18

No more same-sex marriages? Next will be interracial marriages.

Child marriages will still be okay cause pedophiles are protected by Republicans.

top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TheMinister@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

Why the fuck is this woman still tormenting us all with her existence

[-] deltapi@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

You need to have standing to take a case before the court. I promise you a room full of people convinced her to try this and is paying her way.

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Because madame l'guillotine takes time to build

[-] xiwi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago

What kind of miserable shit you have to be, just get help or kill yourself lady

[-] watson387@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 week ago

Walking scumbag of a woman...

[-] ileftreddit@piefed.social 2 points 1 week ago

How is this stupid cunt still around?! I guess SCOTUS is going to codify a state religion

[-] criss_cross@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

There’s a John Oliver vid that goes into the Org “Alliance Defending Freedom” that does nothing but prop up suits like this. They go and set up suits that are clearly meant to trigger SC battles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCAuHH5EYnE

[-] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I could have sworn she died. Maybe it was just wishful thinking.

[-] Auntievenim@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Still plenty of time

[-] Glitterbomb@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

How many years and this bitch still hasn't done anything about that mess she calls hair

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

This case should have been stamped out a very long time ago. Her first amendment rights do not give her the authority to reject a valid marriage application. Refusing to do your job is not protected by any amendment, because it isn't speech. There is no valid legal argument in defense of her actions.

The fact that we're here, still talking about it, and there's a chance she could be heard by this corrupted supreme court, that tells you where we are as a free nation.

[-] Action_Bastid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yes, but have you considered that the Supreme Court doesn't care and wants instead to allow religious activists (like themselves) to disregard prior precedent and other religious beliefs in favor of enshrining their own personal beliefs as civil law? It's really rather unfair of you to not consider their personal beliefs, which says they should be able to impose theirs and ignores yours, y'know.

[-] legion02@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Exactly. If you have moral or religious beliefs that will prevent you from doing your job it's on you to find another.

[-] simplejack@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Imagine if this lady put this much energy into feeding the needy.

[-] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Imagine if this lady put this much energy into being in a good healthy marriage instead getting married 3 times.

[-] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

LMFAO why is it ALWAYS a wild ride with these people

Davis has been married four times to three husbands

Her third husband is the biological father of the twins, the children being conceived while Davis was still married to her first husband. The twins were adopted by Davis's current husband, Joe Davis, who was also her second husband; the couple initially divorced in 2006 but later remarried

Davis says she experienced a religious awakening in 2011, following her mother-in-law's dying wish that she attend church.[13] Since then Davis has identified herself as a Christian, belonging to the Apostolic Pentecostal movement,[199] which favors what they describe as a literal interpretation of the Bible.[200] She worships three times a week[201] at the Solid Rock Apostolic Church near Morehead.[13][202] Following her conversion, Davis let her hair grow long, stopped wearing makeup and jewelry, and began wearing skirts and dresses that fall below the knee, in keeping with Apostolic Pentecostal tenets regarding outward holiness and modest dress.[98][202] She also held a weekly Bible study for female inmates at the local jail.[13][202] In an interview in January 2016, Davis said that she believed that "we are living in end times."[203] Davis also expressed her view that the Bible is infallible.[203]

these people are simply fucking nutjobs, absolute messes

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I thought it was 4 because one dude married her twice?

[-] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

But if she did that she wouldn't be an American Christian.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Funny how this is a religious violation but I've never seen a catholic cop suing the government over complicity in someone's execution

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I'd like some reporter to ask Bessent (on camera) about his own marriage and if it should be nullified by SCOTUS.

[-] Nightlight17776@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

I'm so happy to see everyone in agreement here. Lemmy is so much better than reddit. I just gotta learn how to use it all but that's the fun part

[-] YoiksAndAway@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago

Here come the right wing chuds from a decade ago. Great.

[-] IcedRaktajino@startrek.website 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I hope SNL can talk John Goodman into playing her (à la Linda Tripp).

Edit: Because I was curious what that would look like...

[-] sturmblast@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Can we all band together and sue the fuck out of Kim Davis?

[-] watson387@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

I hear you. Right wing mofo are always suing somebody. Biggest bunch of crybabies I've ever seen.

[-] xyzzy@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago

OK, so she was a county clerk who refused to issue a marriage certificate to a same-sex couple and was briefly jailed and fined as a result. Now she's the vehicle to overturn same-sex marriage because she's seen as basically the only person who would have standing to bring the issue before the Supreme Court again?

But how does her case have any bearing on whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal? It's a separate and unrelated issue. The connection isn't even tenuous, it just seems nonexistent.

I really hope the Supreme Court just declines to hear the case. At least Kavanaugh and Barrett don't seem interested in revisiting the issue.

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

When has a conservative ever given you a reason to believe that they are arguing in good faith?

[-] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Well, it shouldn't but the Supreme Court is going to jump at any excuse to overturn same-sex marriage. No legal reason, they just want to

[-] nman90@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

My guess would be allowing people to refuse marriage certificates based on their biased beliefs, and i don't think this stops at just same sex either, it probably will extend to race, religion or just that they don't like you because you were not "nice" to them

It's the oblique route for sure, but could be just as effective in the long run. You wouldn't have to actually overturn the legal concept of gay marriage, while at the same time being able to prevent gay marriage from happening in the future.

You just have to empower the position with the power to deny access to a marriage license and then fill those positions with people who don't think it should exist. With one ruling you could potentially make it legal to deny gay people marriages, deny women the right to a divorce, or whatever insanely bigoted shit religious people dream up.

[-] watson387@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 week ago

Exactly, and I'm sure that's the intention here.

[-] sturmblast@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Kim Davis is a rotten cunt.

[-] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Urgh, not this asshole again. I thought she had crawled back under her hoarder fundie-Christian bridge a while ago.

[-] possumparty@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago

Idk if you've been paying attention, but the fundies are 46% of the way through P2025.

[-] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Yeah I know. I just thought (hoped) that particular insufferable fundie had fucked off.

this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2025
18 points (95.0% liked)

politics

25323 readers
969 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS