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
Besides funny rituals invloving deities, what is material in neoliberal capitalistic world is that there are various exclusive legal rights for partners over property, in labor forces, over child upbringing and in other fields. A select group of heterosexual partners who co-signed and keeps that deal with church/gvmnt gets a different treatment and some benefits no other party gets. It sounds petty and surreal to hold belief this custom should exist for that whole group but not +2% percents who are not heterosexual.
Single people, single parents, partners not married are way larger groups that are to look into discussing the marriage privelege. There can be no logical reason into pushing LGBTQ+ folks out but, emh, being more occupied with their personal live than their own. And with how many legalized gay marriage are in her state, there'd probably more court clerk involved into reviewing her whining than there are actual married gays, portraying how relevant and/or significant her problem with them.
For both law and market it isn't reasonable to generate subcategories that small, as they seek the most optimized approach in classificating clients. While the state would instinctively want to calculate owned taxes as clear as possible, the market would feel ganked on for it doesn't know what to do there, like, they need to invent new flavors of rings and decorations for incorrectly wed people? It is unreasonable to say the least, I bet they would still sell the same rings for hetero pairs and it would only lead into a spiral of moral-inspired lawsuits.
I don't feel that person can be involved in any discussion about gay people. I'm not a gay person myself but I have a gay friend so I get it naturally. Sorry for rambling, I was farming for my second diamond hoe while dictating it.