Conservatives push to overturn same-sex marriage: "Just a matter of when"
Summary
Conservative lawmakers and activists are pushing to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver declared, "It’s just a matter of when."
Some legislators, like Oklahoma Senator David Bullard, are introducing bills to challenge the ruling, while Justices Thomas and Alito have signaled interest in reconsidering it.
Though most Americans support same-sex marriage, the court’s conservative shift is concerning.
The 2022 Respect for Marriage Act ensures federal recognition but does not prevent states from restricting same-sex marriage if Obergefell is overturned.
https://www.newsweek.com/conservatives-push-overturn-same-sex-marriage-2034733Open linkView original on lemmy.world849
Comments218
That hits divorce, IVF, and IUI for heteros as well
There is no trace of Jesus Christ flavoring in whatever the fuck those "christians" are practicing. Even Satan is into punishing the wicked. These motherfuckers reward evil.
I agree, there is no Jesus is those ideas. Unfortunately, there is some Peter and Timothy. :( I’ve been reading the New Testament on my own as religious exploration. I’ve enjoyed who Jesus is, but his disciples represent more of their times.
Thanks for that note. I’m reading it first hand without much supporting text.
I encourage looking into how some of the more rigorous traditions interpret it all once you're done. Catholicism in particular has some valuable ideas such as the non-overlapping magesteria of science and religion. The basic concept of which being that if the Bible says something that science counters it was likely metaphorical or a more primitive understanding, as the point of it is to convey spiritual truth and not scientific or historical fact.
I left Christianity myself due to theological disagreements, but there are many paths up the same mountain and I wish you the best of luck in your seeking
Yeah, it was a blast hearing the priest preach around Jesus' words during sunday mass. He died for our sins, now let's cherrypick his teachings to justify ours.
Mmmm holy infant so tender and mild 😋
It's like maple flavoring versus real maple syrup. It's just a cheap imitation pretending to be the real thing superficially only
It's the false prophets and antichrist of revelations. That's their whole thing, using the aesthetic of holiness to convince Christians away from the teachings of Jesus. On their foreheads they wear a symbol of their devotion to the antichrist.
I'm not a Christian and I think revelations was a really bad trip influenced by a fascistic wave during the early Roman empire, especially considering what a shitshow the Julian dynasty was. But still I don't see any good interpretation of their religion that doesn't damn Christian nationalists
You say that, and yet transubstantiation. Jesus flavored wine and crackers every Sunday.
Well, you have to understand, she's much, much, younger than he is, nearly a child, she can't possibly know what she really wants. She's 17, he's 50, just the arrangement Jesus approves of, ask any Republican geezer and he'll tell you.
"You will live as we tell you to"
Yep, that's the goal. Only the wealthy, who are otherwise protected from the arm of the law, will be the only ones who are not just chattel for the workhouses.
They need more workers? Impregnate more women via IVF, with the "economic exclusion" that will be crafted into law, that only applies to the workplace. Why worry about divorce when your master is choosing for you? Too many workers to feed? UID, ordered by your master.
They control everything for the working class, even the reproductive cycle. Even love needs to be removed from the equation. 1984 laid out the "why" for it all.
Adoption, in many cases, contributes to a situation where pregnant people are coerced into giving up their child. It's a problem most people don't want to hear about, though, like most problems primarily faced by women.
Not all cases though. So project 2025 is going to be pretty damaging even in this area.
TBH I just know about this because of people I know who've given up children for adoption. Mirah Ruben's The Stork Market looks like it covers a lot of what they talk about basically, but I haven't read it.
There are a lot of things that I was raised to believe in a liberal society, like police being good for everyone, America being the good guys, communism being bad; and of course later I learned that it was not as it had seemed. For me, learning about the harm done by the international adoption industry was also one of those eye-opening moments. Fundamentally, it's an industry with little oversight and which has an incentive to acquire babies from people in a rough spot in life, because the middleman makes a profit; that this incentive exists should give you pause, if nothing else.
How has this realistically altered my worldview? I now think adoption ought to be considered a duty or perhaps a privilege, but not a right. In other words, nobody should have the absolute right to have children just because they can't conceive them in the usual way. I also think that adopted children should always have the right to know who their birthparents are and to reach out to them or their next of kin. I also think there shouldn't be an international adoption industry, or at least it should have vastly more oversight. For what it's worth, this is quite a centrist position compared to the more radical viewpoints of the people I know who have given up children. (They tend to think adoption is wrong in all cases -- though that's generally for a certain definition of "adoption" which basically means "erasure of the birthparents.")
Anyway, I don't particularly desire to argue about this back and forth, so I won't. Maybe you think the people I know are naïve for being salty about choices they made as teenagers that they regret now. That's what I thought at first. If you call bullshit, ok, but I hope that next time you hear about this issue from someone else you'll be inclined to give them a listen at least.
