legal team pushes to overturn 
Obergefell, citing Dobbs decision
https://www.wuky.org/local-regional-news/2024-07-24/kim-davis-legal-team-pushes-to-overturn-obergefell-citing-dobbs-decision
Top Poster of the Day:
AverageTopPosterEnjoyer
Current Registered Users: 26,823
Welcome to the Marsey News Network, the official news hole of rdrama! This is where you post anything that happened on the news. Politics, general news, good news, any new in any topic that doesn't have it's own hole from any source is welcome! However, if you post an unreliable source, it may be flaired appropriately. Wingcucks welcome and slapfights encouraged!
Rules:
1. Follow sitewide rules
2. Post News
3. Have Fun! Don't be boring.
4. No chudrama-tier content. Rightoid news sources are allowed, but anything that belongs in chudrama or could get the site deplatformed will be moved to chudrama.
5. @DarkDeity and
@Spiderman has the right to post whatever news they want in this hole
6. Be nice.
/h/mnn LOG /h/mnn MODS /h/mnn EXILEES /h/mnn FOLLOWERS /h/mnn BLOCKERS
Live commit: 5f32edd
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
i am unironically mad about this. the homos, while sometimes annoying especially the modern day ones, are completely deserving of marriage just like anyone else and the fact that they're probably about to have that taken away is complete bullshit
EDIT: it appears my comment here has invoked some arguing which makes me happy
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
First, gays can still get married if gay marriage is outlawed libtard.
Marriage is fundamental to procreation and therefore society. It orients couples towards creating healthy families and raising the next generation through public vows of commitment.
Gay marriage is merely a celebration of monogamous sodomy, a gross perversion of both the ideal hetero and homosexual lifestyles
!chuds
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
!gaystapo !augustlovers
Whos gonna tell him
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Read the whole sentence LIBTARD!!!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Reading
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
That doesn't even make sense, and is such a non-sequitur.
If the religious right would just delineate from marriage between heterosexual and homosexual by saying "Marriage is a religious ceremony that is reserved for the faithful, but civil unions are cool so you can go see your dying partner or get tax breaks." That would have solved both issues and would have wrapped up the gay rights debate. Transgender shit might not have had the power to take off at that point.
But at every turn y'all turned gay people into a wedge issue without answering questions like "What is a religion?", "How does a religion qualify to be one?", "Why is the state in the business of regulating religious ceremonies?" and other cool things like "What happens when Muslims, a widely accepted religion, want to have polygamic relationships?".
But no, instead of thinking hard about it y'all got mad at homos trying to be more normal, and alienated generations of younger more tolerant people away from religion, God and such. Not even because Christianity is favorable to gays, it's not and no one is trying to coopt it here, but more like "How is it the Christian lifestyle to regulate gay people from doing what they want, but we're going to ignore divorce laws, tax precedents, and actively go out of your way to make your neighbor's life miserable with no substantial change to your life, beliefs and such?"
A society cannot claim to be religious if there's a million different religions varying on core doctrines and on the totality of things, none of them agree on anything.
Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
!chuds this is literally how libtards argue
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You don't need to make a religious argument to appeal to religion. Catholics do this all the time. "DAE RVTRN2TRADITIVN?" or whatever.
That's an example of a religion (Catholicism) appealing to people non-religiously through an appeal to culture/tradition.
There is no argument against gay people enjoying civil unions between two men or two women other than some mouth-breathing "DAE HATE GAYS?".
Your religion is implied, but your moronic deflection is explicitly wrong.
Also since it's opposite day I'll ping !nonchuds
Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I did a poopy
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Yep,
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
sweaty its the gays who weren't content with civil union
"we want what they have " mentality
ur right that christoids should never have let the state coopt the concept doebiet
if the legal thing wasn't called "marriage" in the first placl, the religious argument wouldn't work
that being said gays are also making their neighbors lives miserable (by contributing to population decline)
so it makes sense to discourage it at the societal levl
because as it turns out you don't get to just do what you want all the time and be part of society only when its on your terms
everyone has to sacrifice something to fit in and contribute
gays are but a facet of a growing cohort of people who can't form a cohesive society because they refuse to conform even slightly
I do what I want to. on my own property , by my rules.
but I understand that when I step out amongst my fellow man, I have to play by theirs.
if I don't do this, I am ostracized and shunned. rightfully.
moralstrag libtoids are the worst of the worst: the cruelest enforcers of their own ruleset, tearing lives apart at the slightest moral infraction
and simultaneously the purveyors of an ideology that says to minorities and foids: "Not only do you get to do whatever you want all the time, but regular people aren't allowed to judge you for it"
because they (although decreasingly) have the power to wield their morals over that of normies, at least online and in cities. and police them for trying to police normality
thus spreading abnormal and disfunctional ways of being, more than would naturally occur
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
BIPOC doesn't remember cute twinks screaming about civil unions being discrimination
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Your pulitzer's in the mail
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Thanks bruv.
Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Is this copypasta yall?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
i dont understand why the government is even involved in marriage. The concept of it is religious and were supposed to have separation of church and state.
!slotsmb100
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
To divorce r*pe men
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
This isn't really true and you know it. While religion plays a role in some marriages, they are also legal contracts. Obviously the government is going to get involved in legal contracts. Plus when this chick refused to sign a marriage certificate or whatever she wasn't impeding a religious rite, but a governmental function.
You can play r-slurred semantic games about the definitions of words if you want (very liberal of you to do so) and demand that the government reword all of its existing laws to replace "marriage" with "civil union" but that's a huge undertaking for no benefit and is frankly just r-slurred.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
before modern times, marriage was something you did in a church. Chirches being involved is whybgaus couldnt get married for so long, bc being gaybis against the church beliefs.
Then the government should trwatbit like any other legal contract. The concept of marriage and the way family courts work is wildly diffwrent than the the way courts handle legal contracts. A great example is judges arbitrarily throwing out legally executed contracts like prenuptual agreements, or arbitrarily splitting up assets absent such a contract. This isnt semantics. The purpose of marriage is fleeting in the modern world, particularly the government being involved. Marriage serves nonpurpose in the modern era and the governmenr shouldnt be involved. If people want to make legal agreements about what happens after they break up then thats what that should be, rhe concept of marriage licenses and divorce court is insane and makes no sense.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah no shit, back when virtually everybody followed a religion of some sort major ceremonies were tied to religion.
Sure, we can both agree that prenups should be treated with more "respect" (legally speaking) than they often are. Not sure what this has to do with gay marriage though.
If you personally hate marriage so much then don't get married (I doubt you are currently). You don't have to. Yeah yeah common law marriage is a thing but typically it requires that you act as a married couple and its purpose is to prevent a situation where one side thinks they're married but they're not for some technicality (forgot to cross a T somewhere).
A government office refusing to certify a marriage license (legal contract) because the person doing it thinks gay people are icky is an r-slured thing to defend.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
i dont hate it,b I just dont think the government should be involced in it. If people want to make a legal contract in writing between each other it should be treated as any other contract. Also the government should certainly not be subsidizing married people.
im not defending it, in fact im saying the government office shouldnt exist in the first place. I dont need a license to start a business partnership, why would should people's fricking partnership be any different?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Whether or not you pay more or less taxes when you get married has to do with the relative income of the spouses. In cases where each spouse earns decent money, the amount they pay generally increases, not decreases.
Most married couples prefer to combine finances because it's much easier that way. They view their marriage as being part of a two-member team to complete the various challenges of life, and having to keep meticulous track of money flowing between them would be an absurd hassle.
Now maybe you don't want to do that. Fine. But you're the minority here, and arguing that the option shouldn't reasonably be available to all the normal people is r-slurred.
Weird I remember my family business registering with the government on multiple occasions for all sorts of things. Acting like the government is completely out of the loop on all business affairs is even more r-slurred than your other takes.
I don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore. Realistically, what benefits are there for the government completely pretending that marriage doesn't exist and leaving all married couples to fend for themselves with their own bespoke legal agreements with each other? It's not like this particular function of government takes up a significant portion of the budget or anything. Having all the agreements be separate probably overall increases legal costs - to couples AND to the state (court proceedings would get more complicated). You won't be saving money. As far as I can tell, the only benefit would be you can say "gay people can't get married". Seems dubious tbh.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
outside of that specific example, turbotax makes it sound like couples pay less in tax on average and avoid taxes in many circunstances like with inheritence.
https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/marriage/7-tax-advantages-of-getting-married/L1XlLCh0m
absurd hassle? Companies, general partnerships, llcs etc do exacrly this all the time and wirh more people.
this isnt about what I want. Its about how I think things ought to be. Also please dont be racist.
there are plenty of corporate/business structures that dont require filing with the state(a general partnership for example). Also filing with the state=/= getting a license.
write a contract if thats improtant to you in a loving relationship.
family courts are wildly backed up and expensive to fund, butt go off
i strongly disagree, divorce court is far more convuluted/unpredictable/not straightforward than matters involving simple contract law.
