Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, November 10, 2025

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a call to overturn its landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

NEW: Supreme Court rejects long-shot effort to overturn ruling that legalized gay marriage: www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup ...

[image or embed]

-- Lawrence Hurley (@lawrencehurley.bsky.social) Nov 10, 2025 at 9:33 AM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I am glad to see this decision. America is the one place on earth who should set an example supporting homosexual relationships. Too often gay couples find themselves in limbo when it comes to legal rights when one passes away or dealing with other problems straight married couples take for granted.

#1 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 01:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

Kim Davis is going to have the big sads now. Awwwwwwwwww the poor thing.

#2 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-11-10 01:59 PM | Reply

I'm amazed at what I've seen in my lifetime. I honestly never thought I'd live to witness some of these changes.

To begin with, gays in the military. In the 1970s, I saw firsthand the fear gay people lived under. The risk of losing not just their careers but their dignity and even their rights as veterans.

Leonard Matlovich would be so proud today. His case didn't change a great deal, but it proved something profound. Gay people could serve honorably and be a credit to the Armed Forces.

It was during the Obama administration that Congress repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," paving the way for the Pentagon to certify open service.

And now, gay marriage. I'm overjoyed that two men can marry and build a relationship that society can no longer tear apart.

Kudos to all who made it possible. I'll admit, I still have some concern that the secular use of the word "marriage" might someday conflict with the church's definition and perhaps lead to lawsuits that test the boundaries of religious freedom.

#3 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 02:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

A (somewhat arbitrary) victory for stare decises.

#4 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-11-10 02:21 PM | Reply

stare decises => stare decisis

I had to look it up...
"Stare decisis" is a Latin legal term meaning "to stand by things decided." It's the doctrine that courts should generally follow precedent " in other words, respect past rulings instead of overturning them.

#5 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 02:29 PM | Reply

Bill: You had to look up stare decisis? You keep up with current events? You've read newspapers for many years? You're how old?

#6 | Posted by Dbt2 at 2025-11-10 04:12 PM | Reply

"I saw firsthand the fear gay people lived under."

^
Wants immigrants to live that way.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-11-10 04:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I am glad to see this decision.
#1 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

I speak for the entire LGBTQ+ community when I wholeheartedly say, Fuck You.

You demonized and posted nothing but hate when we were fighting for marriage equality.

You don't believe we deserve equality.

You kept saying we would regret pushing for marriage equality.

We should be happy with unions.

That America would turn on us.

You just recently argued we had no right to marriage.

Do fuck off.

You stupid fucking bigot.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-11-10 04:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

Db,

My wife is one of the most well read, educated people I've ever known.

Reads constantly smart stuff. Currents events, spent years doing all sorts of research and she's never seen "stare decisis".

Not much into legal terminology.

#9 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 05:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Clown,

If you're going to accuse me of saying things, at least get it right. Understand what I mean.

What I said was in reference to the Christian bakers who did not want to participate in a gay marriage for religious reasons. Not the gays but the product and service they wanted.

What I said was, if the intent is to have a gay wedding in a religious context, it would be a mockery for some Christians. Me included.

A gay marriage in a secular setting is different.

My main concern has been insuring the word "marriage" has no religious meaning when performing the wedding for a gay couple.

Leave churches alone and not sue for discrimination or believe gay couples have any rights in churches that do not believe gays can marry with the same religious meaning.

My concern is the eventual law suit brought by a gay couple claiming those churches are discriminating against them when the issue is the type of ceremony, not gay people.

The courts got it wrong with the bakers and I am concerned the courts will get it wrong again.

How's that. Is that clearer now.

#10 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 06:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"What I said was, if the intent is to have a gay wedding in a religious context, it would be a mockery for some Christians."

Here's the part that doesn't add up for me.
Do you have some kind of right to not be mocked?
Why is it the government's problem if someone makes a mockery of your religion?

Does this make a mockery of your religion?
Should government stop this?
"he Episcopal Church in the United States adopted canonical and liturgical changes in 2015 to allow same-sex marriage, with new marriage rites available under the discretion of local bishops."
en.wikipedia.org

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-11-10 06:36 PM | Reply

My main concern has been insuring the word "marriage" has no religious meaning when performing the wedding for a gay couple.

Your main concern is making sure homosexuals aren't allowed to consider their marriage sacred based on the teachings of your religion?