(Is it homophobic to say that you don't have a right to raise children if you can't conceive them? Perhaps. If it means anything, I'm gay myself; but I also don't have any interest in children, so that doesn't really matter either way.)Edit: tree_frog has convinced me that I shouldn't have mentioned that this wasn't about adoption in same-sex marriage specifically, since apparently that just makes it sound like I'm secretly homophobic, and also small-minded apparently, so please ignore that I guess.I'm not sure how to respond to any of your questions. Does the fact that my argument looks like propaganda to you invalidate the argument? Should I have not touched on homophobia at all, despite it being relevant?
As for leftist cred, I've said it elsewhere but I'd consider myself only about 50% leftist, and <50% liberal. Sorry to disappoint.
I don't really understand what's small-minded. It's small-minded to say you don't have the right to raise children if you can't conceive them? I would think small-mindedness is normally associated with not thinking critically, but given that I changed my mind after -- ah sorry, that will sound like propaganda again. I'm not sure how to argue here.
Btw, I'm not okay with project 2025, and I am sure that they will do only harm here. But Hitler painted dogs, and I won't condemn painting dogs. I'm not going to back down from my belief that the adoption industry is harmful just because project 2025 wants to end adoption. I don't even want to see adoption ended entirely, as I said; so yeah I don't agree with project 2025 even in this area. Do I sound less like propaganda now? Or does trying to sound less like propaganda only make it worse.
Edit: Ah, I get it now. You are annoyed that I mentioned I'm gay. Yeah I mean, I try to avoid playing the minority card to win an argument usually. In this case, I thought people might think I'm just being homophobic, and was trying to signal that my beliefs about adoption have nothing to do with adoption in same-sex marriage specifically. But, yeah, point taken.
Anyway, if you want to argue about pointless stuff like this, yeah, sure, I mean, I'll bite. But if you're going to be asking me for specific data relating to pregnant people being coerced into giving up their children, I'm really not terribly knowledgeable so you aren't going to learn much more than what I've already said. I mean, I can pester my friends for talking points, I guess.
And finally, edit 2, just because it bothers me: this is lemmy, this is the 2020s, please, stop assuming everyone on the internet is a man.
edit 3: no actually, I'm just stuck on this "propaganda" thing. Is there some magic shibboleth to prove that I'm actually speaking genuinely? Is that not a general-purpose argument against anyone who happens to disagree with you? Or, like, do you personally have such a narrow Overton window that you literally think that anyone who disagrees with you on one (1) matter must be secretly a plant for your furthest political rivals, and the fact that they have included other sentiment which looks like an ally's only proves it's a false flag? "Shit -- she just said she doesn't agree with project 2025. She must be lying! Don't ask how I know."
For the umpteenth time: I don't support project 2025! Why would you even think that? I do think adoption in some cases is okay. Being queer has nothing to do with whether or not adoption is okay. Project 2025 has nothing to do with my feelings about adoption. I have mixed feelings about surrogacy, but if it's for friends I believe it's okay. I'm not an anarchist anymore, I'm more authoritarian these days -- after all, I do think there should be an authority stopping people from polluting the planet and coercing pregnant people into giving up their children.
Can you please remember the human and not assume that someone who disagrees with you is arguing in bad faith and is intentionally using evil tactics or a "concern trolling" bot?
I do not know how to be more clear about me not supporting project 2025, me supporting queer people, and me understanding that not all cases of adoption are the same. Like, I feel like almost every sentence I have said is about one of those things, in support of that thesis. It is as though you are imagining I have said things entirely the opposite of what I have said.
International adoption yeah that's definitely absolutely fucked. I will say I think it shouldn't be a right per se to be allowed to adopt, but I do think that adoption agencies should have grounds on which they aren't allowed to discriminate.
Oh yeah for sure. By "nobody should have a right to adopt" I didn't mean "only some people of certain demographics should have the right to adopt."
Gonna need a source on those "many cases" of coercion, I'd like to hear about it.
My supervisor is a hardcore trumper - and also a lesbian who proudly talks about her wife. Nothing that is happening now is good, but it will at least be a little amusing to hear her "but the leopards weren't supposed to eat my face!" lamentations.
Any LGBTQ person that voted for Trump deserves what they get. I have no sympathy for a person that can’t do the most basic google search and has no interest in bettering the world for other people.
The only reason most people voted for Trump was Money or Immigrants. Two of the most selfish reasons.
don’t forget racism
plenty of racist gays, how they manage to rationalize it i don’t know but I personally know a few
throw in a large helping of self hatred
That's a weird thing I've seen in my life. Of the 5 most loud, vocal Trump supporters I know, 3 are lesbians. It's weird.
The leader of Germany's Neo Nazi Party is a woman dating an immigrant woman. I don't fuckin get it
Maybe what they all have in common is wanting to be the lone exception to all the suffering others of their kind will go through. Some sick joy found in being a lone survivor.
Yeah, but in the long view, they'll just be the last victim, most likely.
Let me guess - TERF?
No, she hates black people. Like REALLY hates black people.
