Longstanding exclusion doesn’t make discrimination constitutional.

As Obergefell stated:

“History and tradition guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.”

Tradition once barred interracial marriage and women’s property rights.
The Constitution’s strength lies in its ability to apply its guarantees to those once excluded.

In Summary

• Marriage has long been a fundamental right under the Constitution.
  
• The Fourteenth Amendment protects that right equally.
  
• Obergefell didn’t create a new right — it enforced an existing one.
  
• “Material difference” and “tradition” are not valid reasons to deny equality.

Equal dignity under the law isn’t a new idea — it’s the fulfillment of the oldest one in the Constitution.

[Hoodat]

1. Marriage as a Fundamental Right Predates Same-Sex Bans

The U.S. Supreme Court recognized marriage as a fundamental right long before Obergefell, and it never limited that right to heterosexual couples.

Not sure about the "heterosexual" part since sexual preference has zero bearing here, but the court was quite clear about the reason behind that fundamental right.

Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

- Skinner v. Oklahoma -

This is the case that Loving cited.  You would know that if you actually read what I posted.  But your mind is closed.

[Hoodat]

3. The “New Right” Framing Is Misleading

Obergefell did not create a “new” right; it reaffirmed that the existing right to marry cannot be denied based on sexual orientation.

Uh, no.  It is your claim above that is misleading.  There was never any ban in place based on sexual orientation.  There are plenty of gay people who legally married persons of the opposite sex.  There was no law in place banning this.

The ban was on same-sex marriage.  This applied to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.  As a heterosexual man, I was prohibited from marrying another man just to get on his insurance plan or to qualify for other workplace or governmental benefits.  The law did not ban me because of my individual preferences.  It banned everyone based on the "fundamental" definition of marriage.

Equal protection applies.  The rules apply to everyone regardless of who they prefer to sleep with.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Not sure about the "heterosexual" part since sexual preference has zero bearing here, but the court was quite clear about the reason behind that fundamental right.

Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

- Skinner v. Oklahoma -

This is the case that

Loving cited.  You would know that if you actually read what I posted.  But your mind is closed.

There are closed minds throwing fake news around alright.

Skinner v. Oklahoma was about sterilization — not marriage.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) struck down a state law allowing the forced sterilization of certain repeat offenders.
It was a case about procreation and bodily autonomy, not marriage.

The Court described procreation as “one of the basic civil rights of man,” but that line is often taken wildly out of context.
Justice Douglas’s opinion in Skinner defended individuals’ right to reproduce against state interference — not the right to marry for reproductive purposes.

So when Loving v. Virginia later referenced Skinner, it did not adopt the idea that marriage’s constitutional protection depends on procreation.
Instead, it drew a broader connection between marriage, autonomy, and personal liberty — the ability to choose one’s partner and form a family without state intrusion.

In short: Skinner was about protecting people’s ability to have children — Loving was about protecting people’s freedom to marry the person they love.
The two rights are distinct but related under the umbrella of personal autonomy.

[Hoodat]

5. Tradition Doesn’t Override Constitutional Rights

You keep saying that.  But you never provide anything in the Constitution that shows that the Federal Judiciary can force States to sanction same-sex marriage in direct violation of their right to self govern.

[Hoodat]

There are closed minds throwing fake news around alright.

Skinner v. Oklahoma was about sterilization — not marriage.

Skinner v. Oklahoma was the case cited by Loving.  Keep in mind that it was YOU who brought up Loving.  And it was YOU who used that case to qualify marriage as a fundamental right.  Well, here's what Earl Warren said:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

-Chief Justice Warren-

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/

Your word "fundamental" appears but twice in the entire Loving opinion.  And both times, it references Skinner v. Oklahoma.  Yet you are now trying to tell us that Skinner v. Oklahoma has nothing to do with marriage?  Good grief.  Who is feeding you your arguments?  Because it is clear you don't know jack about what you are saying.  Have you considered that bringing up Loving as support for Obergefell has been a huge mistake on your part, especially considering that it defines your precious fundamental right as a union between two people of the proper gender combination to procreate?

[Luis Gonzalez]

You keep saying that.  But you never provide anything in the Constitution that shows that the Federal Judiciary can force States to sanction same-sex marriage in direct violation of their right to self govern.