Then don't indoctrinate children into Christianity before they have had time to determine whether they're attracted to the same gender or opposite gender.

I'm sure by then no one will care whether your book club accepts them or not.

Deal?

#12 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-11-10 06:41 PM | Reply

Can we still get rid of interracial marriage though?
--Clarence Thomas, probably

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-11-10 07:04 PM | Reply

Clown,

"Your main concern is making sure homosexuals aren't allowed to consider their marriage sacred based on the teachings of your religion?"

Religious freedom means you can consider your marriage sacred till the cows come home.

There's no shortage of more liberal churches that will participate in the facade.

And, some churches might even regard it blasphemy.

No one is telling you what you must believe. Just don't believe it in my church.

You went on the offensive with me so I'm making it perfectly clear lest there be any doubt what I believe.

#14 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 07:09 PM | Reply

Clown,

"Then don't indoctrinate children into Christianity"

Religious freedom means I can teach the faith to anyone willing to listen. Thats how freedom works.

I could even try to "indoctrinate" you, but you seem too smart to risk hearing the Good Word.

So just keep your kids away from places they might encounter it like churches, Christmas, or anyone who still believes in God.

#15 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 07:19 PM | Reply

Religious freedom means I can teach the faith to anyone willing to listen.

By the same token, religious freedom means if a homosexual couple was raised Christian and wants to be wed by their religious beliefs, they are free to do so and no one can prevent them from doing so.

#16 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-11-10 07:25 PM | Reply

Clown,

You got it.

Just not expect the church they grew up in to marry them if that church doesn't condone it.

#17 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 07:29 PM | Reply

I'm amazed at what I've seen in my lifetime. I honestly never thought I'd live to witness some of these changes.
#3 | Posted by BillJohnson

Me too. I never thought the nation that defeated the nazis would decided to embrace fascism not even a century later.

I never thought I'd see so many "christians" passionately embrace a leader who is the literal opposite of everything their religion teaches.

I never thought I'd see so many broke morons electing a billionaire con man to make them MORE broke and shoveling their money into the pockets of the rich.

I never thought I'd see someone attempt a coup in the USA and then go totally unpunished.

I never thought I'd see the return of diseases like measels, but this is how stupid your party has become.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-11-10 07:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

if that church doesn't condone it.

What gives that church the right to deny the homosexual couple their religious beliefs?

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-11-10 07:30 PM | Reply

Clown,

"What gives that church the right to deny the homosexual couple their religious beliefs?"

If you have to ask that question, everything I just wrote went over your head. I won't bother explaining it.

You're much denser than I thought.

#20 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 07:44 PM | Reply

You haven't explained why one person's religious beliefs should trump another's.

Go for it.

#21 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-11-10 07:47 PM | Reply

Clown,

"You haven't explained why one person's religious beliefs should trump another's. Go for it."

It would take all night and I don't have that much energy.

#22 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 07:53 PM | Reply

Whoever put "funny" flags on post #1 should turn in their membership to this site.

You are a disgrace to anyone who professes to believe in gay rights.

#23 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 08:24 PM | Reply

"Whoever put "funny" flags on post #1 should turn in their membership to this site.
You are a disgrace to anyone who professes to believe in gay rights.
"

At first I didn't, but then I read your #23 so I went back and did so.
Read the parable of the Frog and the Scorpion to understand.

#24 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2025-11-10 08:45 PM | Reply

Just not expect the church they grew up in to marry them if that church doesn't condone it.
#17 | Posted by BillJohnson

Nobody is expecting that.
The thought of that happening by government force exists only in your head.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-11-10 08:52 PM | Reply

Just not expect the church they grew up in to marry them if that church doesn't condone it.
#17 | Posted by BillJohnson

Great. The Churches can exclude people but they have to pay taxes.

Why should I subsidize your religion?

#26 | Posted by Sycophant at 2025-11-10 08:56 PM | Reply

"What I said was in reference to the Christian bakers who did not want to participate in a gay marriage for religious reasons."

Does my Jehovah's Witness postal carrier have to deliver my medical prescriptions, or does he get an exemption for religious reasons?

How about my desire to hire Canadians: do I have to pay minimum wage if I promise not to rule over them ruthlessly?

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-11-10 08:58 PM | Reply

"The Churches can exclude people but they have to pay taxes."

Fair deal.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-11-10 08:59 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort