this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
395 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19105 readers
3170 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The conservative justice indicated support for a code of conduct similar to the one that applies to lower federal court judges.

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett indicated Monday she would support a code of conduct for the Supreme Court in the wake of recent claims that some justices have fallen short of required ethical standards.

Speaking at the University of Minnesota Law School, Barrett said it would be "a good idea for us do it" and suggested that the justices are broadly in support of a set of principles similar to those that lower court judges are required to follow.

"There is no lack of consensus among the justices. There's unanimity among all nine justices that we should and do hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards possible," she added.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's not even that rare.

My buddy married a completely normal woman, but to get married in her family's church part of their ceremony had to include her swearing to God that she'll obey her husband no matter what.

They didn't take it seriously, but lots of her church take it literally. Women are still just property in their sect of Christianity. And the biggest part of marriage is transferring "ownership" from father to husband.

[–] captainlezbian 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Jeez, I didn’t even make that strict of an oath when I married my fucking Domme! Sometimes people are wrong in an emergency or you have expertise or ethics that you can’t explain to the person due to time or ethical expectations of privacy. As humans we need to maintain a responsibility to disobey anyone in certain circumstances.

Conservative Christians take their lifestyle bdsm too far and need to stop pushing it on others

[–] givesomefucks 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah, it's not like it was just part of the vows either.

It was it's own like 5 minute thing, and once it was done, then they were allowed to exchange vows to get married.

But she had to swear to obey him first.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA 4 points 1 year ago

Oh hey I thought the cult I grew up in was the only one doing shit like that. Nice to know!

[–] captainlezbian 4 points 1 year ago

I think that’s worse. Jeez

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lifestyle bdsm? I haven't heard that one before but I like it. I don't consent to being a part of this.

[–] captainlezbian 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah like they make similar vows to us when they marry, the difference is ours are done with consent, understanding of the real world, alternatives available to us, and no gender based determination of role.

Like when I’m not busy being disturbed by the fact that some guy has so much power over my country because his dumbass sub is a Supreme Court justice, it’s kinda funny how aggressively they never see the similarities.

[–] agent_flounder 4 points 1 year ago

It's fucked up. The verses are right there in the Bible commanding obedience of wives to husbands, so anyone who leans more literal / fundamentalist is going to follow them.

And then you get religious leaders telling abused women to remain in the marriage and continue being abused, no concept of sexual consent between husband and wife, etc.

This is what happens when your religion is based on antiquated, misogynistic social mores from two thousand years ago.

When women are treated as equals, not only does nothing bad happen (god zapping people from heaven, plagues, locusts, Satan dancing around in glee or whatever the fuck else), but things improve for women and relationships are far better, too.

Anyone who thinks treating women as equals is Wrong™ and spells eternal damnation desperately needs to do some very deep, harsh self-reflection to determine how they have become so twisted.