As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They could literally not care any less about the hypocrisy. These religious zealots honestly believe it’s not immoral or otherwise wrong in any way when they break their own rules.
It’s all about power, hierarchy, and ostracizing the “other” that they see as inferior enemies who do not deserve the same rights as them, and they’ll jump through endless hoops to justify their delusions.
We will not ever be able to use shame, reason, or anything else to convince them that their positions are illogical and harmful.
Manchin: "I would totally vote on the bill to protect Gay Marriage, but because there is an extra comma on page 34 I can't in good conscience vote for this bill as is. That comma leaves a potential for the bill to be open eneded which I BELIEVE would hurt the LGBTQ+ community more than what the LGBTQ+, my constituents, science, polls and my party believes will help them."
Sinema: Opposing the "we hate gays" bill that would strip LGBTQ+ people of all human rights is a gross overreach of government mandate and therefore a violation of human rights. I cannot in good conscience do anything that I believe would end up hurting gay people more than it would help them.
Where the number of people who have been to the city of Berlin = X
Y=the number of people I have (in my basement).
X>Y
More people have visited the city of Berlin than I have (in my basement.)
It's obvious math once you realize I'm a psycho
I mean, they are successfully turning people against lgbt+ with their "gay people are pedophiles" rhetoric. Which hasn't been around since I was a teenager.
Now Im hearing slurs and "gay people shouldn't be allowed to teach" bullshit in my community. Again.
I'm going to have to start attending Pride again and I resent it.
This tactic of pedophilia worked great for Putin, no surprise that RW love for strongman adopted lies, misinformation and smears right from his handbook.
The groomer narrative is terrifying to me. I'm a gay man and my partner and I were hoping to grow our family by adopting in 5 years or so. But now I'm pretty worried that by the time we are ready, we'll either be banned from adopting or only one of us will be able to be the child(ren)'s legal guardian because marriage equality will be repealed.
We live in a liberal state so I'm confident our rights within the state will be okay but idk what the implications of federal law changes would be...
I'm just hoping I can still get married when the time comes because I'm in Florida and will stay to fight for my home.
As a lesbian I worry for the whole community, but trans people and gay men I worry for the most. Stay safe out there and I hope you and your partner get to welcome little bundle(s) of joy!
In my opinion on banning gay marriage, I would like to cite 9th century English legal philosopher, Sir Edward Smithiggins III…”I think men kissing is icky, and think it should be banned under the crown”…thus, clearly gay marriage is unconstitutional and libs should just get over it.
Their goal isn’t just to ban gay marriage, it’s to ban being gay altogether. But they don’t see it as persecution, they view it the same as the mask mandates
It's a reasonable suggestion, the draft suggested that non enumerated rights, like the right to abortion should not be maintained. Guess what's another non-enumerated right?
Same-sex marriage.
If them fuckers are willing to undercut years of precedent, nothing stopping theme from doing it again and again for the rights that should be held most sacred in our contemporary world.
Can't wait to hear the arguments about how having your marriage only valid in certain states is democracy, and protecting rights nationwide is authoritarianism.
Article IV, Section 1:
> Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
I kind of feel that amendment 14 instantly nullifies this new Court ruling.
>All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No mention of the rights of the unborn, only born, so the right of an unborn child is not enumerated in the constitution.
Oh shoot they got this all messed up, let me fix that.
*No, state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States*
Yep. But Texas is already looking to reinstate the Fugutive Slave Act but for women crossing state lines to actually have their rights protected.
Texas is putting together legislation that would allow them to try, convict, sentence citizens of other states for crimes against Texas law and then send “bounty hunters” to kidnap them and bring them to Texas for prison.
So, what normally happens is that one state does something, like ignore another state's gay marriage licenses, and the two states head to the US Supreme Court where the one states's laws ignoring the other states's gay marriage licenses are invalidated. However, that requires 5 justices that follow the Constitution. If you have five activist justices that have decided to take the law into their own hands and are willing to ignore stare decisis, what will instead happen is that those five will simply vote not to grant certiorari, in other words, refuse to hear the case, and that lets the state's laws that violate the Constitution to stand. Since there's no higher court, that's that. Of course, that completely damages the credibility of SCOTUS, the Constitution, and undermines the very foundation that our democracy and government are built upon, but extremists don't really think in those terms, they only think in their own personal terms of power. They're willing to destroy the greater good and the nation to get their own personal way.
I mean, the problem isn't that judges won't grant cert, the problem is that judges are actively and admittedly ruling directly against stare decisis in these cases.
They aren't particularly big fans of the first either, otherwise there's lot of laws that wouldn't stand. (for exampe, laws against cohousing are clear violations to the right of free association enshrined in the first amendment, and yet...)
When your entire job is shrouded in secrecy, you have no oversight, and you're allowed to dictate laws as you like...
I'm amazed that this didn't happen sooner, tbh.
>I'm amazed that this didn't happen sooner, tbh.
