who married husband #1, then had a fling with husband #3, then divorced husband #1 to hook up with husband #2...

That woman is her own soap opera and I could not keep up with her.

That said, no surprise that the fascists are using her to overturn gay marriage.

They said Roe v Wade would never be overturned too. And during confirmation hearings, some nominees said it was settled law ( Stare decisis )

Look how that turned out.

but we can no longer expect logical results from this court or say what too far is for them

Thank you!

It will happen. There arent always happy endings. We will live under dictator rule. Our side is too soft, always.

But they are highly unlikely to entertain the larger one.

BLACKMAIL half of the supremes to do whatever they want, I would say this post is not very well thought out.

If we can have kings, reversing marriage equality is much easier. Have we seen a conservative ever support marriage equality on SCOTUS?

i do wonder if they would really un-marry thousands of people though. That would be crazy

Let's see How Thomas will justify making his only interracial marriage legal. Everyone else's be damned.

to same sex couples without making the connection to Loving and his own situation. This is not an insightful or compassionate person.
Same way he justifies all the grift he accepts.

It passed 5-4. with Roberts, Thomas and Alito all writing dissenting opinions. It could indeed be overturned.

FIFTY years (or thereabouts). It happened. Women and girls are dealing with the consequences every single day in this shithole country now. Many of them are dying. Many will be dealing with health consequences personally and/or with babies that are damaged for life by genetic abnormalities that will put undue medical financial burdens on them and/or their families for the rest of their lives.

sadly, look at the current court. They are eager to put everyone who isn't a loudly religious, right wing, white man in their place.

If her religion stops her from doing certain things then she shouldn't take a job that requires her to do certain things whatever they may be. For instance, as an atheist I would make a lousy catholic priest.

This is nonsense.

being forced to give out marriage licenses. But standing to end same sex marriage altogether? If they can get the marriage license from someone else, what other harm does she claim?

She is a public employee. A part of her salary is paid by lgbtq+ people.

I have known many protestants who abhorred Catholics and didn't consider us Christians. Should they be allowed to refuse us a public service? Should my Grandfather have been able to refuse protestants a marriage license because he thought that marriage is a sacred compact and that the very concept that protestants could actually enter into a sacred compact was absurd?

and I think in a reasonable world she'd lose on both points or they wouldn't even take the case. I'm just dealing with the issue of standing. The only way this has affected her is that she has been required to give out marriage licenses and punished for not doing so. That is the only issue where she should have standing.

She cannot claim any personal injury for the existence of same sex marriages in the world.

If we have to deal with whatever crazy ruling SCOTUS comes up with, I would rather LGBTQ have the problem of having to shop around for marriage licenses rather than losing the right to marry altogether or have their already existing families cancelled. Since I don't trust SCOTUS on either issue, I would rather they not have the latter case to consider. Finding standing for that should be harder. Someone actually harmed personally by the existence of same sex marriage would be hard to come by.

Unless this is a different story than I remember

...should employees in the Medicare system be allowed to pick and choose what policies agree with their beliefs and therefore to abide by? If Medicare paid for toilet seats when I first started working for them, and then stopped paying for them, should I go ahead and approve a claim for a toilet seat because it comports with my Christian beliefs, even though it is against Medicare policy? We all have to adapt to changes in our jobs--even if we work for ourselves. Laws change all the time, affecting the way we work and do business. We live in a civilized society and we have to adapt--it is a requirement of staying alive.

I do not and never have worked for the Medicare system--that was a hypothetical. Furthermore, I am not a Christian, but I once was. I fell from the flock when I saw the hypocrisy in such glaring relief during the Bush years.

When I got a job at the large public hospital where I worked for three decades we were not required to have ACLS certification. But after about two decades it became a job requirement. If we didn't want to get certification, or couldn't, we couldn't keep our jobs. There were certainly parts of the job that people didn't like but you couldn't just choose what you didn't want to do depending upon the job and/or the patient.

to accept or deliver donation envelopes to churches because what those churches practice is against my religious beliefs. Atheists are always being accused by Christians of being as extremist as fundamentalist Christians. I guess I could see that. Do you think the Supreme Court would/should allow me to practice my religious convictions in that way? Bet they wouldn't see my rights the same way as Ms. Davis's. Do you agree?

they appeal the Loving decision that allowed interracial marriage, and how will Clarence Thomas vote?

When he called for Obergefell to be reexamined, he didn't mention Loving.

Funny how that works.

I'm sick of these people. Americans overwhelmingly support gay marriage. I would like to think the Supreme Court will laugh her away, but I have given up expecting them to behave in a humane manner.

Flip-flopping undermines public trust and rule of law. You know this is 6-3 one way. Question is will they brand the illegally marrieds with a Scarlett Letter?

One of Kavanaugh & Barrett needs come down on the right side. I think Barrett does and it survives, though I wouldn't place money in it.

while Kennedy dissented.

Let me see if I've got this straight:

From the OP article -

Last edited Mon Aug 11, 2025, 09:16 AM - Edit history (1)

It is scheduled for conference on September 29 along with a zillion other petitions for cert that were pending when the court adjourned or filed after it adjourned.

whenever I would say that to Christians they would say that he didn't have to say anything about homosexuality because everyone knew that it was wrong.

