518 Comments
User's avatar
Permanently Confused@68's avatar

Do the Democrats KNOW how to "...learn from their past mistakes and start trying pass laws..."? Obama had two years with a trifecta to codify Roe into law. Yeah, I'm mad at anyone who didn't subvert this Republican pestilence... esp. with crap like "reaching across the (gd) aisle."

Expand full comment
AdmNaismith's avatar

It felt like 6 yrs before Obama finally got the message.

Expand full comment
CambridgeKnitter's avatar

No, he didn't. You may not remember how long it took to seat Al Franken, and then Ted Kennedy died. It was a few months.

Expand full comment
Zyxomma's avatar

Ta, Robyn. I'm afraid it will take more than a tube of Wella Kolestral and a heating cap to fix what's wrong with Kim D's head.

Expand full comment
GrannysKnitting's avatar

also, i wear long sleeves under tshirts in winter - i am feeling judged

Expand full comment
GrannysKnitting's avatar

ffs its not hard - no one is asking you to commit to their lifestyle or watch them have the secks! just fucking pass over the paper and go back to your fourth husband you bint!

Expand full comment
The Blessed Reverend's avatar

I don't want to watch Kim plus any one of her ex's have the SEXXX

Expand full comment
Permanently Confused@68's avatar

But how can she FUNCTION in our SOCIETY if she can't stop thinkin' 'bout de gayz?

Expand full comment
CambridgeKnitter's avatar

Someone needs to introduce her and the Supreme Theocrats to the Establishment Clause. It may be out of fashion, but it's still there in the First Amendment. Somehow, I figure they'd rediscover it tout de suite if someone tried to establish a religion they didn't agree with.

More locally, I keep trying to remind the government of My Less and Less Fair City, home of one of the seminal Establishment Clause cases, Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 (1982), that it exists.

Expand full comment
Bupkus231's avatar

"... Davis is being represented by Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel..."

What, she couldn't get Alliance Defending Freedom to take her case? Mat Staver is a Larry Klayman-level lawyer.

"...lawmakers have introduced resolutions that would create a special category for heterosexual marriage called “covenant marriage.”..."

This seems to indicate that they've abandoned their "argument: that same-sex marriage is not a real marriage - and they want to create their own kind of civil union. One would expect that if they think this will allow the introduction of religious belief, they are going to be ( once again ) sorely disappointed.

Expand full comment
TalentNotAutotune's avatar

This woman is a freak. Make all the fun of her as you want. Don't hold back.

Davis has been married four times to three husbands. The first three marriages ended in divorce in 1994, 2006, and 2008. Davis has two daughters from her first marriage and twins, a son and another daughter, who were born five months after her divorce from her first husband. Her third husband is the biological father of the twins,

*****the children being conceived while Davis was still married to her first husband.*****

NOTE: SHE BOINKED HUSBAND #3 WHILE STILL MARRIED TO HUSBAND #1 AND BEFORE MARRYING HUSBAND #3. FREAK.

The twins were adopted by Davis's current husband, Joe Davis, who was also her second husband; the couple initially divorced in 2006 but later remarried.

Expand full comment
Permanently Confused@68's avatar

She, as with many busy-body republicans (aka "all republicans") needs a hobby. But maybe this is it.

Expand full comment
Wookiee Monster's avatar

If the Supreme Court were to overturn Loving, how fast would deep red states move to outlaw interracial marriage?

Btw, I can’t believe we’re now in a position of wanting Thomas and Alito to stay on the court for another four years because if they step down, Krasnov will replace them with a pair of fetuses with even more retrograde views.

Expand full comment
Sister Artemis's avatar

What the fucking fuck....

These people and the sanctimonious bubbles they live in...

Expand full comment
TalentNotAutotune's avatar

Davis fucked Husband #3 while married to Husband #1. She married and divorced Husband #2 while pregnant with the kids from Husband #3 but she divorced Husband #3 and re-married Husband #2.

She is a freak, a whore, a hypocrite and a slut. Shame her all you want, she deserves it.

Expand full comment
Sister Artemis's avatar

not a huge fan of using the patriarchy’s language for shaming women (whore/slut). But hypocrite, no doubt, not only in how she behaves compared to what she herself slams, but in how she compares to the compassion of the Christ. Not a Christian, btw, and strongly convinced that the figure the gospel paints a picture of would never treat people like she does.