The Court did not "sanction" same-sex marriages. The Court fund that laws against same-sex marriages, like anti-miscegenation laws, violated the XIV Amendment. You can try treading Warren's opinion if you need more clarification.

Opponents of same-sex marriage often misread Loving as saying marriage’s constitutional importance rests on procreation.
But that’s not what the Court said — at all.

Here’s the key passage from Chief Justice Warren’s opinion in Loving:

“Marriage is one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

No mention of children, reproduction, or procreation — only personal rights, happiness, and freedom.

The Court held that Virginia’s interracial marriage ban violated both Equal Protection and Due Process, because it deprived individuals of a personal choice central to their liberty and dignity, not one dependent on the opinions of others.

That reasoning focuses on autonomy and equality, not fertility or family formation.

If marriage’s constitutional protection depended on reproduction, the Court’s decision in Turner v. Safley (1987) — allowing even incarcerated prisoners to marry — would make no sense.
Prisoners can’t cohabit or reproduce freely, yet their right to marry was upheld because of its emotional, spiritual, and social significance, not its biological outcomes.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Skinner v. Oklahoma was the case cited by Loving.  Keep in mind that it was YOU who brought up Loving.  And it was YOU who used that case to qualify marriage as a fundamental right.  Well, here's what Earl Warren said:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

-Chief Justice Warren-

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/

Your word "fundamental" appears but twice in the entire Loving opinion.  And both times, it references Skinner v. Oklahoma.  Yet you are now trying to tell us that Skinner v. Oklahoma has nothing to do with marriage?  Good grief.  Who is feeding you your arguments?  Because it is clear you don't know jack about what you are saying.  Have you considered that bringing up Loving as support for Obergefell has been a huge mistake on your part, especially considering that it defines your precious fundamental right as a union between two people of the proper gender combination to procreate?

I brought it up because Loving, Skinner and Obergefell were all decided on XIV Amendment violations.

• Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)   Right to procreate, bodily autonomy   Not a marriage case
• Loving v. Virginia (1967)   Right to marry without racial discrimination   Defines marriage as a fundamental liberty
• Zablocki v. Redhail (1978)   Right to marry despite financial obligations   Reaffirms personal autonomy
• Turner v. Safley (1987)   Prisoners’ right to marry   Marriage not dependent on procreation
• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)   Right to marry regardless of sex   Applies equal protection and due process equally

[Luis Gonzalez]

  Yet you are now trying to tell us that Skinner v. Oklahoma has nothing to do with marriage? 

You don't know what you are talking about, do you?

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Argued:
May 6, 1942
Decided:
June 1, 1942
Annotation
Primary Holding
The right to procreation is a fundamental right, so a state cannot require the sterilization of criminals convicted of certain crimes.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/

[Hoodat]

You don't know what you are talking about, do you?

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Argued:
May 6, 1942
Decided:
June 1, 1942
Annotation
Primary Holding
The right to procreation is a fundamental right, so a state cannot require the sterilization of criminals convicted of certain crimes.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/

<sigh>

Again, Skinner is the case that Justice Warren cited in Loving.  Read it yourself.  It's right there.  I even posted it for you.

See where Warren quoted "basic civil rights of man"?  That quote came from Skinner.   Warren cited Skinner as his basis for Loving.  So it's kind of ironic hearing you say Skinner had nothing to do with marriage when your Loving case quoted it.  And since you are so big on Loving, you have to be big too on the definition Warren gave which can only be applied to a marriage between one man and one woman.

Hey, but don't be mad at me.  You're the one who brought Loving up.  QED.

Oh, and still waiting on that Constitutional basis for not only overturning an Ohio marriage law that had been on the books for nearly two centuries, but then forcing Ohio to adopt the marriage law of another State which had been on the books for less than two months.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I am not in charge of your education. I am perfectly fine with my understanding of the issue, as I understand your stubborn refusal to see the subject clearly.

I’m satisfied with my arguments. I (as is plainly visible) have made them quite well. But unfortunately I can’t help you understand them.

End of the day, it doesn’t really matter whether you approve or not. It’s done.

Good night.