Ahhhh yeah that tracks
Yeah.. she’s fucked. I wouldn’t be surprised if they anull every non-hetero marriage. And sadly, all the faces eaten by leopards will be of little consolation to those hurt by this.
Maybe that's the long game. There are worse ways to get out of a relationship.
And then they will come after them for back taxes or something.
She'll just blame Democrats and the left, somehow.
I actually know a few people in LGBTQ who voted for Bronzo the Clown. Have not heard their reactions to how things have been going since he took office.
Meanwhile a ton of conservatives are closeted gays
If they can't be openly gay and comfortable in their own skin, no one can be. I fucking hate Republicans.
foot tapping echo gets louder
"wide stance".
I once heard an old trans prostitute talking about her time in the 80s. As her friends and chosen family were dying en masse, she had a client who was an anti gay politician. She said how she once asked him why he was doing such things if he was the sort of person who'd seek out a trans sex worker in the 1980s and become her regular, and his response was that if he didn't do it he'd lose his election and someone else would.
At the same time you had in the 50s Mccarthy getting teased in the senate for being gay while running an anti gay purge of the government.
Idk. I've long held that the reason that so many conversion camp operators wind up coming out eventually is that we wind up drawn to doing the dirty work in service of ideologies opposed to us for a variety of reasons such as self hate, the need to prove we aren't like them, etc.
This is all anyone needs to understand on the subject. They don’t give a shit about what the majority wants anymore- as they’re making it known far-and-wide that they are no longer employed by us. They’re employed by themselves.
They have a fairly large group that isn't going to change their votes either way. Then, they have another group that actually might stay home, but things like this motivates them. They don't have to care about the parts of their base that aren't going to change their mind.
Uh, yeah. They overturned Roe vs Wade, also supported by the majority and Republicans and Democrats. They don't give a shit what The People want...
More people need to see this comment.
Yep. They didn't give a flying fuck about public sentiment on the right to abortion, either.
christian terrorists strike again
So ... when are they going back to legalising child marriage and removing divorce?
They’re already working on it.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/no-fault-divorce-advocates-fret-vance-ban/
I love how none of them ever had grandparents that got "divorced" before no-fault. You know what you did a lot of the time before no-fault if you wanted out? Killed your husband. Wives, when they were forced with a situation where they couldn't simply leave the state/country, would just poison their spouse. In the early 1900s, when your wife was often the one who was at home all the time, preparing all your meals, it was INCREDIBLY easy to do in a way that looked like "oh well he just kept getting sicker and sicker".
Lack of no fault also meant you often had to lie about your spouse in order to get a divorce. Sometimes these lies were agreed to by the spouses beforehand, sometimes they were not.
Clocking in!
Child marriage is already legal. We don't have to go back to that.
No-Fault divorce is already on the chopping block.
'Til death do us part' is gonna be the only option soon, just an FYI for my peeps in abusive relationships out there.
Well there is a clause in there.
Child marriages were never banned in the US. Hell, the GOP has been pushing to lower the age of consent from 18 already, and carving more and more pedo loopholes into the law.
Like, it's not being a pedo, if you raised her from aged 4 (ie, child from previous marriage), and married her at 16, because "She loves Daddy so much!". Or, it's not being a rapist if you're a good swimmer. And, well, divorce... That's pretty hard for some women, in some states, already.
Holy shit. This is fucking huge.
This is fourth reich shit, non-hyperbole. The definition of "First they came for the communists..."
What do you think will come next? Banning interracial marriage? Banning divorce and women having bank accounts? Or banning speaking anything that is critical of the regime.
People need to start freaking out about this right now, not when they're already on the otherside of ghettos and barbed wire fences.
Of course it is. Did you ever believe that it would stop at trans people?
It has been like that when they first agitated in favor of bathroom and sports segregation, but many let it slide because they were all cis-genderist inside.
If only some trans advocates had warned that the anti-trans movement threatens the core of fundamental freedoms... Oh wait they did, but we called them nazis for not catering to our cisgenderism.
So yes, we reach the point where they also come for the gays, and of course they will come for women and black people. They have let on this shit very publicly.
I only sometimes history did not repeat itself sooo sarcastically.
TL;DR We told you so. Now join the resistance.
Well, they are probably going to come for the birth control and sex toys next.
But if they come for interracial marriage, I bet Clarence is going to be one of the most pikachu-faced motherfuckers (besides Peter Thiel?) on the planet. He thought he was one of the GOOD ones. Turns out they never approved of him OR his marriage...
Also, I want to add - this is not that huge, at least in the sense that it's not at all surprising. I'm pretty sure Trollito and pals signaled they wanted to end Obergefell, as well as decisions on contraceptives and sodomy. Technically, a blowjob is sodomy. I wonder how many cishet men know that? I also don't think it will be enforced for any of the insiders. I doubt the Sodomy Police are going to kick in the doors of fElon's house when he's getting a beej from one of his baby-mamas.
The only thing that is the least bit surprising (to me, anyway) is how many people ignored that this is who and what the cons really are. They are not for freedom. They hate people exercising their freedoms. They think THEY should decide who marries who. That THEY should decide how family planning is done. And that THEY get to decide what sexual encounters are allowed. And that THEY get to decide even how many dildos people own.
