this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2025
131 points (100.0% liked)

World News

900 readers
348 users here now

Rules:
Be a decent person, don't post hate.

Other Great Communities:

Rules

Be excellent to each other

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] KnitWit@lemmy.world 73 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Longshot as in never gonna happen, or longshot as in Roe v Wade? Because this court is Calvinball manifested.

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 35 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Second. Pretty sure we'll see same sex marriage and interracial marriage overturned or otherwise infringed upon in some way.

[–] Prove_your_argument@piefed.social 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What's next, overturning the 13th amendment?

[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

That would require the Constitution to still exist by then ...

[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

"Interracial" is getting harder and harder to define every year.

"Lemme see, you're 1/8th Asian, 1/4 Caucasian, 1/2 African, 1/8th Indigenous American.... and you wanna marry a lady who is 1/2 Asian, 1/4 African, and 1/4 Caucasian... according to the SCOTUS2025 test, neither of you are white enough or black enough to marry anybody !"

[–] grue@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You say that as if racists would consider it a problem.

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago

One drop rule. Simple as.

Don't tell them about their minor semitic, african or first nations genetic markers though. 🤫

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 1 points 3 days ago

all them could marry each other but not other whites?

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 14 points 3 days ago (2 children)

All this cause some clerk refused to do the job hired to do. This is stupied.

[–] webp@mander.xyz 8 points 3 days ago

Welcome to the United Stupids

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 days ago

Just like with student loans, allowed those uninvolved to bring the case forward

[–] manxu@piefed.social 50 points 4 days ago

I pity the person that thinks this only affects gay people and their marriages. The decision rests on the fundamental right to privacy and non-interference by government in private lives established decades earlier. In the Dobbs case, SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade and the right to abortions because they decided this right to privacy and non-interference does not exist. As a result, I expect gay marriage to fall.

But also in general the idea that you have a right to be left alone. That includes controls on all forms of contraception (the original case was about that), pornography, dating apps, consensual adult sex, sex toys, etc.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 25 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Not that long of a shot. Considering that this court just ruled that government is allowed to starve children.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 14 points 4 days ago

The court also ruled the president is a king recently so yeah, this wouldn't be a long shot.

[–] thegr8goldfish@startrek.website 22 points 4 days ago

They choose all the cases they want to hear. Why would they choose this one if not to overrule it?

[–] BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz 7 points 4 days ago

As a Log Cabin Republican I'm FINE with this Supreme Court OVERTURNING my Legal Marriage! After all I ~~Hate Myself!~~ defend my own Death?

[–] 52fighters@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I read these articles but they never state what's the argument being used. What's the argument the court would consider? That States have the right to regulate these independently? That marriage is (by inherent definition) is between opposite sexes? That public employees have a right to not participate by refusing to file forms, witness marriage, etc.?

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

that the 2015 decision was "inconsistent with originalism", aka they're just making up whatever the fuck they want, like they've been doing for decades (a hallmark of common law actually, true democracies are much better off under civil law)...and now that it looks like the tide is going heavily towards the christofacist right even more...time to start shrinking that in-group

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I think the Republican Party really got lucky with the Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage. People forget how big of an issue this was political. I bet Hillary Clinton would have won if it hadn’t been legalized.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

hillary clinton would have won if her name wasnt clinton

[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

She lost by being an insufferable cunt.

And by basically buying the Democratic nomination...

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

that too, having no self-respect and standing by a cheater probably wasn't doing any favors on the popular-front either

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

If her name wasn’t Clinton, nobody would know who she was.