There is no arguing with people who won't discuss something in good faith.

In those days you weren't supposed to leave Texas.

in the 70's it started to become very difficult to leave Texas for those areas if you wanted to buy a house.

There was a saying in Amarillo that if you wore out a pair of shoes in Amarillo you would never leave. People who liked Amarillo thought that was a good thing. Other people thought that it meant that you were trapped. And since a lot of the wealth built for the working class in the 70's-00's was from rising home prices, spending a decade or more in a place with little property price appreciation did mean that your options were limited.

My vintage house here in New Haven is now worth a lot more than what I paid for it. So that is a major factor in where I live. Even if I downsize, it won't save me much.

Due process. Equal protection.

this Supreme Court will embrace it -- precedents be damned!

Democrats cited the US Constitution.

Republicans cited the Bible.

The US Constitution won in Minnesota as I listened to the debate on MPR.

Don't hold your breaths that the US Supreme Court upholds the US Constitution. Again, states will either uphold their decisions or make Marriage Equality illegal. States will find their populations dwindle as others see an increase.

religion punishes questioning and rewards gullibility. Faith is not a function of stupidity, but a frequent cause of it! Mark Twain: “Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool!”! These hypocritical fools that want to force their misguided religious beliefs on everyone else but in their own lives are the least religious!

….poisons everything.

Christopher Hitchens

beliefs and rules by which you live your own life, not that you force others to live their lives by.

Me

If the main difference between a religion and a cult is how many followers there are, MAGA may be closer to religion than cult. They even have their own golden deity. Well, more orange.

They are coming for Griswold v. Connecticut. After that’s overturned, Loving v. Virginia is next. Then Brown v. Board of Education.

Meanwhile the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 are toast.

Then there’s sitting in the back of the bus.

Lawrence v. Texas
Sex between consenting males.

"That's will never happen." "It was almost never enforced."

You can say what you want, and I will say from experience that it is different when you live in that situation.

This is not an all inclusive list, but you get my point…

immigrants (expulsion without due process)
Latino (civil rights, expulsion without due process)
Black (civil rights, military leaders fired)
LGTBQ (military loss of benefits, ousting T soldiers)
women of childbearing age (Roe v Wade overturned)
women (military leaders fired)

Every civil right we've fought for in the last 60-70 years and gotten - basically since Brown. I guess integration will eventually be challenged as well.

How can they do this?

They can overturn a previous decision as they did with Dobbs.

Marriage is on the way out in western countries anyway. It should have died out centuries ago.

in particular Thomas, and Alito, are salivating at the chance to overturn
1) the voting rights act
2) Loving v Virginia
3) Griswold vs CT
4) Obergefell v Hodges
5) Lawrence v. Texas

From the Christian Bible Mark and Matthew but who and where does it say the government can be the exemption or that anyone who doesn’t like the union can have it taken away?

On turning the nation into a theocracy.

Like Roe was, Obergefell v Hodges is settled law. Contrary to Evangelical and Republican opinion, the nation was not destroyed as it accommodated its zero impact on public life and governance. Overturning it will only bring disruption and anguish. Except to the Religious Reich. Who will rejoice in its cruelty.

This case has been brought - because they want it! And “they” are the crackpots at the ironically named, “Liberty Counsel.”

Certiorari should be denied. But given this court…

One can hope, but.........

FU Kim Davis!

Then don't marry someone who's the same sex as you. It's very simple.

They'll quietly deny cert and the whole thing will disappear.

There are consequences to voting.

but I suspect they are SLAVERING to get their hands on this opportunity.

I said so at the time. Everybody was too busy celebrating to care.

-- Mal

... declare the 2022 law unconstitutional, through whatever trumped-up rationale, then overturn Obergefell.

-- Mal

which is what Davis was originally claiming. But somehow now she and the rest of them want to argue the 14th Amendment "Equal Protection" clause, I assume claiming that same-sex couples are "not equal" to opposite sex couples, which to me is dodgy and idiotic... but.

... I can easily see them making up some argument that same-sex marriage oppresses their straight little hearts, and that they deserve equal protection under the law. After all, it doesn't have to be convincing. Or rational. The Court will pass it 6-3, guaranteed. It fits right in with their agenda.

-- Mal

... of church and state means nothing to the American Taliban. They are the epitome of everything foul and disgusting about their perverted version of Christianity. There is NOTHING good about any of them. Nothing.

You can bet the farm she isn't.

... gay married Peter Thiel who promoted JD for VP?

https://heightmag.com/all-about-matt-danzeisen-husband-of-peter-thiel/

nothing will surprise me - that was their intention all along anyway.

On the side that wants to overturn Obergfell. Project 2025 explicitly calls for getting rid of everything thing that protects LGBTQ+ against discrimination, so this would have to be part of it.

Smug clowns. Hope they’re happy.

Link to tweet

with my mums when I visit at the end of the month. I always feared this would happen.