Tea at Trianon: Overturning Obergefell?

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Sunday, June 8, 2025

Overturning Obergefell?

From World:

Nearly 10 years after refusing to issue a marriage license to several same-sex couples, a former Kentucky clerk hopes to bring her case before the Supreme Court. Davis spent five days in jail in 2015 for her defiance of a court order and has been ordered to pay more than $360,000 in damages and attorney fees to two men who requested a marriage license. But according to Liberty Counsel, the firm representing Davis, the dispute isn’t just about money. Rather, it presents an opportunity to challenge the redefinition of marriage.

“This case underscores why the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn Obergefell v. Hodges,” Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver said in a statement late last month.

Since the fall of Roe v. Wade in 2022, some conservatives have explored the possibility of a reversal in the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage. Roe and Obergefell stand on similar legal footing. Some state legislators have championed state resolutions to ask the Supreme Court to reverse its 2015 decision. But pinning those hopes on Davis’ case may be a long shot. Even if the justices agreed to hear a case like Davis’—and ruled in her favor—a change in court precedent may not be enough to topple constitutional protection of same-sex marriage, due to public support and a 2022 federal law.

Today, there are nearly 775,000 same-sex households in the United States, making up less than 1% of U.S. households. National recognition of same-sex marriage only recently developed. The Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws in its 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, holding that the 14th Amendment protects a right to privacy that extends to sexual activity between same-sex partners. A year later, Massachusetts became the first state to issue licenses to same-sex couples. In 2013, the high court struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Before SCOTUS handed down its Obergefell decision in 2015, 38 states and the District of Columbia had legalized same-sex marriage.

On May 1, Oklahoma state Sen. Dusty Deevers introduced a resolution calling for the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell and recognize marriage as a union between one man and one woman, “or to return full authority over marriage policy to the several states.” Congressmen in five other states have filed nearly identical resolutions.

“Make gay marriage illegal again,” Michigan state Rep. Josh Schriver wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, in December. “This is not remotely controversial, nor extreme.”

Schriver stood by his announcement with a Feb. 25 resolution urging the Supreme Court to overturn its 2015 ruling. “This decision has defaced the definition of marriage, undermined our God-given rights, increased persecution of Christians, and confused the American family structure,” Schriver said at a news conference. Congressional leaders in Idaho and South Dakota announced nearly identical declarations this year. In March, North Dakota senators rejected a resolution to condemn Obergefell and Montana’s Senate Judiciary committee tabled a similar resolution. (Read more.)