BONUS FREEBIE: SCOTUS asked to overturn same sex marriage, Ken Paxton wants Beto O'Rourke in jail

Summary

The David Pakman Show — BONUS FREEBIE: SCOTUS Asked to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage, Ken Paxton Wants Beto O’Rourke in Jail

Date: August 16, 2025
Host: David Pakman
Co-Host: Pat
Episode Summary by Section

---

Episode Overview

This members-only bonus episode, released as a freebie, dissects major current legal and political developments in the US. David Pakman and co-host Pat examine Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s attempt to jail Beto O’Rourke over protest fundraising, an impending Supreme Court petition to overturn same-sex marriage, Republican efforts to ban pornography federally, and the wider right-wing crackdown on social issues under Project 2025. The episode is anchored in detailed, critical analysis with Pakman and Pat’s signature progressive perspective.

---

Segment I: Origins of the "Jewish Space Lasers" Controversy

[00:00–01:59]

• David and Pat revisit the sources of Marjorie Taylor Greene’s infamous “Jewish space lasers” conspiracy theory, following a previous show’s cliffhanger.
• Pat clarifies that Greene never literally used the phrase “Jewish space lasers,” but posted a 2018 Facebook claim blaming California wildfires on space-based solar generators funded by the Rothschild family.
• Greene has not denied making the post, only the specific phrase.
• Pakman recalls Greene’s early reputation for wild conspiracies and connects this incident to her broader pattern.

Quote (Pat, 01:31):
“She didn’t use the term ‘Jewish space lasers’ in particular… but that is essentially the gist of what she was talking about.”

---

Segment II: Ken Paxton Targets Beto O’Rourke for Protest Fundraising

[01:59–06:54]

• Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing Beto O’Rourke and his group “Powered by the People,” seeking jail time for alleged illegal fundraising tied to lawmakers’ protest walkout over gerrymandering.
• Paxton claims fundraising continued in violation of an injunction.
• Pakman acknowledges continued activity may be illegal, but questions the proportionality of jailing O’Rourke.
• Both see the move as politically motivated and symptomatic of growing authoritarianism.
• David critiques the use of legal threats to stifle political activism, arguing it should be left to public discourse, not the courts.
• Pat notes this could escalate, referencing historical civil (not criminal) arrests of fleeing legislators.
• David zooms out, observing that Republican unpopularity over gerrymandering motives drives these extra-legal measures.

Quote (David, 03:44):
“The idea that Beto O’Rourke as an individual should be imprisoned for that, based on what he said at a rally, seems like a little bit much…”
Quote (Pat, 04:30):
“It seems like it’s politically opportunistic and it’s one further step down the road of authoritarianism that we’ve seen…”

Key Question (Pat, 05:46):

• Where does this standoff end—will Texas, California, or other states follow suit with redistricting?

Prediction (David, 06:22):
“It’s slightly more likely than not that Texas ends up not doing this redistricting. I would say like 55–45 or 60–40. I think Texas ends up not doing it.”

---

Segment III: Supreme Court to Consider Overturning Same-Sex Marriage

[06:54–10:39]

• Ten years after Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court may hear a case seeking to reverse it.
• The plaintiff is Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk jailed in 2015 for refusing marriage licenses to a gay couple.
• Davis is appealing $100,000 in damages and $260,000 in fees, arguing the First Amendment protects her.
• Pakman expresses concern but predicts the Supreme Court won’t even take the case.
• Pat notes that Davis is likely the only person with standing, since “no one else has been aggrieved” by the decision.
• Both draw parallels to the strategy that ultimately overturned Roe v. Wade and note declining GOP support for same-sex marriage (from 55% in 2021 to 41% in 2025 per Gallup).

Quote (Pat, 09:04):
“They have to go to Kim Davis to present this lawsuit. We’ve long suspected this would be their plan. This is exactly what Republicans did with abortion…and ultimately they were able to succeed in overturning Roe versus Wade.”

Side Note (David, 10:02):
“…if the Supreme Court…rules the 2015 decision was wrongly decided, gay marriage is done. Any existing marriages would not be invalidated.”

Forecast (Pat, 10:31):
“Probably not this particular case, but I think it could be the first of many attempts by Republicans and eventually one could get through.”

---

Segment IV: Republican Bill to Ban Federal Pornography

[10:39–16:16]

• Republican Senator Mike Lee introduced a bill (Interstate Obscenity Definition Act—IODA) to make all pornography a federal crime.
• The bill’s definitions are sweeping and vague—potentially banning mainstream TV shows, movies, and social media content.
• Both hosts ridicule the bill’s overreach and timing, given current national challenges (federalized police, the Epstein scandal, economic worries, and migration).
• David speculates motivations might be cultural (Mormon influence), or a distraction (rile up base when economic arguments are weak).
• Pat suggests politicians pushing bans may themselves have repressed issues: “It’s always the sense I get when I hear about these sorts of proposals.” (13:30)
• They connect the bill to the right’s larger Project 2025 agenda, revealing that up to half the project’s goals—including a porn ban—are already in play.
• Both doubt the bill will pass: “You’re not going to get 60 votes for it in the Senate.” (Pat, 14:40) Still, they see it as a wasteful, performative use of legislative resources.

Quote (David, 13:30):
“Mike Lee is kind of a weird dude who always seems focused on whatever his pet projects are. And I don’t know if there is like Mormon influence over him because he’s a Utah senator…”

---

Segment V: Political Outlook & Project 2025

[14:06–16:45]

• David and Pat discuss Project 2025’s goals—many of which have already seen progress under current Congressional control.
• They forecast that if Republicans feel they won’t do well in 2026, a wave of “make people afraid” measures will appear, shifting from economic to fear-based social issues.
• Pat observes that debates over DEI (diversity, equity & inclusion) rollback may energize the GOP base but leave independents unmoved.
• They conclude that the right’s focus on pet social projects, while ignoring economic priorities, could hurt them with the broader electorate.

Quote (David, 15:17):
“…you will start to see the laundry list of sort of like, how can we make people afraid? Type of ideas. And I don’t know if the porn ban is really a reaction to something that makes most people afraid, you know…”

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• On Marjorie Taylor Greene and conspiracies:
  “She’s still conspiratorial, sure, but she’s not as crazy as she was back then.” (Pat, 01:40)
• On the nature of current Republican priorities:
  “If what Texas Republicans are doing is a great thing, then they should be able to just tell people, hey, if you oppose this, here’s what you can do…but you shouldn’t really need the force of the legal system in order to try to sway a political outcome.” (David, 04:30)
• On attempts to overturn Obergefell:
  “It took a few attempts…before one finally did succeed. So this may be the first in several attempts that we see from these right wingers to overturn same sex marriage.” (Pat, 09:04)

---

Key Timestamps

• 00:00–01:59: “Jewish space lasers” origins clarified
• 01:59–06:54: Ken Paxton targets Beto O’Rourke; political implications of protest fundraising
• 06:54–10:39: Supreme Court’s possible revisiting of same-sex marriage; Kim Davis case
• 10:39–16:16: Republican efforts to ban pornography; context in Project 2025
• 14:06–16:45: GOP political strategies heading into 2026; Project 2025 impact analysis

---

Tone & Style

The discussion is sharp, irreverent, and rooted in factual analysis—a combination that is both informative and laced with humor and exasperation at right-wing overreach. The hosts mix legal detail with personal insight and political prognosis, always foregrounding the social and democratic stakes.

---

Conclusion

This episode offers a brisk, deep-dive into how state and federal Republican actors are leveraging law and courts to advance far-right policy aims—often using cultural flashpoints or legal intimidation in the absence of popular support. Pakman and Pat critically examine the risks, strategies, and likely trajectories of these maneuvers, while forecasting increased attempts to roll back social rights and engineer political advantage through fear and distraction.

---

For progressive listeners and political watchers, the message is clear: Be alert to escalating culture war tactics, and don’t underestimate the power of persistent legal and legislative challenge—even when initial attempts seem “not likely” to succeed.

