{"id":52154,"date":"2025-08-11T19:39:34","date_gmt":"2025-08-11T19:39:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?p=52154"},"modified":"2025-08-11T19:39:34","modified_gmt":"2025-08-11T19:39:34","slug":"new-supreme-court-asked-to-overturn-same-sex-marriage-ruling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?p=52154","title":{"rendered":"NEW: Supreme Court Asked to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Ruling"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

For the first time since 2015, the US Supreme Court has been asked to overturn a landmark ruling on same-sex marriage.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court will take up the case this Fall.<\/p>\n

Kim Davis, the Christian Kentucky clerk who went to jail <\/a>for refusing to issue a same-sex marriage license in 2015, filed the petition and argued <\/a>the high court\u2019s decision in Obergefell v Hodges was \u201cegregiously wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

ABC News reported<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision.<\/p>\n

Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for six days in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds, is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees.<\/p>\n

In a petition for writ of certiorari filed last month, Davis argues First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial of marriage licenses.<\/p>\n

More fundamentally, she claims the high court\u2019s decision in Obergefell v Hodges \u2014 extending marriage rights for same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment\u2019s due process protections \u2014 was \u201cegregiously wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Recall that the late great Justice Scalia dissented <\/a>to the Supreme Court\u2019s decision on gay marriage in 2015 and called <\/a>the ruling a threat to American democracy.<\/p>\n

I write separately to call attention to this Court\u2019s threat to American democracy. The substance of today\u2019s decree is not of immense personal importance to me.<\/p>\n

The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. 2 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES SCALIA, J., dissenting Those civil consequences\u2014and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences\u2014can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today\u2019s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact\u2014 and the furthest extension one can even imagine\u2014of the Court\u2019s claimed power to create \u201cliberties\u201d that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.<\/p>\n

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to.1 Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of govern- \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 1Brief for Respondents in No. 14\u2013571, p. 14. Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 3 SCALIA, J., dissenting ment is supposed to work. 2<\/p>\n

The Constitution places some constraints on self-rule\u2014 constraints adopted by the People themselves when they ratified the Constitution and its Amendments. Forbidden are laws \u201cimpairing the Obligation of Contracts,\u201d3 denying \u201cFull Faith and Credit\u201d to the \u201cpublic Acts\u201d 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 \u201creserved to the States respectively, or to the people\u201d9 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?<\/p>\n

Of course not. It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution since, as the author of today\u2019s opinion reminded us only two years ago (in an opinion joined by the same Justices who join him today):<\/p>\n

\u201c[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.\u201d10 \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 2Accord, Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U. S. ___, ___\u2013___ (2014) (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 15\u201317). 3U. S. Const., Art. I, \u00a710. 4Art. IV, \u00a71. 5Amdt. 1. 6 Ibid. 7Amdt. 2. 8Amdt. 4. 9Amdt. 10. 10 United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 16) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 4 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES SCALIA, J., dissenting \u201c[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.\u201d11<\/p>\n

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\u2014such as \u201cdue process of law\u201d or \u201cequal protection of the laws\u201d\u2014it 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\u2019s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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 \u201creasoned judgment,\u201d thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.13 That is so because \u201c[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 \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 11 Id., at ___ (slip op., at 17). 12See Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ___\u2013___ (2014) (slip op., at 7\u20138). 13 Ante, at 10. Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 5 SCALIA, J., dissenting dimensions . . . . \u201d14 One would think that sentence would continue: \u201c. . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution,\u201d or perhaps \u201c. . . 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.\u201d But no. What logically follows, in the majority\u2019s judge-empowering estimation, is: \u201cand so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.\u201d15 The \u201cwe,\u201d needless to say, is the nine of us. \u201cHistory and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.\u201d16 Thus, rather than focusing on the People\u2019s understanding of \u201cliberty\u201d\u2014at the time of ratification or even today\u2014the majority focuses on four \u201cprinciples and traditions\u201d that, in the majority\u2019s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.17<\/p>\n

This is a naked judicial claim to legislative\u2014indeed, super-legislative\u2014power; 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\u2019 \u201creasoned judgment.\u201d A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.<\/p>\n

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 \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 14 Ante, at 11. 15 Ibid. 16 Ante, at 10\u201311. 17 Ante, at 12\u201318. 6 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES SCALIA, J., dissenting of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers18 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 Americans19), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

II<\/p>\n

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today\u2019s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today\u2019s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 18The predominant attitude of tall-building lawyers with respect to the questions presented in these cases is suggested by the fact that the American Bar Association deemed it in accord with the wishes of its members to file a brief in support of the petitioners. See Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae in Nos. 14\u2013571 and 14\u2013 574, pp. 1\u20135. 19See Pew Research Center, America\u2019s Changing Religious Landscape 4 (May 12, 2015). Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 7 SCALIA, J., dissenting every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment\u2019s ratification and Massachusetts\u2019 permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.20 They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a \u201cfundamental right\u201d overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds\u2014 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\u2014 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 \u201creasoned judgment.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s showy profundities are often \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 20 Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N. E. 2d 941 (2003). 21 Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ (ALITO, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 7). 22 If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: \u201cThe Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that 8 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES SCALIA, J., dissenting profoundly incoherent. \u201cThe nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.\u201d23 (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 \u201crise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.\u201d24 (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, \u201c[i]n any particular case,\u201d either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause \u201cmay be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,\u201d than the other, \u201ceven as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.\u201d25 (What say? What possible \u201cessence\u201d does substantive due process \u201ccapture\u201d in an \u201caccurate and comprehensive way\u201d? 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 \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,\u201d I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie. 23 Ante, at 13. 24 Ante, at 19. 25 Ibid. Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 9 SCALIA, J., dissenting really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses \u201cconverge in the identification and definition of [a] right,\u201d that is only because the majority\u2019s likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.) I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational popphilosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today\u2019s opinion has to diminish this Court\u2019s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.<\/p>\n