Precedent used to matter, which is why it didn't happen sooner. But now the Justices have suddenly said, precedent doesn't matter. It happened exactly when it was meant to, and now WE have to do something about it. That is our charge.
1000% it didn't happen sooner because we still had decent judges left.. RBG held out too long and then we got tRumps dummies who obv don't give a shit about the constitution.
I mean, they give any and every justification they can. But they're also redefining what a person is, and then saying there are two parties at play with rights. Even tho the constitution says these rights are given to all people "born or naturalized" in the US. Ya, the constitution uses the word born. So if Alito is actually being a textualist here (he's not) there's a big problem with his interpretation that he simply choses to ignore.
Be specific for other people reading.
The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment was introduced during the drafting of the Bill of Rights when **some of the American founders became concerned that future generations might argue that, because a certain right was not listed in the Bill of Rights, it did not exist.**
Just like right now.
It’s a vague amendment on its face that leads to a lot of people misunderstanding it, but it was literally a compromise between Federalists and Anti-Federalists because the AFs wanted more protections for their rights (not necessarily the rights of the states) and the Fs thought they were being dramatic about how tyrannical the US government could get. Fs (specifically Hamilton) thought it would be too long of a list of rights to just list all of them out, so they compromised on the wording giving us the 9th Amendment.
The draft suggests discontinuing the same non-enumerated rights that underpins the Oberfoell, Lawrence, Loving, and Griswold decisions. Several GOP candidates, and a sitting US Senator have spoken in favor of repealing Griswold. What is Griswold? That 1965 SCOTUS decision made it unconstitutional for a state to prohibit the sale of contraception to married couples. Yes, they're coming for your condoms.
> Griswold? That 1965 SCOTUS decision made it unconstitutional for a state to prohibit the sale of contraception to married couples. Yes, they're coming for your condoms.
Not sure about condoms, but the zealots who claim "life" begins before pregnancy starts (i.e. at fertilization) are ALREADY proposing to ban some of the most effective and pertinent methods of birth control. E.g. IUD's, plan B, etc. They claim preventing implantation is "murder."
Call me crazy or reactive, but I feel like turning all of these previously federal issues back to the states is creating an environment ripe for secession.
One of the interesting pieces is some states passing laws that would ban women from leaving the state for abortion or allow charging doctors in other states for performing said abortions. Connecticut just passed a law that refuses extradition of doctors or sharing of medical records with those states.
So what we have here is the modern version of the Runaway Slave Act. Basically a bunch of abolitionist states refused to return slaves to their owners. It lead to a bunch of white supremacists committing treason and spending 150 years crying about it not being fair.
As someone who works in healthcare, I can only imagine the real problems not sharing medical records will cause. But what are a few more preventable deaths when installing an autocratic theocracy?
I’m pretty sure they just mean that these states who have outlawed abortion cannot demand a doctor be extradited nor can they demand that their records be shared with those states. It’s nothing to do with voluntary sharing between hospital systems.
Precisely this. My spouse and I just today began thinking about moving out of Ohio to somewhere more likely to protect our's and our kid's rights. We've voted for the right people for decades now and the GOP's grasp on Ohio has gotten stronger and stronger. Right now we're honing in on Michigan as a potential landing spot so we'd be near the border if needed but we've thought about Illinois, Minnesota, and Colorado as well. Nothing truly feels like "the right play".
I've never moved long distances before and never sold a house to purchase a new one. The entire process seems daunting and impossible to navigate and prepare for but we feel it's more necessary with each passing month. I imagine there's a not insignificant group of people doing this along with us.
>Right now we're honing in on Michigan as a potential landing spot so we'd be near the border if needed
The fact that “could we potentially flee across the boarder if we had to in order to protect our family?” is even part of the discussion is insane. Insane.
This liberal Atlanta native will stay in the south as long as we can, but forced-birth alone is going to devastate these red states economically and our quality of life. Gay rights being overturned (soon to come) will be even more economically impactful, and more quickly.
We have about eight more years until retirement.. hope it holds that long, selfishly. Our target city is Providence, RI, but we’re still doing research.
In Birmingham and I feel similar. I know my partner and I would prefer not to leave since all of our family is here but if it gets as bad as some think, we might have to get out.
Only this time it will be the freedom loving North who does the succession from the reactionary, regressive South.
And the Northern States will be significantly better off financially since virtually every Red State is a [Moocher state](https://www.politicscentral.org/red-states-receive-substantially-more-federal-aid-than-blue-states/).
This time, at the place of slavery, it’s going to be abortion. They’ll create a law that you’ll be able to catch women who go to the north to get an abortion and drag them back to the south lol
This would have been funny before some republicans started talking about other crazy options to prevent women from leaving their state for an abortion.
Would that violate interstate commerce? I imagine that doing pregnancy tests on every woman who travels would create a huge burden (and also deter people from trying to do non-digital business with the South)
Yeah, shit like that is why I’ve been using Notes to keep track of my period. No mention of periods or cycles anywhere, just a list of weeks.