Transcript

[A]

Hey everybody. David here. What you're about to hear is an episode of the bonus show. We do a bonus show every day for our members and for a limited time, we will release one of the week's bonus shows on Saturdays exclusively for our audio podcast listeners. If you'd like to get access to all of the bonus shows, simply sign up@join pacman.com here is that bonus show episode. Welcome to the bonus show. We have a lot to talk about today, but because we sort of left yesterday on a cliffhanger of what exactly are the oranges of Marjorie Taylor Greene's Jewish space laser claims? So Pat has taken a look at this. What is the black and white sort of of where this all came from?

[B]

Oh, yes. After yesterday's bonus show, I spent the entire evening delving into the Jewish space lasers controversy, whether Marjorie Taylor Greene had said that or not. And after my exhaustive research, what I found is that back in 2018 she posted on Facebook speculating that wildfires in California were due to space based solar generators that were funded by the Rothschild family, which of course is a Jewish family. So she didn't use the term Jewish space lasers in particular. She didn't say that verbatim, but that is essentially the gist of what she was talking about.

[A]

Got it. And she is not claiming that that was like a staff post or anything. She's just claiming I never used the term Jewish space lasers.

[B]

Yeah, she says that it was years ago, back in 2018. She since moderated herself. She's still conspiratorial, sure, but she's not as crazy as she was back then. Remember when she first burst on the scene, we were all calling her the Kuhnen congresswoman. So this was before she started to backtrack on some of the more absurd claims.

[A]

All right, well, so that's. Those are the oranges of it we now know them for. Going forward. Ken Paxton of Texas is asking a judge to throw Beto o' Rourke in jail for fundraising the Texas Democrats walkout, arguing that the group was deceptively fundraising for and illegally supporting the walkout of Texas Democrats in protest over the gerrymandering fiasco in Texas. Paxton is suing o'. Rourke. He's also suing his political group, which is called Powered by the People and says that they were being deceptive. There was, there were illegal actions there. He was soliciting donations that would automatically, rather repeatedly solicit solicited donations at a rally by urging the crowd to text fight to a number which would respond to a link to donate and that they are, that this is illegal, that there was an injunction and that he wasn't supposed to be doing that, but he still did, and people were still being texted this link, and that is the claim. Now, you know what, Pat, when it comes to these injunctions, I'm open to the idea that an activity over which there was an injunction continued after the date of the injunction. That that's possible. That needs to be evaluated. But the idea that Beto o' Rourke as an individual should be imprisoned for that, based on what he said at a rally, seems like a little bit much, although I admit my understanding of Texas law in this particular area is not extraordinarily deep. This seems like a bit much.

[B]

Absolutely. It seems like it's politically opportunistic and it's one further step down the road of authoritarianism that we've seen, especially in recent months since Trump took the presidency. Again, there was already talk about putting or arresting some of the lawmakers that fled Texas. They couldn't do a criminal arrest, but they could do some sort of civil arrest. And that still very much could be in the future. So is it really an extra step to say that Beto o' Rourke could be criminally arrested over what allegedly took place here? I don't think it's a step too far to assume that that could possibly happen. My sense is that maybe they just want to do this to threaten Beto to make sure that he stops talking, but this actually could be something that's on the table right now.

[A]

Yeah. And one of the wildest things about all of this is we've talked before about how if ideas are really good or really bad, my preference is to kind of allow the free market to dictate that. And if what Texas Republicans are doing is a great thing, then they should be able to just tell people, hey, if you oppose this, here's what you can do. But if the population of Texas goes, why would I oppose this? I think what Texas Republicans are doing is great. You shouldn't really need the force of the legal system in order to try to sway a political outcome. And as James Talarico said on Fox News yesterday, what they're doing isn't popular. And so the problem that Republicans are having, and I realize I'm zooming out a little bit from Beto o' Rourke and the fundraising specifically, the problem Republicans are having is that people simply hearing about what they're doing creates a problem for them. And that's why they're going through all of These extra measures to try to get in the way of activism that is going to say, we don't think that there should be gerrymandering in this way in Texas. That's really the problem that Republicans, Republicans have.

[B]

Where do you think this story ends? Do you think Texas will be able to successfully redistrict? If so, will California redistrict themselves? Will other states like Indiana do the exact same thing? Because right now we're in this standoff, Right. Texas is trying to get it approved. Gavin Newsom is moving forward on getting his own redistricting plan put in place. Maybe all sides could back off here or maybe everyone could start redistricting. I don't really see a middle ground though, at this point. Texas decides to shoot the first shot, then California and others are going to follow.

