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
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.
If you think gay marriage isn't political you are stupid.
Name something that isn't these days.
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.