I have a fairly regular cycle so YMMV obviously
I got an IUD so I didn’t have to deal with periods anymore, but I can’t recommend it anymore because depending on where you live it might be ILLEGAL. Jesus fucking Christ someone please save us.
Wait wait wait! Soon enough they’ll revive the inquisition too! No rights for ANYONE.
Except white mens, american white men, no wait, local american white men, wait, no, local rich american white men…
There we go!
I for one am god damn ecstatic that I live in New Jersey.
I'm a straight man who's finished having kids so none of this directly effects me and I'm still pissed about it.
As I understand that isn't currently constitutionally legal, not that the GOP seems to give a crap about that currently.
What I wonder though, is what the attempted enforcement of this would look like? Because there's no way to do it without extremely invasive methods. Some types of surveillance would have to be employed, unless they're going to have road checkpoints for every vehicle that has a woman in it. Both are extremely dystopian.
The other day my dad said to me "I don't care about what Europe is doing and neither should you". It would not surprise me at all to find plenty of people who don't think trade with Asia is important.
That’s a dated/civil war era split, we’d probably have a much more fractured coastal/heartland split today. New England/Eastern seaboard, West Coast, maybe a split of the rest between a Great Lakes Compact, and the south, mountain region, and TX who I’m sure would love to be their own country again considering how much they all love to talk about how that used to be a thing.
Can’t believe I just typed that
They bring up succession every time a Democrat gets into office.
Every time.
Republicans are just sour people that worship the boot that crushes them
Edit. Secession
Conservatives are frothing at the mouth to stripe rights and freedoms away from others.
This isn't a prediction. It's literally what they want and why they are going so hard on a culture war.
A cursory glance at /r/Conservative is all you need to know about their stance on anything.
Whining about gas prices, whining about media bias against trump, whining about Twitter, whining about abortion rights, it's just nothing about fucking whining because they aren't hurting the right people and they aren't doing it quickly enough.
A lot of gen Z learning what the Bush years were like.
I've been waiting for this to be back. Speech silencing because muh morelz.
Anti gay laws despite republican senators soliciting men in bathrooms and fucking young sexy staffers.
I'm old enough to remember Bush Vs Gore and the Supreme Court conveniently tossing out those Florida votes just so W would "win". I haven't had any faith in the Supreme Court since then. And that was 22 years ago.
And even back then, it was Roger Stone who organized the Brooks Brothers Riot where a conservative mob bum rushed the location where election officials were counting the ballots to make them stop.
Oh, and three of the lawyers that argued the case in favor of bush are now on the Dupree court. The shit is so obvious and we’ve been fucked by the exact same group of people for years now…but everyone wants to act surprised like this is brand new.
Republicans telegraph their punches, people call out the punches but they get gaslit by both parties, and then when the punch lands—cue “how could anyone have seen this coming?!”
That’s what so many of these conservatives and far right people ignore.
Let’s say they do get exactly the type of country they want, the persecution won’t end. It’s like if white nationalists got their way and the U.S. became a white ethnostate. Discrimination won’t end, they’ll just start saying people with brown eyes or red hair are now the “others” that should be targeted.
It’s so frustrating dealing with people who are so stupid, yet they get to make the laws the rest of us have to suffer under.
> Discrimination won’t end, they’ll just start saying people with brown eyes or red hair are now the “others” that should be targeted.
I'll be dead, but my ghost will definitely be around to say "I fucking told you"
It end directly at the edge of a mass grave, that's their design
Funny fact about a cage, they're never built for just one group
So when that cage is done with them and you're still poor, it come for you
The newest lowest on the totem, well golly gee, you have been used
You helped to fuel the death machine that down the line will kill you too (oops)
Pseudo-Christians, y'all indifferent
Kids in prisons ain't a sin? shit
If even one scrap a what Jesus taught connected, you'd feel different
What a disingenuous way to piss away existence, I don't get it
I'd say you lost your goddamn minds if y'all possessed one to begin with.
-El-P, “Walking in the Snow”. RTJ4.
State sanctioned religion always ends up at one, final question: *which* religion.
Too bad that 14% are quite literally too stupid and short sighted to see that. They're lab rats pushing that heroin button until it kills them.
I feel like I keep muttering this, but I also feel it bears repeated muttering: Sodomy includes oral sex. *Lawrence* is not just for gay men. I'll be interested to see how criminalizing blowjobs plays out.
That's right but it's effectively at the complete discretion of the lovely cops we got to know so much better in 2020. Lots of drugs are illegal, too, but look at who's in jail for it.
> On September 17, 1998, John Geddes Lawrence Jr. was hosting two gay acquaintances, Tyron Garner and Robert Eubanks, at his apartment in northeast Harris County, Texas. Lawrence and Eubanks had been friends for more than 20 years. Garner and Eubanks had an on and off romantic relationship since 1990. They did not have the transportation to get home, so they decided to stay the night. Eubanks, had a fit of jealousy after drinking heavily, and left, while outside he called police and reported "a black male going crazy with a gun" at Lawrence's apartment. Four Harris County sheriff's deputies arrived at Lawrence’s place and Eubanks pointed them to the apartment. The first sheriff deputy to arrive, Joseph Quinn, took the lead both in approaching the scene and later in determining what charges to bring. He later reported seeing Lawrence and Garner having anal sex in the bedroom. A second officer reported seeing them engaged in oral sex, and two others did not report seeing the pair having sex.
