this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2026
148 points (97.4% liked)

politics

31509 readers
2175 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, the devout Catholic conservative who has long warned of animus against religion in America, says in a new book that he believes the court's landmark decision extending marriage rights to same-sex couples was "perhaps the decisive point in our nation's turn against religious liberty."

Alito, who dissented sharply in the 2015 case, made the claim at Catholic University of America three years after Obergefell v Hodges in a speech that was not open to the public or widely covered at the time. The remarks were published this month in "So Ordered," a collection of Alito speeches that he says reflect his judicial philosophy and outlook on the country.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 3 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, what a total fuckass numbnuts. Interracial couples love eachother and so do gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, pansexual and other such couple or tuple combinations. The sex part has nothing to do with the marriage part. It's similar to how two cars or different shape size and color can end up in the same garage /driveway/dealership etc. None of the car features have anything to do with how the cars ended up where they ended up at. It's love fora specific car or interest on a specific feature or need for a specific horsepower that makes a person get a specific car. And so it is with the ones we love... Maybe I'm short and I want my other to be tall to be different or maybe short like me to mutually enjoy our height. I wish I could define true love but it's probably all those things in a single action and so marriage to that person symbolizes the bond. It also brings all the same tax benefits. Why should people only have Toyotas or Fords, if they want both, give them both. Heck if they want two small cars, a van for the kids and a truck for the weekend rally (WTF is that?) that's fine. Let them! They paid for the vehicles. Similarly, if you want a lovely person or an ugly one or a tall or skinny or fat or thick or strong other, let us! There's nothing wrong about it and it's only our business. There's nothing between me and my loved ones where any of us care to know what your opinion of us might be. You, the government, are just an asshole getting in the way. Like a dating app... An asshole who wants 50 cents getting in the way.