What is she @ 4 marriages and ? of kids?

Fuck her.

(As far as I've ever been able to find not one single word.)

against 2 women having sex. And there was one other fact that I cannot remember

I think the 2 men sex thing is all about procreation. Israel is filled with excavation's showing how one tribe concurred another and built upon the land. 2 men having sex would not help in increasing their man power so they were label "abomination" Same way shell fish were - I think some people died and that is how they dealt with losing the man power - label it an "abomination"

… are nasty to LGBT people on earth.

This is still knocking around in the courts? Couldn't remember who Kim Davis was until I read the article.

This incident happened years ago, the verdict happened years ago. The court should have enforced the ruling long before now. The plaintiffs shouldn't have to wait so long for justice.

Seems like the appeal process never ends for these type of monsters.

We need to start saying that anyone who would dispute a lawful court order is like those illegal immigrants we keep hearing about. Both are breaking the laws of this great country!

(If they can paint with such a broad brush, so can we! If they even make a face at a government agency or official, we need to start screaming about how 'unpatriotic' it is and how they must be 'the enemy' of such a great nation.)

🌵

I would not be surprised to learn that some of them even promised her they would help her out if she just stuck to her guns.

I remember that the last time she lost a court case, that is precisely what happened. Some rich entities just wrote her a check.

I could be wrong!

In any case, I don't believe she has really suffered because of her actions. She might have benefited from the pain she inflicted on others.

and it breaks her.

IIRC, his reason for doing so was that a line-up of SCOTUS decisions (starting with Griswold, I think) had hinged on a presumptive Constitutional right to privacy, and he name-checked them. He only left out Loving vs Virginia.

https://www.courthousenews.com/thomas-didnt-mention-interracial-marriage-and-thats-worth-talking-about/

will eventually win--and it will go to the SC.

Everything is on the line. The commonalities are adults making personal decisions about who they love and about their sexual behavior, including contraception.

Alito referenced a 12th Century Christian monk and a 16th Century witch-hunting British jurist, and — in a not at all final smack down of non-fanatics — threw Roe back to the 50 states, letting “States’ Rights” rear its ugly head once again. Thomas, in his concurrence, must have looked in a mirror before deciding to leave Loving vs Virginia out.

So what's to stop another court from going after other unenumerated rights by employing the same legal framework that was used to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Justice Samuel Alito for one tries to allay that concern in the lead Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization opinion, taking care to distinguish abortion from other rights, only to have Justice Clarence Thomas pull the rug out.

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote in concurrence. “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”
For court watchers, almost as notable as the hit list of cases the conservative justice explicitly names was the one he left out. Loving v. Virginia — which in 1967 established a right to interracial marriage — was cited by every other opinion in the Dobbs case when discussing substantive due process.

https://www.courthousenews.com/thomas-didnt-mention-interracial-marriage-and-thats-worth-talking-about/

Is she still banging Mike Huckabee?

There is something wrong with our justice system.

-- Mal

When she ran for the office she knew that she would be required to take an oath that she knew she could not keep. She choose to break the oath and so there should be consequences and a jury said $100,000.