[A]

So my real answer is I have no idea. If I had to make a prediction, I think it's slightly more likely than not that Texas ends up not doing this redistricting. I would say like 5545 or 6040. I think Texas ends up not doing it.

[B]

Yeah. The only issue is people would have to back down. These very proud Republicans who feel emboldened, who know they're in a position of power right now would have to willingly say, let's not do this. And they would need a way to save face if that was the case.

[A]

Yep. So we will see. But I guess if I had to bet one way or the other, that's kind of where I would land on it. Here is something that is so not surprising, something we predicted in the least shocking headline ever. Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same sex couples nationally, the Supreme Court justice this fall is going to consider whether to take take up a case that is asking them to reverse that decision. Remember that there is this woman, Kim Davis, the former kooky Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for six days when she, as far as she considered courageously refused to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds. There was $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damage and a $260,000 verdict for attorney's fees that went against her. She has filed a certiorari, a writ of certioraries, where she argues that her First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from any liability for what she did in refusing that marriage license. She says that when the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, which extended marriage rights to same sex couples under the 14th Amendment, that that was egregiously wrong. And that it must be corrected. We knew there would be an effort to overturn same sex marriage. We knew that after Trump was reelected, he got his picks last time. We knew this was direction, the direction it was going. I didn't expect it to come specifically through Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis. And my prediction, Pat, is that the Supreme Court is not even going to hear this.

[B]

Well, it's actually not all that surprising that it would come from Kim Davis because in order to present a lawsuit like this, you need an aggrieved party and, and she's probably one of the few plaintiffs who would have standing to.

[A]

That's true.

[B]

Such a case.

[A]

Because you know what's funny about that, Pat, what's so funny about that is after 10 years of gay marriage, they still don't have anyone who's been aggrieved by the ruling.

[B]

That's exactly right. So they have to go to Kim Davis to present this lawsuit. We've long suspected this would be their plan. This is exactly what Republicans did with abortion. And ultimately they were able to succeed in overturning Roe versus Wade. So this could be the game plan for same sex marriage. And maybe it's not this particular case that succeeds. I think it took a few attempts when it came to abortion before one finally did succeed. So this may be the first in several attempts that we see from these right wingers to overturn same sex marriage. And another thing that I saw is that support for same sex marriage has actually been declining among Republicans. It peaked out in 2021 at 55%. That's Republican support for same sex marriage. Now it's at 41%, according to Gallup. So Republicans really have backtracked on these social issues. They're getting more authoritarian, they're getting more restrictive. A lot of them wants to bring in a Christian, Christian nationalist point of view in our governance. And we're seeing it manifested with moves like these.

[A]

Just as, like a little side note, whatever the Supreme Court imagine the Supreme Court takes the case and rules. The 2015 decision was wrongly decided. Gay marriage is done. Any existing marriages would not be invalidated. And I, again, I don't expect it to go in that direction, but it is still something, I guess, to keep in mind. Do you also think that this is not going to lead to the Supreme Court overturning gay marriage?

[B]

Probably not this particular case, but I think it could be the first of many attempts by Republicans and eventually one could get through.

[A]

Yep. No, I think that's the concern, that if you keep trying, it's Sort of like the effort to overturn Roe v. Wade, which eventually, when they got all the right circumstances, it did end up happening. Republican Senator Mike Lee has a bill to make all pornography a federal crime. The first step pushing this forward has happened. That step is advancing the bill to committee to be reviewed. This is called ioda. Ioda, The Interstate of Obscenity Definition Act. This would be a blanket ban on pornography. It would redefine the term obscenity to mean prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion. I guess they're going to ban Twitter and it's going to depict, describe, or represent actual or stimulated sexual acts. I don't know if that's supposed to say simulated. For some reason they put stimulated. It's. Everything about this is really weird, Pat. With the objective intent to arouse, titillate, or gratify sexual desires where taken as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. So if there is porn that you could go, no, what's happening here is so interesting. It's. Scientists are looking at it, then you could be like, okay, that one's legal. But man, this is so stupid. This is just so stupid. Yeah.