Also: what kind of pervert concerns themselves to this degree about what consenting adults do? It's sick.
im betting THomas will be estatic when she can get rid of his wife, also thiel can just flee to NEW ZEALAND with his hubby.
The rate they're going, we won't need to wait long to find out.
Don't forget separate areas on the bus and theatre for coloured folk. Gotta regress fully.
Banning? No, probably not; Thomas' wife is white. (As is Thomas, aside from his skin color.) OTOH, they'll probably say that it's up to the states to allow it or not, and whether or not they want to respect the interracial marriages performed by other states.
You really think the rules will apply to the ruling class?
That'll require some very entertaining twisting of the full faith and credit clause, or do you think we'll be well past the point where they even go through the motions to pretend to have a legal rationale for anything they're doing by the time this happens?
I couldn't even make a semi-coherent claim as to how Alito, Thomas, Goresuch, Barret, and Kavanaugh (with Roberts tagging along) would toss that out, without also tossing out a ton of other stuff. Then again, Those six justices haven't always been making coherent arguments for their ideologically-aligned decisions, so...?
hitler only took 53 days to gain full control of germany,.
Imagine being so gay that you sit around thinking about gay sex.
I don't have to imagine it
What office are you going to run for?
I dunno something gay
Office of missionary for the sole purpose of procreation probably
Chairman of the Federal Department of Cum Guzzling
DOGE?
Department Of Guzzling Ejaculate? Explains why they've got Big Balls working there. Somebody's got to be the supply side.
My god. If Elon could read he'd be dead from that one.
So, Focus on the Family?
We're already on the south shore of the Rubicon for me. The line of no return has already been crossed. Add this to the list of why this regime must be stopped.
GOP delenda est.
All while pretending to be libertarians.
While Libertarians spread the "both sides" false equivalency and mark 'R' on their ballots...
"Gay marriage violates the nap somehow" like they've already been doing that for abortion
"Liberty Council" seems to take away liberties. Yup. That sounds like conservatives all right.
Very "Ministry of Truth" of them.
If nothing else, qons can always be counted on to take meanings of words and employ them in ways that are not the meanings normal people have.
Take for instance, their use of the terms and phrases: liberty, freedom, patriotism, small government, and political correctness.
These are the exact same types of assholes that would think nothing of putting a motto like "Arbeit macht frei" on a goddamn concentration camp.
And after that I'm sure inter-racial marriage will be next. Fuck these people
And Thomas would vote to repeal without a second thought.
In his concurring opinion on Dobbs (eliminating constitutional protection for abortion), Thomas wrote:
This is basically a list of precedent cases he wants the court to revisit. The conspicuously absent case is Loving v. Virginia, which is what protects interracial marriage. There's also a pretty obvious reason why: he's in an interracial marriage.
They’re speed running to mandatory married missionary under the portraits territory.
“Sodomy” in an executive order soon.
Gay marriage seems inevitable and just the start.
Next up: Interracial marriage.
The US is being run by regressives.
Then slavery.
We already have this, anyone seen our penal system?
Don't need to go that far. Most Americans can't quit their job for fear of loosing medical coverage.
I'd calm that indentured servitude with a couple extra steps.
California voted whether or not to abolish prison slavery this past cycle. They said nah 🙃
"I don't know how you think things could get worse for LGBT folk in the US than they currently are!" - Very Useful Idiots, 2024
Dear LGB Drop The T losers
You played yourself, they were never concerned about "my kind" appropriating "your kind", they were never after us, they were always after you, we were just in the way.
First they came for the Trans people...
First they came for the communists.
When you sell yourself out as a lapdog, don't be surprised if you end up reaping what you sow.
They were after all of us. We wouldn't've been spared by not being in the way
You would have been stronger together, though.
That's why most of us have stood together yes
By being "in the way", I mostly mean society had moved on from "The Gay Debate" and was now onto the "Trans Debate"
The Conservatives needed to end the "Trans Debate" in their favor, even if by force moreso than actual public opinion, before they could turn back time to undo the "Gay Debate" ended in a way they didn't like
I hate this country. My loving marriage has far more right to exist than these ghouls'
Agree entirely on the value judgement but it's not a right if a single party can remove it.
It should have been written into the damn constitution with an ammendment along with bodily autonomy for women. But that would have taken some guts and foresight by the democratic leaders.
Now it's too late.
That's the thing about rights.
There's no such thing as a "God-given right." Rights are earned by fighting. By bloodshed and tears. And they're lost once again by complacency.
An amendment would have taken 38 state legislatures ratifying it. There aren't 38 state legislatures likely to pass ratification of an amendment that guarantees a right for any two adults to marry without exception and also guarantees a right for any woman to terminate any pregnancy without exception at her will.
That's probably tied for the lowest odds any hypothetical amendment has of being ratified.
Thankyou. I didn't realise quite how difficult it would have been.
So sad that things so obviously harmless and bettering for humanity can't get anywhere near that 76% support in the richest most privileged nation the world has ever seen.
Humanites high water mark is decidedly low considering the potential.
Oh well.
My understanding is that constitutional amendments also take a high bar to pass with 2/3 of states agreeing to the proposal and 3/4 ratifying. Given the issues getting even more basic things through the Senate/House I could definitely see this getting blocked by red states.
Two routes to amend the Constitution.
Note the key thing here: Republicans have been pushing hard at the state level for decades, and 2 is why. If ever 38 state legislatures are red, they can more or less arbitrarily rewrite the Constitution to their will regardless of what the remaining states or anything at the federal level has to say about it.
I'm worried about Loving v. Virginia, at this point!
I believe Clarence Thomas and his wife are so corrupt that he will literally vote to end interracial marriage- including his own.
Well, I mean, that's one way to get a cheap divorce, no?
Apparently you just throw an RV at him and he'll do what you want. Someone should throw an RV directly at Clarence Thomas.
RV's are hard to throw. I suggest dropping it from a great height instead.
Woah woah woah there. You said the k word. We're simply trying to get CT the RVs he clearly needs just to get by, in an efficient manner.
The joke is he's being bought for fucking cheap. Expensive for me, sure, but for oligarchs buying every facet of our government with their pocket change, not so bad.
Clayton Bigsby divorced his wife because he won't be married to a n-word lover.
Those restrictions never apply to the ruling class. The purpose of the law is to protect but not bind them, while binding yet not protecting the working class.
I wish the media would stop saying 'conservative' and start saying 'fascist'.
Obvious it was coming but that doesn't make it hurt any less.
… I said, wiping his load from my eye.
The American people need to rise up, just a matter of when.
When did the Germans rise up?
The Spartacist rose up way too damned early and got a solid chunk of what could've been resistance elements murdered. Including folks like Rosa Luxemburg who told them it was stupid and too early.
They were operating in the context of the ashes of World War 1 and disintegrating empires. The total collapse of centralized authority and subject nations forming governments independently can hardly be considered 'too early'.
Considering it 'too early' in the sense that roving bands of monarchist paramilitaries were still running amok unchecked and (then legitimized by the government?) Yeah, bad time for all who didn't support Prussian hegemony.
I meant it in the second context, the Freikkorps out numbered them and were functioning as a de facto branch of the Weimar government. Combine that with the fact that the revolt happened when the Weimar Republic was at its strongest and well it was ill advised.
Its also argueable that the slaughter of the Spartacists and leftist in general paved the way for the Nazis. While I dont buy into it I do suspect that if the Sparatacists couldve been a massive boon to the German Resistance later on.
Also I will point out my bias, I do not think direct confrontation is generally all that effective unless its defensive in nature. I believe in absolutely abusing asymmetry when attacking someone. Thusly all my opinions on such actions will default to the idea of abusing asymmetry.
That I think isn't quite the case. The uprising occurred in the time period after the Armistice and before the 1919 elections. The Weimar government prior to the 1919 elections existed solely on the legitimacy inherited from the Kaiser. The Spartacists were extrajudicially executed a week before the elections. The constution wasn't written until the following summer.
The problem with newly born governments is that their weakest periods can often times be their strongest periods since they are liquid and more adaptive.
Just to use an example of what I mean, the modern United States will most likely collapse in on itself due to an over reliance on legalism and folks like Musk and Trump who just ignore it. On the otherhand had Musk and Trump somehow existed back during the founding years of the United States they wouldve been tared and feathered if not just outright shot.
Just more government fingers in places they shouldn't be from the party of supposedly small government.
I just love the hypocrisy from republicans. They preach smaller government, but are always the first in line to take rights and freedoms away from those they dislike.
They may tell you otherwise, but their actions say they want to govern based on their own warped "Christian" ideals.
MAGA needs to unfuck themselves, and remember that this is a secular nation. You may not like who someone loves or that they worship a different god, or no god at all. Guess what? It's none of your damn business. And it certainly isn't a basis for treating people differently.
Republicans are either too stupid to understand the hypocrisy or actively engage in it specifically because they enjoy trolling.
Conservatives with a semblance of coherent thought are Democrats.
Anyone that actually understands the system knows both parties are right of center and left is basically a boogie man with no real-world presence in the US.
More than anything else, their inability to perceive the friction between these stances is what frustrates me the most about conservatives, and convinces me that all their supposed "values" are just the high sounding words they use to justify various forms of bigotry and control.
Another amazing contradiction they never manage to grasp lies among the subpopulation of MAGAs that call themselves libertarian. I had a right-wing friend that freely professed libertarian viewpoints for years. Railed against the government for even getting involved in social issues. Now, like many of the rest of em, he's one of the biggest apologists for reproductive care restrictions and reigning in the press...