* * * Hubris is sometimes defined as o\u2019erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the \u201cleast dangerous\u201d of the federal branches because it has \u201cneither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm\u201d and the States, \u201ceven for the efficacy of its judgments.\u201d26 With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them\u2014with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the \u201creasoned judgment\u201d of a bare majority of this Court\u2014we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence. \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/p>\n

26The Federalist No. 78, pp. 522, 523 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton).<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The post NEW: Supreme Court Asked to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Ruling<\/a> appeared first on The Gateway Pundit<\/a>.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

For the first time since 2015, the US Supreme Court has been asked to overturn a landmark ruling<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\nNEW: Supreme Court Asked to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Ruling - Sasquatch News Online<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?p=52154\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"NEW: Supreme Court Asked to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Ruling - Sasquatch News Online\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"For the first time since 2015, the US Supreme Court has been asked to overturn a landmark ruling\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?p=52154\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Sasquatch News Online\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-08-11T19:39:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.thegatewaypundit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/supreme-court-2-tgp-1200x630.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"michael\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"michael\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/?p=52154#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/?p=52154\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"michael\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ad0c8e1b95566d8fc0863991c0df1bde\"},\"headline\":\"NEW: Supreme Court Asked to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Ruling\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-11T19:39:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/?p=52154\"},\"wordCount\":2564,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/?p=52154#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.thegatewaypundit.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/supreme-court-2-tgp-1200x630.jpg\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/?p=52154#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/?p=52154\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/?p=52154\",\"name\":\"NEW: Supreme Court Asked to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Ruling - Sasquatch News Online\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/?p=52154#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/?p=52154#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.thegatewaypundit.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/supreme-court-2-tgp-1200x630.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-11T19:39:34+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ad0c8e1b95566d8fc0863991c0df1bde\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/?p=52154#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/?p=52154\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/?p=52154#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.thegatewaypundit.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/supreme-court-2-tgp-1200x630.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.thegatewaypundit.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/supreme-court-2-tgp-1200x630.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/?p=52154#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"NEW: Supreme Court Asked to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Ruling\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"Sasquatch News Online\",\"description\":\"Simple News Aggregator for Tall Furry Mammals\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ad0c8e1b95566d8fc0863991c0df1bde\",\"name\":\"michael\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/91d9ad90d000862be61f4d7dca0c7ab5f6098331605977ac600f25647e0208ea?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/91d9ad90d000862be61f4d7dca0c7ab5f6098331605977ac600f25647e0208ea?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/91d9ad90d000862be61f4d7dca0c7ab5f6098331605977ac600f25647e0208ea?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"michael\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"NEW: Supreme Court Asked to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Ruling - Sasquatch News Online","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?p=52154","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"NEW: Supreme Court Asked to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Ruling - Sasquatch News Online","og_description":"For the first time since 2015, the US Supreme Court has been asked to overturn a landmark ruling","og_url":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?p=52154","og_site_name":"Sasquatch News Online","article_published_time":"2025-08-11T19:39:34+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/www.thegatewaypundit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/supreme-court-2-tgp-1200x630.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"michael","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"michael","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?p=52154#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?p=52154"},"author":{"name":"michael","@id":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/#\/schema\/person\/ad0c8e1b95566d8fc0863991c0df1bde"},"headline":"NEW: Supreme Court Asked to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Ruling","datePublished":"2025-08-11T19:39:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?p=52154"},"wordCount":2564,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?p=52154#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.thegatewaypundit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/supreme-court-2-tgp-1200x630.jpg","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?p=52154#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?p=52154","url":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?p=52154","name":"NEW: Supreme Court Asked to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Ruling - Sasquatch News Online","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?p=52154#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?p=52154#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.thegatewaypundit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/supreme-court-2-tgp-1200x630.jpg","datePublished":"2025-08-11T19:39:34+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/#\/schema\/person\/ad0c8e1b95566d8fc0863991c0df1bde"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?p=52154#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?p=52154"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?p=52154#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.thegatewaypundit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/supreme-court-2-tgp-1200x630.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.thegatewaypundit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/supreme-court-2-tgp-1200x630.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?p=52154#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"NEW: Supreme Court Asked to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Ruling"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/","name":"Sasquatch News Online","description":"Simple News Aggregator for Tall Furry Mammals","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/#\/schema\/person\/ad0c8e1b95566d8fc0863991c0df1bde","name":"michael","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/91d9ad90d000862be61f4d7dca0c7ab5f6098331605977ac600f25647e0208ea?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/91d9ad90d000862be61f4d7dca0c7ab5f6098331605977ac600f25647e0208ea?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/91d9ad90d000862be61f4d7dca0c7ab5f6098331605977ac600f25647e0208ea?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"michael"},"url":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?author=1"}]}},"featured_image_urls":{"full":"","thumbnail":"","medium":"","medium_large":"","large":"","1536x1536":"","2048x2048":"","darknews-slider-full":"","darknews-featured":"","darknews-medium":"","darknews-medium-square":""},"author_info":{"display_name":"michael","author_link":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?author=1"},"category_info":"<a href=\"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/?cat=1\" rel=\"category\">Uncategorized<\/a>","tag_info":"Uncategorized","comment_count":"0","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52154","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=52154"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52154\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=52154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=52154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sasquatchnewsonline.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=52154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}