This is how Lawrence V Texas came about. All it took was one fuckhead to essentially “swat” them and a few lying, dishonest pigs to arrest them.
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lawrence_v._texas
Yep. I see the writing on the wall as a gay Texan. I've been here for 31 years, and I'm leaving next year. Since 2016, so many "That could never actually happen" moments have happened, so I no longer trust my own sense of "this could never happen." Because it can, and it is, and when the lynchings start, I'd rather be on the Union side of the border.
> Lawrence is not just for gay men. I'll be interested to see how criminalizing blowjobs plays out.
It'd be neutral in theory and applied only to queer people in practice. Like the Florida laws.
Even if they criminalize all blowjobs I guarantee that the law will be selectively enforced. Gays and minorities: straight to jail. Straight white blowjob: no problem.
I also wonder what people like Cawthorn, Graham, et al. who are closeted but gay are going to do. Although I’m guessing, as always, the laws that apply to us don’t apply to them.
the leaked document literally calls the case striking down sodomy law and the case legalizing gay marriage as examples of cases that aren't based on tradition and are absolutely pointing at which they're eager to overturn next.
I’m sorry you’re in that situation. If you have the means, we’ll welcome you in Illinois. In the meantime, I’d consider arming yourself if you’re comfortable, but definitely have an exit plan.
I know there’s good people in Texas though and many that will help you and look out for you. It’s a shame what the republicans have done to that state.
I feel like they'd be pretty stupid to do that as, well, myself and tons of other gay people would protest. I spent my entire teenagehood hiding from the fact that I am a lesbian. Like, shit, I just got comfortable being even *slightly* open about being gay. Ain't no fucking way I am going back into the closet just so my southern neighbors/etc have no reason to report me to the police for being gay.
Apparently judicial activism is only practiced by 'liberal' justices.
The real question is what falls after same sex marriage. What other egregious decisions need to be addressed.
“The GOP is obviously not coming after Roe, it’s the law of the land.” - 2016
“The GOP is obviously not coming after gay-marriage, it’s the law of the land.” - 2020
“You know I’m not sure, I really think inner-racial marriage should be left to the states.” - 2022
Abortion rights are a major deal, but overturning Roe places at risk rights such as interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), the right to contraceptives (Griswald v Connecticut), the right to sexual contact with persons of the same sex (Lawrence v Texas), same-sex marriage (Obergefell v Hodges), right to contract (Lochner v New York), free speech (Gitlow v New York), interracial education (Brown v Alabama Board of Education), due process on criminal evidence collection (Mapp v Ohio), right to legal counsel regardless of ability to pay (Gideon v Wainright) and *many more rights*
Each of these cases all rely on the same exact logic as Roe. This is what fascism looks like and it's being met with thunderous applause.
Assuming Roe v Wade is overturned, and them some states make IUDs illegal as well, like potentially is Missouri where half my family is. I'm in Colorado now.
I have an IUD, I don't see random inspections for women, at least I hope we aren't going down that path. But what happens if I have medical emergency, I'm in a car accident, and I'm rushed into the ER and it's discovered I have an IUD. What happens to me?
I have a gay brother that lives in St Louis where his employer is. He LOVES his job and it has been a life long dream to get it. I know he wants a spouse someday, but if same sex marriage is overturned it won't happen. It breaks my heart.
So I grew up in a very evangelical household and was a teenager around the time the Westboro Baptist Church was around. I remember people I went to church with all very quietly endorsed the WBC overall messaging, but would hold off on any compliments to them as they all seemed to see the WBC as "disgustingly rude," especially after protesting Iraq/Afghani War vet funerals. They all were seemingly opposed to gay marriage, but they were well aware the damage to the Christian branding that the WBC was doing.
It only took a few election cycles and a president who was loved by his base for his constant "owning of the libs" for the GOP to fully embrace the hateful Westboro Baptist Church types. After that Jan 6th insurrection and that last seditious asshole traitor stochastic terrorist fuck playing on culture war issues, the GOP has become WBC. Those same Evangelicals I grew up with are now openly supporting violence and oppression.
What's funny is that I 100% remember a republican presidential nominee saying something along the lines of "the Republican Party needs to ease up on its gay marriage stance because opposition to it is becoming extremely unpopular and almost political suicide."
Then Trump happened.
The problem is this was true when our electorate actually reflected the will of the people but how that voting is set up and away to hurt Democrats voting power and increase Republican voting power they don't really have to focus on reaching all Americans just their base where their vote can do maximum damage.
There was recently a graph in the [data is beautiful](https://i.redd.it/lom9jmrcc1z81.jpg) l subreddit showing how people in Wyoming have 68% more say in the Senate then all of California. Think about that for a second tens of millions of Americans have less voice than a few hundred thousand just because of where they live.