[B]

And the law is so vague that it could also apply to TV shows and movies, depending on the extent to which they have graphic content. So, like, Game of Thrones potentially could be banned if this bill was to pass. I know there are always, like, things going on in the country. We can always say, oh, is this really the right time to be focusing on this particular niche issue or whatever the case may be. But you'd have to imagine with so much going on right now with the D.C. police being federalized, with Trump trying to distract from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, worries about the economy when it comes to inflation and jobs, the immigration stuff that's going on.

[C]

Why.

[A]

Why this?

[B]

Why is this the thing that they want to focus on right now? Why is this a priority for Mike Lee?

[A]

I mean, I think so. First of all, Mike Lee is kind of a weird dude who always seems focused on whatever his pet projects are. And I don't know if there is like Mormon influence over him because he's a Utah senator. And there are certainly views on a lot of these things in Utah, particularly among the Mormon community. So I don't know if that's a factor in some way, but I do think that there. Mike Lee is sort of a traditionalist in the sense of when things aren't going so well economically, try to use social issues to get people together or activated or angry. And this seems like a pretty transparent effort at that.

[B]

Yeah, that's probably right. And fair or unfair, whenever I hear about a politician putting forth a bill like this, or whenever people are really obsessed with this banning pornography issue in general, I just suspect that they may have an issue with it. Like, maybe it's something that they should be doing less of themselves, but they shouldn't try to legislate their morality and spread that across the country. Like, I get the sense that maybe he's repressed in some way and this is actually kind of telling on himself. That's always the sense I get when I hear about these sorts of proposals.

[A]

Oh, absolutely. And I guess one other thing I do want to mention, which is I've been seeing these analyzes of how much of Project 2025 has been accomplished so far. And depending on the analyses and depending on how you characterize it, up to half of it has been accomplished, which is terrifying. But Project 2025 does include a pornography ban. And so I guess in that sense, to answer the issue you brought up, Pat, which is like, why is he doing this? Why now? Sort of thing, it is. It is a priority, not a top priority of Project 2025. It's in there.

[B]

Yeah. That suggests if they've already accomplished 50% of what they want to do, then they can now focus on the other 50%. For the remaining time that Trump has control of all of Congress before the midterms come up, then they certainly have plenty of time to do it. So, of course, I don't think that this bill is going to pass. You're not going to get 60 votes for it in the Senate. So this is probably going to be something that goes unaccomplished. But just the fact that they're dedicating resources to this issue, the fact that staffers for Mike Lee's office had to spend some time drawing up this piece of legislation, talking about the secretions and simulating versus stimulating. It's just all so wacky.

[A]

It's all completely wacky. And the question that is going to be increasingly facing Republicans, if this is, of course, if there is a sense that they are not going to do well in 2026, the question will be, what can we try to do? And very often when, you know, even if your economic record isn't good, usually elected officials try to say it is good and they try to defend it. But if it really starts to seem as though this is not going to go well for them next year, which at this point we're only 15 months from the midterm elections, my guess is you will start to see the laundry list of sort of like, how can we make people afraid? Type of ideas. And I don't know if the porn ban is really a reaction to something that makes most people afraid, you know, But I do think you're going to see them start to test a lot of these different things. What can we do to try to get some traction given that the economic case to be made isn't very good right now?

[B]

Yeah, they could focus on their successes when it comes to social issues. They can talk about how they rolled back dei, for example, and got a whole bunch of universities and big corporations to bend the knee to Trump. That's going to be persuasive, maybe to the average Republican voter to get them to come back out to the polls for the midterms. But appealing to independents, that's not going to work when it comes to that group because you have to be focused on the economy and bigger issues, not just these pet projects, without a doubt.

[A]

So we're going to follow all of these ideas and see where they land. But that's, that's what Mike Lee is prioritizing right now. So good for him, I guess, even though it seems like a completely pointless waste of time. All right, we'll be back tomorrow with a new show and a new bonus show.

[C]

Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn Ads, go to Libsyn ads.com that's L I B S Y N ads.com today.