Where's the sanctity of marriage?

Loving -v- Virginia will follow

The case lost unanimously in the country's 2nd most conservative appellate circuit (the 5th) and not a single judge was interested in hearing an en-banc appeal when it was requested. There's no reason to believe that it will end up as anything other than a single line on the "CERTIORARI DENIED" section of the orders. It's just that when someone files a petition for writ of certiorari, it goes on the list to be "considered" at the next conference.

This one isn't going anywhere.

But she swore an auth to uphold the constitution.

let her swear that oath to Gozer the Gozerarian, if she wanted to.

It is about whether she has to perform her job, when it includes issuing marriage licenses to individuals who are legally permitted to marry.

So tired of this case being framed as if it is about the legality of marriage.

(I would not be surprised if they take it up again - but this is not the vehicle which would allow that.)

That's called 'quitting'.

The passport case is about the lower court injunction. It reversed it. That doesn't mean it is legal to require gender markers - it means that the lower court is prohibited from blocking Trump's order UNTIL the matter proceeds through the courts. This is the normal course of events - injunctions are supposed to be rare things. While I agree that these times are unusual - and were I in the lower court's shoes - I would be issuing injunctions right and left. BUT that isn't how the courts are are supposed work, which is why there are so many of these lower court injunctions being reversed.

As to the marriage case, Davis is framing it as being about marriage, but it is really about whether she has to do her job when her moral compass doesn't align with the law. If they grant cert, they can, and almost certainly will, decide the latter (does she get a religious get-out-of-jail-free card) without touching the former (is marriage legal). Most likely they won't even grant cert.