I think it would save money, and thats not what I said. My aegument is that the government shouldnt be able to decide what qualifies as a marriage and that it should just be a social thing that people do. If people want to male a legal contrsct/estate plan to go over what happens in the event of a break up then they can hash the terms of that out in court, butt the government shouldnt asign the concept a special status.If anything this is a pro gay marriage argument and that the government shouldnt have been able to resteict gay marriage in the first place as they shouldnt be regulating it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah if there's a significant disparity in income married couples tend to save money on taxes. This includes if one spouse just... doesn't work at all, which is very common, even today.
There's a reason why "married filing separately" gets penalized so hard, and why married couples usually file jointly. You'd wind up with odd situations where ie the husband earns a high income but the wife is literally on welfare and collects money from the government, even though the husband could totally support her. This goes beyond simple income taxes. For example, it would include ACA subsidies.
For another example of being penalized by marriage - when one of my friends got married, his wife's mandatory income-based student loan repayment shot up. You see she's a teacher and doesn't make much money, he made a lot more money as a software engineer. Her loans are gonna get forgiven after 10 years (PSLF) but she has to pay the minimums for that. Because they got married, she has to pay more than double the amount into her loans before they're forgiven.
Anyways, you're missing the point here. It's simply not feasible to demand that every married couple keeps all their finances separate. It's not going to happen.
And they'd be even worse if every case was a hodgepodge of random bullshit thrown together.
I think what you're really missing here is that marriage is more than just filing jointly for taxes. It's basically a big legal bundle of stuff - from joint finances, to tax-free inheritance (I don't think you realize this but without this, it means if someone dies, their spouse could be evicted from their house because they have to sell it to pay estate taxes, obviously most people think that's a bad thing). Also includes stuff like visitation rights, more reasonable (joint) income-based repayments on student loans, etc. It's a big bundle of stuff that the vast majority of couples want all packaged up in a relatively easy way. And if couples had to arrange for bespoke marriage contracts including all these details they'd still have to deal with the government for some of the details, especially stuff like shared social security benefits.
The current status quo is literally that almost any two humans can be married, potentially with the exception of direct family members depending on locale. Seems reasonable to me. Some conservatives think the government should have more of a "say" in this, such as denying it to gay couples. Most liberals think the current state is fine as-is. You're actually unique in thinking that the government should have no hand whatsoever in marriages/civil unions/whatever you want to call them. It's an extremely rare belief because it's r-slurred. I'm sorry bb but I'm just calling it like it is.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
its to protect the fragile foids, so that the law can put its long hard bbc up your butt when you mess up
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Homos can't get married because thats not what married means. Thats like saying children should be allowed to be fish, its not a thing.
Everything the rightoids in the 1980s said would happen as a result of gay marriage being legalized has happened. The obvious solution to this is to become a rightoid so you will be on the rightoid side of history
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I'm pro civil unions.
Follower of Christ
Tech lover, IT Admin, heckin pupper lover and occasionally troll. I hold back feelings or opinions, right or wrong because I dislike conflict.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
The normal gays have the
s and queers to thank
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Wasn't there a federal law passed after RvW was overturned to enshrine this into law?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
no
!slotsmb100
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/13/biden-s-codifying-same-s*x-interracial-marriage-00073762
Congress codified it. I don't think the supreme court could over turn that very easily
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
well then why are they worried?
!slots123
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Fear mongering is very popular on the internet
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I literally can't fathom caring this much about the gays buttfricking each other while being married instead of just being forever partners.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
i dont get it either. I just like watching the seethe thats being generated.
!slotsmb200
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Snapshots:
https://www.wuky.org/local-regional-news/2024-07-24/kim-davis-legal-team-pushes-to-overturn-obergefell-citing-dobbs-decision:
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
https://old.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1ebdldc/kim_davis_legal_team_pushes_to_overturn/:
undelete.pullpush.io
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context