News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
...yeah this isn't happening. Cry all you want, that shits in the constitution.
I saw that episode the other week. Don't know when it came out, but very accurate.
Oh to be so young that you don’t remember gay marriage being illegal
The US Constitution? It most certainly is not
Roe v. Wade. I don't need to say anymore
It most certainly is not and only hinges from a SCOTUS decision from the Obama era
Roe V Wade does not have constitutional precident. Oberfell v Hodges does.
Care to explain where in the constitution that gay marriage is protected?
Relevant excerpt: "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The amendment was not properly interpreted prior to 2015. It would be nearly impossible to change the interpretation at this point because it would need to be changes from "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws" to "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws; except for gay people"
There is nothing to overturn. This is not the same thing as Roe V Wade; which arguably did not have constitutional precident. Its clearly written in the 14th that all within the juridstiction of america are to have equal rights. 'Less there's a fucking coup, that's not changing.
In short; marriage is constitutionally protected as a fundamental right, and the 14th amendment establishes that all laws apply to everyone within the jurisdiction of the united states equally, regardless of background.
Marriage is also not constitutionally defined by gender, so there is no precedent to say "marriage is defined by the joining of a man and a woman" or anything along those lines, because marriage is not constitutionally defined anywhere. DOMA was thrown out because its unconstitutional; not because it was the right thing to do, just as Roe v. Wade was thrown out because it was unconstitutional; not because it was the right thing to do.
Naive of you to think the SCOTUS needs any sort of legally logical reasoning. They quite obviously do not. Stare Decisis means very little to this court.
In order for the Constitution to be meaningful it must be enforced. Who will enforce it if the two other branches of government don’t?
The SCROTUS already has ignored black letter law in the 14th amendment referring to participants in an insurrection.
Lol
Dude, they want to decree all gays as pedos and give them the death penalty.
And you're going, "they can't do that! That's illegal!
Seriously?
Even the most devout cultists understand that culling 7% (and rising) of the population in a country with a negative birth rate is a bad move.
EDIT: I must admit, this reply has been living in my head rent free, and I have a lot more to say about it:
Are you aware of how much the death penalty costs? It is on average $3,000,000 for the state to execute someone (legally). Assume for a second you are a billionaire oligarch. You've cut taxes for you and your billionaire friends and raised them for the working class. Now assume you have 7.1% of the population that earns a roughly 10% higher wage on average (please note that although the median household income is lower than average for lesbian couples, both women do still make roughly 7% more than heterosexual women, as the gay wage gap exceeds the gender wage gap)
Now, although this percentage of he population produce more income, they are still firmly generally working class. So what do you do? Obviously you'd try to make it so they can't marry so you can collect more from them in taxes; you wouldn't fucking spend your tax dollars to murder them, that makes no sense.
They're evil, they aren't stupid.
They're evil, and absolutely yes, they're fucking stupid. They aren't gonna go to all the trouble of a fair trial and appeals, they just want to kill whoever they want, when and where they find them.
I just don't see it; the only thing these fucks care about is money. They have the working class where they where they want them, and randomly assassinating its members is the easiest way to get people rioting.
I know I would be.
They randomly kill members of the working class every single day, and you barely even notice.
Except....
COVID-19.
1 million+ dead. And they were OK with that.
Have you read the constitution?
Have you?
Relevant excerpt: "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The amendment was not properly interpreted prior to 2015. It would be nearly impossible to change the interpretation at this point because it would need to be changes from "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws" to "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws; except for gay people"
The 14th amendment should have covered gay marriage from the get-go; and I seriously don't see how you could argue that it can be restored to its prior; clearly wrong, interperitation.
There is nothing to overturn. This is not the same thing as Roe V Wade; which arguably did not have constitutional precident. Its clearly written in the 14th that Americans are to have equal rights legally. 'Less there's a fucking coup, that's not changing.
Ah, just how Roe v Wade interpreted the right to healthcare. Can't reverse that. It's a binding and permanent interpretation of the Constitution. Kavanaugh, Barrett both said that it was settled law, no backsies.
Abortion is unfortunately political, and therefore goes beyond healthcare. To be frank; Roe V Wade was unconstitutional. I'm not arguing that it should be, I'm simply pointing out that it is. In all honesty, there is likely more ground to completely federally outlaw abortion than there is to protect it. The same is not true of marriage, which is constitutionally protected as a fundamental right, and the 14th amendment states that no one in the jurisdiction of the united states is to be subject to laws differently based on background. Its open and shut; gay marriage being outlawed is just as likely as a 3rd Trump term. It is possible, but not under the federal government as it exists now.
Name something that isn't these days.
What's wrong? Didn't want to respond to the other 116 words?
Go fuck yourself. I provided a paragraph of explanation for my viewpoint, and the best you could muster was a strawman of the first 4 and a personal insult.
Nah, everything you said was all just staggeringly naive and amounts to nothing more than "they can't do that, it's unconstitutional!"
The ultrawealthy want us all dead or enslaved, and nothing else will do.
OK Doomer.
Watch birthright citizenship; If its repealed, then sure, gay marriage is on the table; but I'm willing to put money on neither of these two things changing, because they can't do that, it's unconstitutional.
Positively crazy how this thread went from "gay marriage is not protected by the constitution" to "the constitution doesn't matter anyways". To my knowledge, the Trump administration has yet to do anything anywhere near this blatantly unconstitutional.
There are genuine things to worry about. Trans folk are being told they don't exist; women are dying in labor because they cant get an abortion; people who even LOOK Palestinian are being mercilessly assaulted, and your choosing to spend your time worrying about something that is INCREDIBLY unlikely to be overturned.
I don't have time for this thread anymore, and nor should anyone else. This is not the thing anyone should be worrying about right now; there will be signs and ample time to flee before something like this happens.
Oh, I don't think we're doomed at all. They are. Just look at the damned fools overplaying their hand. I was merely pointing out the stakes. They are existential. It's us or them, by their own account. Maybe you and I disagree about that.
Of course the Constitution doesn't matter. It's a piece of paper with words on it -- better ideas by better people have been uttered for centuries. We can, indeed we must, do better. Furthermore, it is currently sitting defenseless against a proverbial serial arsonist. But it's past its prime regardless how they wipe their collective ass with it.
I was there dude. I was a devout member of the Evangelical movement before gay marriage bans were overturned. Their reaction is one of the reasons I left. They hate the gays. You think it's just a light smattering of bigotry? It's way beyond that. Those people are in charge now. They're all cozy with the billionaires, or so they think. They want to nuke the Middle East to make Jesus come back, and they've got the red button now. They're hateful, evil, arrogant, delusional, and insane. They've been waiting for decades for the chance to get rid of the gays, and they miss the times back when they could. This is the best chance they'll ever get. Yes, they're gonna go for it. The billionaires do not give a fuck about anybody, but are happy to throw them a bone, as the powerful always do with the gullible.
But sure, theConstitution will stop them. Any day now.
I'm glad we agree on something. You might say you care about these issues the same or even more than your downvoters, but you're in denial that it can't get worse, that our enemies are "too smart" not to capitalize on keeping us alive and happy. I doubt that. We care about these things just like you, but you might take it more seriously in light of history.
With this current supreme court I can definitely see them reverting to the previous interpretation. It doesn't have to make logical or legal sense when it comes to activist judges.
That's not saying they should, just a pessimistic prediction based on previous actions of this court.