I'm not sure if it's the hivemind or they just really can't stand a world full of differences they have to endure.
i know 1-2 asian tubers i used to followed like that. one is a sht for brains when turned full maga and anti-vax , he celebrated trump winning but congragulated NEVADAS "ABORTION RIGHTS" STANCE. i was saying in that sub of thier channel, which is it? do you support trump who is probably going to rubber stamp abortion bans or do support anti-abortions? and the other ones slightly more clever, is called liberterians by his fans, but hes so low info like the other dude its embarrassing, and immediately call things woke when it contradicts his rants. also being asians that you are and supporting maga is pretty "disrespectful/disgraceful to asians", i can understand vietnamese for being the way they are with maga, but you being "other asians" which are almost always a butt of a joke when referring to race,and having almost no influence in hollywood, unless you play a asian stereotype, and almost hold no political positions at large state or national level. in general because asians do not like to ruffle the feathers.
The gop, putin, fox, and right wing media has gotten them in such a knot that they cant untie themselves. they almost became selfware with luigi, when MSM dint realized by blasting him 24/7 was actually hurting them.
Waaaahhh! Someone is different than me so they should be banned
🤣🤣🤣
many of the the gop men are in sham marriages anyways, they have to project somehow.
This but unironically.
Yeah because it matters who you marry.
No tax breaks for the gays*
*unless they're billionaires
It's much worse than that. Jim Obergefell's case was based on him not being allowed to see his dying husband. If anything happens to me and I'm seriously injured Obergefell v Hodges means my wife will be called and allowed to make medical and mortuary decisions for me instead of those responsibilities falling on the father who hasn't spoken to me since I came out of the closet a decade ago.
If they aren't stopped, it's only a matter of time before women won't be able to own property, take loans or have credit in their names, and maybe even have bank accounts in their own name. Only men will be able to file for divorce. etc, etc.
Right. Any kind of fiscal autonomy means any uppity women are a flight risk and they need to be brought to heel and kept within states that enact the most draconian laws. And we certainly cannot have them getting any ideas about booking flights to other countries...
I've pretty much given up hope for the American people ever growing a spine and standing up for themselves, but if there's one thing I still believe can make things start happening it's if gay marriage is outlawed.
Though I will prepare myself to be proven wrong. That hasn't failed me before.
It'll go the same way it went for abortion. Red states will get worse while blue states stay more or less the same, which will prevent libs in the blue areas from mobilizing effectively to protect minorities in the red ones.
This, Roe V. Wade was the ultimate test, it was repealed and America went "Oh no.... So anyway"
Edit: Which means they failed
I think at this point, organization efforts should be focused on evacuation and relocation of people from red states to blue states. Let the people who voted for this shit face all the inevitable consequences, and get the people who will most be in danger when Balkanization happens somewhere safe. They're already killing trans people, it's just gonna get worse.
While I agree with this sentiment.
I'm hoping there's an actual change with a plan, not just 100 Luigi's for every 1 CEO
It's okay because uncommitted are patting themselves on the back.
In fact they'd probably go, "Harris would've done the same thing!" lmao.
I'm still seeing them saying it here on Lemmy, in fact. Still blaming the Democratic Party for things and choices that they themselves chose to make.
And all because the Democratic Party did not give them a perfectly pretty, pretty pony.
Unfortunately uncommitted voters would not have changed the results pretty much at all. The representation in the voting population is a highly significant percent of the population as far as statistics are concerned.
If there was 100% voting then statistically they results would be identical to the point of no changes considering the sample size of people who did actually vote versus the whole population.
Wrong, just wrong.
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-11-15/how-many-people-didnt-vote-in-the-2024-election
36% of eligible voters did not vote. That's more people than voted for Trump.
I don't think you understood my point when it comes to statistics and significance. I wasn't talking about how many people didn't vote, I was talking about how the people who did vote is a monumental sample size for the entire population. So if the entire population did vote the outcome would be very similar to what the sample size predicted with their actual votes.
Still mathematically incorrect, I'm afraid.
Your point isn't valid because "people who voted" is certainly not a random sample but it is also not an unbiased or stratified sample of the population.
It's very plausible indeed that (for example) democratic leaning voters were jaded and stayed home whilst republicans were excited about the disruptive influence their guy mightt have.
Your sample contains no eligible voters whatsoever in the stayed-home category and it's heinous extrapolation to assume that your proportion extends into this group with markedly different behaviour to those in your sample, especially when the percentages were so close in any case.
Using your logic, I could do a hypothesis test with a tiny sample of hundred voters and get my margin of error under a SL of 5% and claim statistical significance, because if I excluded people who voted in person or people who voted by postal vote, I would get strikingly different outcomes. Thus, if voter preference is correlated so markedly even by method of voting, it's absurd to suggest that there's no correlation over fact of voting.
By your logic (statistical significance irrespective of how non-random and non-stratified a sample is), no pre election poll could ever be wrong.
Statistical significance isn't the same as truth. How representive and free from bias your sample is are two things that are critical to the validity of your conclusions.