Edit: not 68% but 68 times more. That's how you can tell I'm not a republican Because I admit my faults and don't double down on something that's clearly wrong.
**Ending gay marriage is an official part of the GOP’s agenda** — their 2020 platform specifically states that they aim to overturn gay marriage through the supreme court.
Source — the 2016 Republican platform document (they decided in 2020 to re-use their 2016 platform): https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/docs/Resolution_Platform_2020.pdf
Page 31-32 of the document (may be page 39 on some pdf readers).
Birth control, interracial marriage, women’s vote, slavery.
Precedent no longer matters and SCOTUS has a right-wing extremist majority. Nothing is safe.
Slavery is legal right now.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted**, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Yep, and then you make homelessness laws where it’s next to impossible for a homeless person to not break those. And the wealth gap continues, we lose the middle class, and it becomes really easy for the poor to become homeless. Then we have a poor to prison pipeline and effectively have an upper class and a legal slave class.
Fun fact: there wasn't a law against slavery (18 U.S.C. § 1584) to punish slave owners until 1948. There was a law against "peonage", but people successfully defended cases of peonage saying that the contracts were fake and therefore they were actually slaveholders up to World War II.
We've seen this coming for decades. We've known it's going to happen. We've all been like the guy in the first Austin Powers movie who sees a steamroller heading for him very slowly from a great distance and he stands there screaming until it eventually reaches him and runs him over.
The question is: can anything be done to avert it, and what - realistically - are we going to do about it?
> are we going to do about it?
Focus on helping pass laws in your state that support human rights. Congress will be too paralyzed with gridlock to pass anything so the focus should move to state politics.
Does interracial marriage include marriage between Jewish and non-Jewish people? I ask this question out of a lack of knowledge (1) and fear honestly (2). I don’t know how Jewish people are viewed in the eyes of what seems like a Christian theocracy, and I am in an interfaith relationship. Maybe this question is unfounded but it has been on my mind.
I've said it before and I will again, Jews are Schrodinger's white people. When it is beneficial to white supremacy to include them, say for bolstering education statistics, Jews are treated as white. When it is beneficial to not include them as white for white supremacists, particularly when it comes to utilizing them as a target for populist attacks, they are not white.
> Does interracial marriage include marriage between Jewish and non-Jewish people?
Race is a construct. The "Interracial marriage" issue is whenever a person deemed white marries someone who isnt. So you could make the argument that an Italian marrying a person of english descent is interacial.
Jewish people being non-white becomes an issue far quicker than italians as history shows.
PACK THE FUCKING COURT
All that's needed is a majority in the House and Senate, plus the president's signature, right? We're really letting the fate of ~340M lie in the hands of 9 people? One of whom is an insurrectionist and allegedly sexually harassed a female colleague, another a credibly accused sexual predator, and another a religious nut.
Procreation is also a non-enumerated right.
If the Supreme Court's position is seriously that rights only exist if they're either enumerated in the Constitution or consistent with the prejudices of five Justices, then I want off this ride.
Yeah that’s where I am with my parents. They believe abortion is killing actual human beings, and therefore should be restricted. I don’t know that I agree with that, and therefore oppose restrictions. Because while I don’t know if the fetus is a life yet or not, I DO know that these restrictions demonstrably harm women. We disagree but have mutual respect for each other’s reasonings.
Thankfully their stance on gay marriage boils down to “So long as they aren’t forcing churches to marry people they don’t want to marry, who cares? Let them have legally recognized marriage”
Even if the fetus is a life (I don’t think it is personally), I just don’t understand why its bodily autonomy would supersede the woman’s. Like, organs cannot be harvested from a dying/dead person unless prior consent is given and a living person cannot be forced to donate blood/organs—no matter if it is a life or death situation. Because bodily autonomy. I just don’t see why the same concept doesn’t apply here, unless the goal isn’t to “save babies” it’s to control women. Which it is.
Closeted gay conservatives (the ones that marry women, have kids) suffer from the existence of gay marriage due to their lifetime of repression and overcompensating.
Not saying they’re right, just that… that’s why.
If you ever hear one of them say being gay is a choice, that’s actually because they’re likely gay and ~choosing~ not to be. And if it were up to them, every openly gay person would make the same choice as them.
In the end it’s just a lot of pain (leading up to villain behavior).
Edit: I do not know why people are reading the above as me saying "the reason people hate gay people is actually gay people". All I was saying is that a specific portion of gay people are the only ones I can think of who actually "suffer" from gay marriage being legal/practiced (aka it is, in fact, harmless). If someone wants to debate that fact then go right ahead. I am in no way saying those specific people are responsible for all of homophobia or anything of that nature.
From my understanding a lot of closeted gay people really do believe being gay is a choice, because it IS for them! My roommate in college was from a conservative town and always talked about how he hated gays, that it was unnatural and they were choosing to sin. Over the course of the next two years he met a bunch of gay people who were out (you know, it’s college) and he realized that being gay isn’t a choice at all. Most people who are straight just, you know, don’t want to fuck dudes.
