232
Ex-Kentucky clerk asks Supreme Court to hear case that could upend same-sex marriage
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2025
232 points (98.7% liked)
politics
25197 readers
2845 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
OK, so she was a county clerk who refused to issue a marriage certificate to a same-sex couple and was briefly jailed and fined as a result. Now she's the vehicle to overturn same-sex marriage because she's seen as basically the only person who would have standing to bring the issue before the Supreme Court again?
But how does her case have any bearing on whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal? It's a separate and unrelated issue. The connection isn't even tenuous, it just seems nonexistent.
I really hope the Supreme Court just declines to hear the case. At least Kavanaugh and Barrett don't seem interested in revisiting the issue.
My guess would be allowing people to refuse marriage certificates based on their biased beliefs, and i don't think this stops at just same sex either, it probably will extend to race, religion or just that they don't like you because you were not "nice" to them
When has a conservative ever given you a reason to believe that they are arguing in good faith?
It's the oblique route for sure, but could be just as effective in the long run. You wouldn't have to actually overturn the legal concept of gay marriage, while at the same time being able to prevent gay marriage from happening in the future.
You just have to empower the position with the power to deny access to a marriage license and then fill those positions with people who don't think it should exist. With one ruling you could potentially make it legal to deny gay people marriages, deny women the right to a divorce, or whatever insanely bigoted shit religious people dream up.
Exactly, and I'm sure that's the intention here.
Well, it shouldn't but the Supreme Court is going to jump at any excuse to overturn same-sex marriage. No legal reason, they just want to