The bright side, that even if Alito and Thomas want to revisit just to overturn, according to the article, kavanaugh and Barrett aren't interested in looking at this, hopefully Gorsuch and Roberts feel the same and this case that's turned away
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
647 points (99.2% liked)
News
31606 readers
2616 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
kavanaugh and Barrett aren’t interested in looking at this,
You mean exactly like how they both claimed they had no interest in overturning Roe v Wade until all of a sudden: SURPRISE! True colours revealed!
Don't put any faith in their lies.
It's a great day to be an asshole.
And the next one is removing rights from women. And up next, slavery 2: Orange Boogaloo...
What the actual fuck America.
OP posted the part about personal liability. Here's the part about actual gay marriage:
More fundamentally, she claims the high court's decision in Obergefell v Hodges -- extending marriage rights for same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment's due process protections -- was "egregiously wrong."
"The mistake must be corrected," wrote Davis' attorney Mathew Staver in the petition. He calls Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Obergefell "legal fiction."
okay. and what are we going to do about this?
I can’t imagine a world where they overturn gay marriage. At the same time, which 2 republicans justices would vote to keep it? Roberts was originally in the dissent, but surely he changed his mind. Kavanaugh, Barrett or Gorsuch?
Overturning gay marriage doesn’t seem like as high a priority as overturning roe v wade. So maybe they would choose to not rock the boat.
You forget that, with these people, the hatred is the point. The more they can prevent 'the other' from existing, the sooner their 'perfect' world can take shape.
They already overturned Roe v Wade and Thomas has said to bring cases to overturn marriage rights on the basis of race and sexual orientation. I'm a little surprised they aren't also going after the right to work for the LGBT community, since we only just won that right in 2020.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Freak
time to look up asylum requirements for me and my husband in the EU lmao.
The way things are going the only safe place for all queer people will be a rowing boat on the ocean, through at this point maybe time for queers to start exploring the idea of building space rockets and heading out into space to find a new home the safest choice sigh 😞
Or blue state succession.
load more comments
(2 replies)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_the_European_Union The EU has their own problems with LGBTQIA+ peeps, and it really depends on which member country one would live in, and travel to, both legally and culturally.
We’d be looking into France as our first choice. My husband doesn’t speak any foreign languages, but I can pass the A2 exam in French (and I’m actively studying to further this).
If France wasn’t an option, the list of first to tertiary choices would be Spain, Portugal, and Italy last (I’m ethnically half Italian with family living there; my grandfather was an Italian immigrant, but Italy doesn’t allow homosexual marriage).
I'd be wary of Italy, it's currently governed by actual fascists (or rather "post-fascists").
Like, go to the Wikipedia article of the ruling party "Brothers of Italy", click on the party in the entry " Preceded by", do this twice again and you arrive at Mussolini's Republican Fascist Party.
I truly believe all the hate for the LGBTQ+ community in America is they got caught "accidentally" watching LGBTQ+ poern and now they are trying to prove thier true feelings are not real.
Also, any conservative with an eye patch didn't lose it to an "unfortunate" gun incident but a rather a glory hole incident. I went through gun safety as a child, and the 1st , 2nd, and 3rd thing they teach you are to treat all gun as if they are loaded. Don't assume it's unloaded. It's not the John's fault you thought you for ready.
Because naturally, every individual should expect to decide what services the institution they work for does and doesn't offer, along with who they offer them to. That's just frrrdm.
If she has such a problem, could she not just ask a coworker to sign on the dotted line?
They should have this taken care of in a jiffy.