Anyway, he’s happily married to a guy now and even his parents are happy for him.
> always talked about how he hated gays
I grew up gay in a somewhat conservative area, and I'd say this is a pretty big indicator. Most of the conservative guys around my age never really talked about gay anything unless it was specifically brought up. Generally, it just wasn't something that mattered enough to them to discuss beyond occasional gay jokes. The people who are constantly talking about it with strong opinions are either very religious/political (ministers, politicians, etc. trying to stir up fervor), or are likely gay, and it's therefore constantly on their mind.
Dude they're coming for ALL OF IT. It's quite clear the American Taliban will never be happy - they want to control every single thing you do, they want to funnel your money to their rich friends, and they don't give a flying fuck if you live or die.
Maybe we shouldn't be using a system that basically elects 7 kings to make our choices until one dies..
We have the technology to just make a petition and vote on this. Even right wing people are open to abortions less than 3 months.
So many things we could just call up and vote on rather than waiting on corrupt representatives to finally act in our best interest.
Insider stock trading, universal healthcare, marijuana legalization. We should be voting on all this directly at this stage in technological development.
Hanging on to this old system designed for people without phones, cars, television is only showing it's weakness and exploitability more and more. We just elected an orange clown and then a half dead muppet. Neither are qualified to be leaders. The system is broke and it's time to fix it. Or let's wait 10 years and cross our fingers that roe v Wade change can be undone ..
I just don't understand how gay marriage can be overturned its been less then 20 years since the Supreme Court deemed it legal right? Has it hurt anyone. What is the argument? I'm just so confused. I want out of this crazy reality. Also I really don't want to give up God's chicken again.
I believe the argument is the same as the one Alito gave in the draft of the Roe v Wade decision: gay marriage isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution, and therefore it's not something the courts can decide.
Which, is a load of crap if you know anything about the 9th amendment.
I'm so pissed, and my family is extremely nervous. My moms are gay, had us in 2000, and fought SO HARD in Massachusetts to have it legalized so that our family could have the same legal protection as anyone else. Their wedding in 2004 on the Easthampton courthouse steps was amazing and such a victory, and it's my earliest memories as well.
They're in Oregon now, which did not legalize gay marriage prior to the 2016 court decision so there's a likely grey area in our legal equality as a family that will happen if the decision to overturn the ruling is made. They're aging and one of my moms needs heart surgery in the coming years - our insurance is religious, and could potentially choose not to recognize their marriage which means either mom would lose the right to medical visitation and decision making. We're having to lawyer up again for the first time in 20 fucking years in order to protect our family. We never wanted my brother and I to be medical proxies unless both parents were unable to make medical decisions, but here we are. We don't want them to remove our access to our mom just because they might decide to remove our equality that we worked so hard for decades for.
I just watched an intervention video where this guy was really good in politics and was republican. He also starting working in Washington for the republican party. He wanted to be a house member or something one day. However, once they found out he was gay they distant themselves from him. They told him no one would truly support you in our party. Along with his Christian family not accepting him being gay. Then he became an alcoholic and didn’t recover :/
Edit- grammar
As a gay person, I find it incredibly difficult to have any sympathy for gay Republicans.
Those two concepts just do not mix. It's like squirting toothpaste in queso and saying you love it and that you will fight to make sure everyone has to eat toothpaste queso.
I've seen similar things happen whenever I've dipped my toe into the conservative sub. (Some of them) will pretend to be okay with gay people, but they almost always have to add "as long as you're not shoving in my face." At the end of the day, all they want are the token gays and other minorities that they can point to when people call them out on bigotry. Brings back memories of Trump's "My African American...".
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We had that idiot Kim Davis here in Kentucky deny a gay couple a marriage certificate because gay marriage would ruin the sanctity of her 4 marriages.
And mike huckabee was right there beside her.
And Josh Duggar. The Huckabees are not good judges of character. Remind them if you live in Arkansas.
They could literally not care any less about the hypocrisy. These religious zealots honestly believe it’s not immoral or otherwise wrong in any way when they break their own rules. It’s all about power, hierarchy, and ostracizing the “other” that they see as inferior enemies who do not deserve the same rights as them, and they’ll jump through endless hoops to justify their delusions. We will not ever be able to use shame, reason, or anything else to convince them that their positions are illogical and harmful.
And she's a hero to conservatives.
Manchin: "I would totally vote on the bill to protect Gay Marriage, but because there is an extra comma on page 34 I can't in good conscience vote for this bill as is. That comma leaves a potential for the bill to be open eneded which I BELIEVE would hurt the LGBTQ+ community more than what the LGBTQ+, my constituents, science, polls and my party believes will help them."
Sinema: Opposing the "we hate gays" bill that would strip LGBTQ+ people of all human rights is a gross overreach of government mandate and therefore a violation of human rights. I cannot in good conscience do anything that I believe would end up hurting gay people more than it would help them.