Expand full comment
TalentNotAutotune's avatar

I understand. Keep in mind though, that “whore” is a term used throughout the Bible - 15 times in the Old Testament. So calling her a “whore” is in line with what she claims to be her beliefs.

You are correct that Jesus would never treat people the way Davis does. When she is called to judgement, she might hear the words “I never knew you”.

Expand full comment
Permanently Confused@68's avatar

What words would the matriarchy have us use? Serious question.

Expand full comment
Marycat2021's avatar

I doubt a matriarchy would be so judgmental.

"Homewrecker" is another term that has to go. And while we're on the subject, can we stop using "sleep with" as a euphemism for having sex? It irritates the hell out of me. People use "fuck" all the time, but they still say "sleep with"

Expand full comment
Sister Artemis's avatar

I don’t know what words the matriarchy, such as it was, would have used. That was a long, long time ago.

But words like “hypocrite” and “liar” and “self centered pious idiot” actually focus on Davis’s problem behavior. Words like “slut” and “whore” slam her, and other women, for being sexual on their own terms. And being sexual is not the problem, as much as the old patriarchy would like to make it all about that.

Expand full comment
TalentNotAutotune's avatar

I think the term "adulterer" is the most applicable. She is certainly a serial adulterer and adultery is the only sin mentioned in two Commandments.

She has the same problem Donald Trump has when it comes to adultery.

Expand full comment
GrannysKnitting's avatar

she's an amoral weirdo busybody who has failed to live up to her so called sacred religion, that's fer sure

Expand full comment
mvario's avatar

I'd like to believe Davis wears those long sleeves in order to hide an array of Satan, Moloch, and Pazuzu tats she has

Expand full comment
Biff52 Lost Canadian's avatar

I 'member when ted cruz (FTC) photobombed one of her ops, but photographic confirmation of the event seems to have been memoryholed.

Expand full comment
Hank Napkin's avatar

Christ I hate elation.

Expand full comment
SterWonk's avatar

> Still, Democratic lawmakers should learn from their past mistakes and start trying pass laws that would keep it legal regardless of how SCOTUS swings.

Didn't we already do that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act (2022, signed by OHJB)

Expand full comment
Permanently Confused@68's avatar

Point of order: ALL mistakes are "past" ones. See also: "future plans".

Expand full comment
Dorothea is a Democrat's avatar

Also, too, fucking Texas. Changing marriage rules so that heterosexual marriages are MORE special than any other marriages. I'm going to assume they're just massively jealous at the killer weddings that gay people are having. They've revitalized that industry.

Expand full comment
Biff52 Lost Canadian's avatar

If you can't afford to rent all of Venice for three days, is it even a real wedding?

Expand full comment
Dorothea is a Democrat's avatar

"they want the Supremes to determine that it’s the state’s job to “accommodate” her religious beliefs and therefore the state’s job to pay Ermold and Moore."

That seems like a pandora's box. If the state has to pay to accommodate anybody's "self-serving beliefs," then why wouldn't they have to pay to raise a child they forced somebody to have? Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

Expand full comment
James's avatar

Because they're hypocrites. Hypocrisy is a feature of Christianity and conservatism, not a bug.

Expand full comment
Marycat2021's avatar

Apparently Kim Davis didn't realize that if she didn't like the laws her job was required to uphold, she had the freedom to quit that job.

Are Catholic judges allowed to refuse to hear divorce cases because they don't believe in divorce? Will they try to make divorce illegal?

Since when do individuals get to decide our private lives? We already have lost reproductive rights, now these hypocrites want to park their big noses into our personal lives - again.

Expand full comment
thephantomcheese's avatar

Well, we have pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control pills who somehow still have jobs, so there's precedent.

Expand full comment
Marycat2021's avatar

Not really. Pharmacists are not public officials who took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

This is not to say that pharmacists or doctors should under any circumstances be excused from providing care services to anyone, however, Trump has just directed VA doctors not to treat Democrats or single people.

Expand full comment
GrannysKnitting's avatar

if they made divorce illegal there would be riots in the streets from all the men stuck in relationships that they no longer want - especially if they also make infidelity illegal - we should totes do that, just to piss them off

Expand full comment
Marycat2021's avatar

Think instead of how many dead or maimed women there would be who couldn't get out of abusive marriages. Smh

Expand full comment
CambridgeKnitter's avatar

The kind of people who would make divorce illegal would consider those deaths a bonus.

Expand full comment
GrannysKnitting's avatar

yep - this is true

Expand full comment