Well sure but there are many niche groups who when aggregated together could've put us over the top. I just have to highlight this particularly group that so clearly shot themselves in the foot and should, ostensibly, know better. Trump supporters I can even understand more.
The taliban isn't welcome anywhere, even if they're white.
I've seen way too many lifted trucks with silkscreened AR-15 pattern rifles in the shape of a cross to believe this for one second.
Log Cabin Republicans:
surprised_pikachu.jpg
any lgbtq+ and soon to be interracial ones too.
Anybody have any idea what'll happen to those of us already gay married?
Initially just the rights gained by it removed. Any tax benefits, recognition of dependent status, military spouse stuff etc etc.
Later a list will be created and distributed.
The public will be encouraged to refuse service to openly gay people. From there it's a quick ride to imprisonment and reeducation until it's similar to Saudi Arabia. Then who knows.
I have a gay friend who's in a long term relationship but not married. Given when he and his guy got together, I half expect the reason is worries that having his orientation be a matter of public record might become a serious liability in a potential future that is reasonably likely.
I can't imagine the fear I'd have in their situation. I'd probably do something similar.
Though if we've learnt anything from history it's that their friends and co-workers will out them to the booted thugs at the drop of a hat anyway.
So maybe I'd go for the 'flame while I can' approach.
He's in about as safely a blue state as they come, his circle is generally very progressive, and he works for a liberal/progressive leaning employer. He's about as safe as he can be, all things considered.
I however live in the reddest of red states that used to be safely blue and would consider leaving if it weren't for my folks and my wife's folks being here and needing help.
At least we're probably pretty safe from the worst of it until the targets get down to people with medical issues.
doesnt SA, also expel gay people and "denounce thier citizenship"
Well with this administration, reprogramming camps, a.k.a. forces labor camps are on the table. So is deportation, erasure, and ''where did they go? I have no idea what you mean? Who could possibly say? They just disappeared I guess!''
probably trying to abolish the right to marry same sex, or illegitimize the married already?
You might want to seriously consider moving to a country less hostile towards gay people.
if only were that easy, most wont give you a citizenship fast tracked , if your not in category like: being a SCIENTIST in a in demand field, or uncommon specialty in a MD.
or the other somewhat easier, is marrying someone in one of those countries, asap.
The American people are going to skin them alive and redistribute the wealth of their doners.
"Just a matter of when"
I've spent a lot of time about thermite catapults that retract into a small bed pickup topper.
State's rights means that if they can take away slavery then we can take away gay marriage.
Capitalism is slavery so america runs on slavery.
They can't handle "just a matter of men".
wow! What a rollercoaster ride
The stun lock proceeds
Marriage is a religious ceremony. The state should have nothing to do with it. This is the problem with mixing the state religion with theistic religion. Fuck the social and monetary benefits bestowed on those who participate. This kind of religious bullshit should be entirely removed from the state's system of violent coercion.
Marriage is a contract, not a religious ceremony. Being married carries a ton of legal benefits and rights that most people aren't even aware of.
There's a reason you have to see a judge and not a priest to get divorced.
Marriage is not a "contract". The legal benefits and rights that you mentioned aren't possible with just a contract between the married couple.
...so what, you do the ceremony and God just says "Thou shall now file thy taxes together"?
My same-sex marriage ceremony occurred in a judge's chambers, nothing religious whatsoever. My husband and I are both very much atheist and would not have allowed any religious bullshit in our marriage.
It's more accurate to say that the IRS allows us to jointly file taxes once married. If we're unmarried the IRS wouldn't allow that. The benefit of filing jointly isn't granted because of a "contract" between my husband and I, the benefit was already there and waiting for us to become eligible by getting married.
Ah, sincere apologies, I believe I mixed up who I was responding to.
No worries!
What the actual fuck are you talking about? The rights I mentioned aren't possible just because a priest says so. The contract is what makes them possible.
I didn't say anything about priests. No priest involved in my same-sex marriage. I'm not addressing religion at all here.
Legally, marriage is not simply a contract between the two married people.
For example, hospital visitation. If marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between my husband and I, how could it possibly compel a hospital to allow my husband to visit me if I'm hospitalized? The hospital didn't agree to anything in our contract, so how else are they compelled?
My entire point is that marriage has legal benefits that go far beyond what a mere contract between two married parties can possibly grant.
The legal benefits are provided by the marriage contract. The papers you sign at the courthouse to declare you're legally married are the contract.
How is a hospital legally bound by a contract, which they didn't sign and doesn't mention them, to allow my husband to visit me?
The answer is that they aren't. They are bound by federal regulations to do so, not by the content of any marriage paperwork.
I think there may be some confusion in this thread between marriage contract and marriage license lol.
Fuck off. My marriage happened in a judge's chambers without the slightest whiff of religion, as we're both atheist.
...yeah this isn't happening. Cry all you want, that shits in the constitution.
I saw that episode the other week. Don't know when it came out, but very accurate.
Oh to be so young that you don’t remember gay marriage being illegal
Roe v. Wade. I don't need to say anymore
It most certainly is not and only hinges from a SCOTUS decision from the Obama era
Roe V Wade does not have constitutional precident. Oberfell v Hodges does.