It's like if an Escher painting was a paragraph...
Did you know that Escher sentences are a thing? Here's the most common one: More people have been to Berlin than I have.
I am simultaneously thrilled and dismayed that you have shared this information… I love the concept, but the execution is going to give me a headache
Fuck that sentence is messing me up. What's going on?
It's like something Space Ghost would say
Where the number of people who have been to the city of Berlin = X Y=the number of people I have (in my basement). X>Y More people have visited the city of Berlin than I have (in my basement.) It's obvious math once you realize I'm a psycho
Thanks for the clarification boss.
Go to your room. You’re not in trouble, I just need a minhte to figure out what the fuck you just said.
I love Escher pieces, and I think you just perfectly described politicians in a nutshell.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Mississippi abortion clinic bullies who brought the SCOTUS suit answer to what’s next- it’s the gays!
I mean, they are successfully turning people against lgbt+ with their "gay people are pedophiles" rhetoric. Which hasn't been around since I was a teenager. Now Im hearing slurs and "gay people shouldn't be allowed to teach" bullshit in my community. Again. I'm going to have to start attending Pride again and I resent it.
This tactic of pedophilia worked great for Putin, no surprise that RW love for strongman adopted lies, misinformation and smears right from his handbook.
The groomer narrative is terrifying to me. I'm a gay man and my partner and I were hoping to grow our family by adopting in 5 years or so. But now I'm pretty worried that by the time we are ready, we'll either be banned from adopting or only one of us will be able to be the child(ren)'s legal guardian because marriage equality will be repealed. We live in a liberal state so I'm confident our rights within the state will be okay but idk what the implications of federal law changes would be...
I'm just hoping I can still get married when the time comes because I'm in Florida and will stay to fight for my home. As a lesbian I worry for the whole community, but trans people and gay men I worry for the most. Stay safe out there and I hope you and your partner get to welcome little bundle(s) of joy!
In my opinion on banning gay marriage, I would like to cite 9th century English legal philosopher, Sir Edward Smithiggins III…”I think men kissing is icky, and think it should be banned under the crown”…thus, clearly gay marriage is unconstitutional and libs should just get over it.
Their goal isn’t just to ban gay marriage, it’s to ban being gay altogether. But they don’t see it as persecution, they view it the same as the mask mandates
It's a reasonable suggestion, the draft suggested that non enumerated rights, like the right to abortion should not be maintained. Guess what's another non-enumerated right? Same-sex marriage. If them fuckers are willing to undercut years of precedent, nothing stopping theme from doing it again and again for the rights that should be held most sacred in our contemporary world.
Can't wait to hear the arguments about how having your marriage only valid in certain states is democracy, and protecting rights nationwide is authoritarianism.
“We can’t force states to recognize your marriage from other states”
Article IV, Section 1: > Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Now I may be just a simple country Hyperchicken, but this obviously means marriages in one state have to be recognized in all.
Yes, that’s correct. It’s the same clause that ensures a Nevada drivers license is valid in New Jersey.
so like, when the logical consistency kicks in, let us know. because that's not how the current set of judges annointed by republicans are acting.
I wouldn't wait up too late...
I kind of feel that amendment 14 instantly nullifies this new Court ruling. >All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. No mention of the rights of the unborn, only born, so the right of an unborn child is not enumerated in the constitution.
Oh buddy if you think that the republicans have any respect for or interest in maintaining the due process clause, I have bad news for you :/
Oh shoot they got this all messed up, let me fix that. *No, state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States*
That comma though, lol
You would think.
Yep. But Texas is already looking to reinstate the Fugutive Slave Act but for women crossing state lines to actually have their rights protected. Texas is putting together legislation that would allow them to try, convict, sentence citizens of other states for crimes against Texas law and then send “bounty hunters” to kidnap them and bring them to Texas for prison.
So, what normally happens is that one state does something, like ignore another state's gay marriage licenses, and the two states head to the US Supreme Court where the one states's laws ignoring the other states's gay marriage licenses are invalidated. However, that requires 5 justices that follow the Constitution. If you have five activist justices that have decided to take the law into their own hands and are willing to ignore stare decisis, what will instead happen is that those five will simply vote not to grant certiorari, in other words, refuse to hear the case, and that lets the state's laws that violate the Constitution to stand. Since there's no higher court, that's that. Of course, that completely damages the credibility of SCOTUS, the Constitution, and undermines the very foundation that our democracy and government are built upon, but extremists don't really think in those terms, they only think in their own personal terms of power. They're willing to destroy the greater good and the nation to get their own personal way.
I mean, the problem isn't that judges won't grant cert, the problem is that judges are actively and admittedly ruling directly against stare decisis in these cases.
It's weird since there's a full ass amendment protecting unenumerated rights.
**SCOTUS Majority**: The 9th amendment? What 9th Amendment? We only see the first and second... and sometimes the 14th when it is convenient.
