The Supreme Court on Monday declined an opportunity to overturn its landmark precedent recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, tossing aside an appeal that had roiled LGBTQ advocates who feared the conservative court might be ready to revisit the decade-old decision.
Instead, the court denied an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who now faces hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and legal fees for refusing to issue marriage licenses after the court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges allowed same-sex couples to marry.
The court did not explain its reasoning to deny the appeal, which had received outsized attention – in part because the court’s 6-3 conservative majority three years ago overturned Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion that 1973 decision established. Since then, fears about Obergefell being the precedent to fall have grown.
No, I got your point. But it shouldn’t be considered a discussion worth having either religious or humanist. Overall I agreed with it, just not the example.
Your conviction about one possible position being correct has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the conversation should be had.
If your position is so concrete, a discussion should be no issue for you, as you can never convince anyone else with a simple “my position is right, everything else is wrong.”Edit: that part is phrased awkwardly. What I think I’m trying to get at is that no matter how strong your personal conviction, the conversation still needs to be had, since not everyone agrees with you. Of the people who disagree, yes some are essentially lost causes on that topic, but others can still be convinced. You can’t do that convincing if you always try to just shut down all conversation.