Care to explain where in the constitution that gay marriage is protected?
Relevant excerpt: "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The amendment was not properly interpreted prior to 2015. It would be nearly impossible to change the interpretation at this point because it would need to be changes from "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws" to "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws; except for gay people"
There is nothing to overturn. This is not the same thing as Roe V Wade; which arguably did not have constitutional precident. Its clearly written in the 14th that all within the juridstiction of america are to have equal rights. 'Less there's a fucking coup, that's not changing.
In short; marriage is constitutionally protected as a fundamental right, and the 14th amendment establishes that all laws apply to everyone within the jurisdiction of the united states equally, regardless of background.
Marriage is also not constitutionally defined by gender, so there is no precedent to say "marriage is defined by the joining of a man and a woman" or anything along those lines, because marriage is not constitutionally defined anywhere. DOMA was thrown out because its unconstitutional; not because it was the right thing to do, just as Roe v. Wade was thrown out because it was unconstitutional; not because it was the right thing to do.
Naive of you to think the SCOTUS needs any sort of legally logical reasoning. They quite obviously do not. Stare Decisis means very little to this court.
The US Constitution? It most certainly is not
In order for the Constitution to be meaningful it must be enforced. Who will enforce it if the two other branches of government don’t?
The SCROTUS already has ignored black letter law in the 14th amendment referring to participants in an insurrection.
Lol
Have you learned nothing? If these morons don’t like it, it’s going.
Dude, they want to decree all gays as pedos and give them the death penalty.
And you're going, "they can't do that! That's illegal!
Seriously?
Even the most devout cultists understand that culling 7% (and rising) of the population in a country with a negative birth rate is a bad move.
EDIT: I must admit, this reply has been living in my head rent free, and I have a lot more to say about it:
Are you aware of how much the death penalty costs? It is on average $3,000,000 for the state to execute someone (legally). Assume for a second you are a billionaire oligarch. You've cut taxes for you and your billionaire friends and raised them for the working class. Now assume you have 7.1% of the population that earns a roughly 10% higher wage on average (please note that although the median household income is lower than average for lesbian couples, both women do still make roughly 7% more than heterosexual women, as the gay wage gap exceeds the gender wage gap)
Now, although this percentage of he population produce more income, they are still firmly generally working class. So what do you do? Obviously you'd try to make it so they can't marry so you can collect more from them in taxes; you wouldn't fucking spend your tax dollars to murder them, that makes no sense.
They're evil, they aren't stupid.
They're evil, and absolutely yes, they're fucking stupid. They aren't gonna go to all the trouble of a fair trial and appeals, they just want to kill whoever they want, when and where they find them.
I just don't see it; the only thing these fucks care about is money. They have the working class where they where they want them, and randomly assassinating its members is the easiest way to get people rioting.
I know I would be.
They randomly kill members of the working class every single day, and you barely even notice.
Except....
COVID-19.
1 million+ dead. And they were OK with that.
Have you read the constitution?
Have you?
Relevant excerpt: "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The amendment was not properly interpreted prior to 2015. It would be nearly impossible to change the interpretation at this point because it would need to be changes from "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws" to "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws; except for gay people"
The 14th amendment should have covered gay marriage from the get-go; and I seriously don't see how you could argue that it can be restored to its prior; clearly wrong, interperitation.
There is nothing to overturn. This is not the same thing as Roe V Wade; which arguably did not have constitutional precident. Its clearly written in the 14th that Americans are to have equal rights legally. 'Less there's a fucking coup, that's not changing.
Ah, just how Roe v Wade interpreted the right to healthcare. Can't reverse that. It's a binding and permanent interpretation of the Constitution. Kavanaugh, Barrett both said that it was settled law, no backsies.
Abortion is unfortunately political, and therefore goes beyond healthcare. To be frank; Roe V Wade was unconstitutional. I'm not arguing that it should be, I'm simply pointing out that it is. In all honesty, there is likely more ground to completely federally outlaw abortion than there is to protect it. The same is not true of marriage, which is constitutionally protected as a fundamental right, and the 14th amendment states that no one in the jurisdiction of the united states is to be subject to laws differently based on background. Its open and shut; gay marriage being outlawed is just as likely as a 3rd Trump term. It is possible, but not under the federal government as it exists now.
Name something that isn't these days.
What's wrong? Didn't want to respond to the other 116 words?
Go fuck yourself. I provided a paragraph of explanation for my viewpoint, and the best you could muster was a strawman of the first 4 and a personal insult.
Nah, everything you said was all just staggeringly naive and amounts to nothing more than "they can't do that, it's unconstitutional!"
The ultrawealthy want us all dead or enslaved, and nothing else will do.
With this current supreme court I can definitely see them reverting to the previous interpretation. It doesn't have to make logical or legal sense when it comes to activist judges.
That's not saying they should, just a pessimistic prediction based on previous actions of this court.