⚠️ SNARKY DISCLAIMER:

This rant is protected satire. It’s a fiery opinion about public actions by public officials and legal institutions. It does not accuse anyone of criminal behavior unless already confirmed by courts. Any resemblance to oppressive regimes is purely due to shared tactics. If you feel personally attacked, consult your conscience or a history book.

You thought we were done fighting about who people are allowed to love?

Well buckle up, buckaroos, because the Supreme Court’s most judgmental theologians in robes are back—and they’ve got their sights set on privacy.

That’s right. Obergefell v. Hodges—the landmark case that said gay people could get married just like straight people—is back under siege.

And leading the charge? Kim Davis. The clerk from Kentucky who thought “issuing a marriage license” was somehow harder on her faith than getting married four times and once to her cousin.

She’s filed a 90-page petition to SCOTUS saying her religion gives her the right to deny yours.

And conservative lawmakers are lining up like it’s Communion Sunday at the hate buffet.

But let’s not pretend this is just about marriage.

Oh no. This is about the whole buffet of rights tied to substantive due process—the invisible legal glue that lets you do stuff without Uncle Sam watching from the bushes.

And Justice Clarence Thomas? He’s salivating.

He’s already said he wants to go after Griswold. You know, the 1965 case that said married couples can use contraception.

Because apparently, family planning is too modern. Let’s go back to when birth control was a rusty thimble and a prayer.

And don’t forget Lawrence v. Texas—which decriminalized private consensual sex.

Yup. They want that back too. Because God forbid two adults enjoy themselves without checking the penal code first.

But here’s the best part—the hypocrisy icing on the constitutional cake:

Justice Thomas says he wants Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell all gone.

But not Loving v. Virginia.

You know, the case that made interracial marriage legal?

The one that protects his marriage?

Because apparently the right to privacy is evil… unless it’s Clarence’s weekend plans.

It’s a smorgasbord of selective morality and deep-fried hypocrisy.

They don’t want limited government. They want religiously curated surveillance.

They don’t want freedom. They want obedience.

They want a nation run like a megachurch with nuclear codes.

And let’s not forget the beautiful irony:

They scream about “activist judges” and then file lawsuits demanding activist decisions.

They claim to be “strict constructionists” but interpret the Constitution like it was written by their favorite televangelist and half a bottle of bourbon.

This isn’t justice.

This is a vendetta wrapped in a Bible verse and a campaign donation.

They want a future where your marriage license gets cross-checked with your pastor’s opinion.

Where contraception requires confessional.

Where you can’t marry who you love, sleep with who you want, or even be seen if you don't fit their Norman Rockwell painting of America.

You’re not defending tradition.

You’re molesting liberty.

And you’re doing it with judicial gloves and a theocratic grin.

So go ahead.

Overturn Obergefell.

See how that plays out when millions of married couples become legal Schrödinger cats.

See how your polls do when the most popular civil rights ruling of the century becomes the next cultural bloodbath.

Just remember:

You can burn down the courthouse, but you can’t kill the idea that people deserve to be free.

And if you think a robe and a gavel can outshout that?

You’ve got more faith than the rest of us combined.