this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
647 points (99.2% liked)

News

31606 readers
2623 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

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.

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Like we're not going to see interracial marriage struck down after they do away with the filthy, eeevil gaysex.

Mark my words, it will be under the guise of "national security" and it will start with a big spiel from the administration how "terrorists" are getting into the country by marrying "US citizens" (even though imgiration hasn't worked that way in like, a century) and they will swear it's not about race... while using race to identify these scary terrorists who want to eat your children and rape your pets.

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We won't, but for specific, self-serving reasons.

In his opinion for Dobbs, Thomas listed several cases he wants to revisit, including Obergefell. Notably absent was Loving, which is the case that set interracial marriage in stone. Thing is, if you follow his reasoning, Loving should fall to the exact same logic. The fact that he left it out is telling.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't believe for a moment that everything isn't on the table for repeal, destruction or revocation. It just takes a phone call and a new boat and Thomas will not just revisit Loving, he and his cohorts will use it like toilet paper overnight. They just can't move too fast, they have to give the population time to adapt to changes or wait until everyone is too distracted by some manufactured crisis. Literally, our only hope is they misjudge or move too fast and create an actual armed movement marching on Washington. (Like, they would need some kind of huge army deployed to DC to protect the president and cabinet and courts in that case... can you imagine that?)

And it doesn't matter if Thomas is in an interracial marriage, the ruling class has proven time and time again they are immune to consequence and law.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think they'll try everything to push for a supermajority next cycle to just write a new "more christian" constitution, á la Fidesz, even if that requires them to break laws.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

We've already seen them make soft attempts at it by "accidentally" removing chunks of the constitution from the .gov websites, and this is how they started exploring the feasibility of most of their current overreaches, with probing attacks, with "soft" insurrections, with suggestions of doing the things they're actively doing now, just to gauge how far along we are and what kind of pushback they would actually get. (Hint: it's not enough. Sit the fuck down Booker, Schumer, Jeffries... you're useless fucks that need to be hauled out like the garbage you are.)

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'd love to see Clarence Thomas go home to his ugly bulldog white wife, and explain that he voted to abolish their marriage, and now that it's an official abomination, she must move out of the house immediately.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's the beauty of using masking terms like "terrorists" like Israel is doing to justify their genocide.

You can make "terrorism" the most extreme crime that anyone can commit, a crime that immediately disqualifies you from due process or human rights, then just utterly fail to define what "terrorism" means, so you can slap it on any youtuber who criticizes the government or entire neighborhoods of hispanic or black people so you can start segregating and arresting and creating labor camps... another sneaky way to continue slavery.

Poorly defined, unscientific or non-factual policy is designed to enforce "rules for thee, not for me" and is one of the foundational cornerstones of fascism and oligarchy.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

That's exactly what they are doing. Now they are starting to justify military intervention against cartels in Mexico because they've designated them as Terrorists, when there is nothing terroristic about them. They are just Criminal Oligarchs, no different than our president and his friends.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago

There are several "magic words" that power-mad tyrants love to use to justify every horrible thing they do. "Terrorist." "Criminal." "Pedophile." "Anti-semite" (a relatively new one) and sometimes "rapist."

We've seen them use these buzzwords everywhere over and over, because they work in stoking the fear and disgust and horror in an ill-informed public.

There's no better feeling for a dictator than having millions of people supporting him as he levels an entire country because he told the citizens that it was a place full of child rapists and nazis. See: every major conflict this century.