Jump to content
Mayhem Requiem
lgbt

SCOTUS asked to overturn same-sex marriage


Morphine Prince
 Share

Featured Posts

NeanderthalDavid

My heart almost dropped, but then I remembered the times we’re living in :lana:

If Anne Hathawill, Anne Hathaway.
Link to post
Share on other sites

PartySick
2 hours ago, Emvee said:

Wasn’t it law when Davis pulled her BS?

The only reason why they would entertain this is because they’re fascist pieces of **** 

Overturning the SCOTUS decision wouldn't outlaw same sex marriage just like overturning Roe didn't outlaw abortion. It just removes it as a "constitutional right" under the legal definition.

Thankfully, the Biden admin codified some same sex marriage protections. Even if red states have trigger laws that immediately outlaw it, they still have to acknowledge existing marriages and marriages from out of state.

Until Republicans/Trump can overturn Biden's legislation (which is a possibility).

We in the bad timeline and I wish I could say "maybe this'll teach people that 'the lesser of two evils' sometimes means good e-f*cking-nough" but I can't 'cause we'll keep repeating the same mistakes until we stumble even farther :oops: 

Whimsical bitch
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

timdrake
4 hours ago, JRCF29 said:

Virtually no chance the court even hears this appeal. 

Agreed. It's a long shot with virtually no interest from folks with whom it matters, 

but then again nothing surprises me anymore so 🤷🏻‍♂️ who friggen knows what'll happen

Link to post
Share on other sites

TheARTPOPball

Please take a breath before panicking! W

4 hours ago, StarstruckIllusion said:

…genuinely don’t know if this will happen bc it’s clear if the court didn’t respect Roe, it wouldn’t respect this.

Trumps racist, transphobic and a sexist, but I read somewhere he doesn’t actually have the heart to be homophobic bc of his NYC upbringing - so maybe he’ll “block” this?

Could be wrong tho

I believe the official reasoning for the roe v wade overturning was smth along the lines of “potential life”

i don't agree with that, but i know theres a lot of people that think that way so it really doesn't surprise me that it was able to be overturned

but this… what exactly are they gonna try and claim here? Freedom of religion? So does this also mean that terrorists can burn down churches bc they believe they should? She should have the right to oppress others in a government building bc she doesn't “agree”??? Does ANYONE know the reasoning for this other than “i dont agree!” She shouldnt be able to “agree” or “disagree” with smth that literally doesn't affect her life in anyway, and have the government hear her out on it. 

Edited by TheARTPOPball
Link to post
Share on other sites

LunaUniverse

This lady has tried to bring this to federal court before and has been turned down more than once, if they didn’t want to hear this before I can’t see why they’d hear her now 

1# Samoyed Stan
Link to post
Share on other sites

skaxboy

 

 

Kim Davis is a clown.

 

If you’re against gay marriage then you should be against straight divorce. Kim Davis was remarried a few times. She has made an actual mockery of marriage so she should keep her ignorant mouth shut. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

SpadesToStart

I’m not surprised and I know it remains on conservatives’ wishlist, but given Chief Justice Robert’s voted FOR same sex marriage in 2015, I doubt this actually results in anything.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

gagzus

This was obviously going to happen, they came for trans people and now they’re coming for the gays. Hopefully this makes the white gays wake tf up

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bronco
29 minutes ago, gagzus said:

This was obviously going to happen, they came for trans people and now they’re coming for the gays. Hopefully this makes the white gays wake tf up

Look at this thread. They still think they're safe

The gays know how to party
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bronco
6 hours ago, TheARTPOPball said:

Does ANYONE know the reasoning for this other than “i dont agree!” She shouldnt be able to “agree” or “disagree” with smth that literally doesn't affect her life in anyway, and have the government hear her out on it.

Its a highly activist court pursuing ideological agendas. The only reasoning they need is that they want to change the law.

The gays know how to party
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...