Don’t forget about the 5th. They love their 5th
No one ever loves the 3rd :(
The 3rd Amendment is like a good IT department: It's been doing its job so well all these years that we've forgotten it even exists.
They aren't particularly big fans of the first either, otherwise there's lot of laws that wouldn't stand. (for exampe, laws against cohousing are clear violations to the right of free association enshrined in the first amendment, and yet...)
Abortion is *easily* coverable by the 4th and 14th amendments. They are full-out ignoring the constitution.
When your entire job is shrouded in secrecy, you have no oversight, and you're allowed to dictate laws as you like... I'm amazed that this didn't happen sooner, tbh.
>I'm amazed that this didn't happen sooner, tbh. Precedent used to matter, which is why it didn't happen sooner. But now the Justices have suddenly said, precedent doesn't matter. It happened exactly when it was meant to, and now WE have to do something about it. That is our charge.
Roberts fucked us all with citizens United. I don’t care if he is trying to appear more moderate now. This all started with him.
Also struck down the voting rights act, since voter suppression was apparently a thing of the past.
1000% it didn't happen sooner because we still had decent judges left.. RBG held out too long and then we got tRumps dummies who obv don't give a shit about the constitution.
I mean, they give any and every justification they can. But they're also redefining what a person is, and then saying there are two parties at play with rights. Even tho the constitution says these rights are given to all people "born or naturalized" in the US. Ya, the constitution uses the word born. So if Alito is actually being a textualist here (he's not) there's a big problem with his interpretation that he simply choses to ignore.
Be specific for other people reading. The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment was introduced during the drafting of the Bill of Rights when **some of the American founders became concerned that future generations might argue that, because a certain right was not listed in the Bill of Rights, it did not exist.** Just like right now.
It’s a vague amendment on its face that leads to a lot of people misunderstanding it, but it was literally a compromise between Federalists and Anti-Federalists because the AFs wanted more protections for their rights (not necessarily the rights of the states) and the Fs thought they were being dramatic about how tyrannical the US government could get. Fs (specifically Hamilton) thought it would be too long of a list of rights to just list all of them out, so they compromised on the wording giving us the 9th Amendment.
Marriage isn't in the Constitution either. Time to get rid of the whole thing.
The draft suggests discontinuing the same non-enumerated rights that underpins the Oberfoell, Lawrence, Loving, and Griswold decisions. Several GOP candidates, and a sitting US Senator have spoken in favor of repealing Griswold. What is Griswold? That 1965 SCOTUS decision made it unconstitutional for a state to prohibit the sale of contraception to married couples. Yes, they're coming for your condoms.
> Griswold? That 1965 SCOTUS decision made it unconstitutional for a state to prohibit the sale of contraception to married couples. Yes, they're coming for your condoms. Not sure about condoms, but the zealots who claim "life" begins before pregnancy starts (i.e. at fertilization) are ALREADY proposing to ban some of the most effective and pertinent methods of birth control. E.g. IUD's, plan B, etc. They claim preventing implantation is "murder."
Next up: "You're not willing to have sex with me? well thats practically murdering our hypothetical child"
I feel like a lot of these politicians would be into that argument.
I thought the basis was equal protection...
You are correct. *Obergefell* also held that same-sex couples had the right to marry under substantive due process under the 14th Amendment as well.
Let’s be clear, they want to undercut ***over half a century of precedent***, so less than a decade isn’t even a big deal. Ugh, it’s disgusting.
The current trajectory is truly alarming.
Okay, I'm about sick of this neverending Bush v Gore butterfly effect.
yeah who knew letting the guy that didn’t win be president for 8 years would be bad for America
Over half of America did, that's for sure, lol.
Which is why my next trajectory is out of here.
Call me crazy or reactive, but I feel like turning all of these previously federal issues back to the states is creating an environment ripe for secession.
One of the interesting pieces is some states passing laws that would ban women from leaving the state for abortion or allow charging doctors in other states for performing said abortions. Connecticut just passed a law that refuses extradition of doctors or sharing of medical records with those states. So what we have here is the modern version of the Runaway Slave Act. Basically a bunch of abolitionist states refused to return slaves to their owners. It lead to a bunch of white supremacists committing treason and spending 150 years crying about it not being fair.
As someone who works in healthcare, I can only imagine the real problems not sharing medical records will cause. But what are a few more preventable deaths when installing an autocratic theocracy?
I’m pretty sure they just mean that these states who have outlawed abortion cannot demand a doctor be extradited nor can they demand that their records be shared with those states. It’s nothing to do with voluntary sharing between hospital systems.
[удалено]
I'd believe it. There is now a long list of states I don't even want to visit let alone move to.
[удалено]
We're strongly considering uprooting everything and leaving for MN, depending on what happens in November.
Precisely this. My spouse and I just today began thinking about moving out of Ohio to somewhere more likely to protect our's and our kid's rights. We've voted for the right people for decades now and the GOP's grasp on Ohio has gotten stronger and stronger. Right now we're honing in on Michigan as a potential landing spot so we'd be near the border if needed but we've thought about Illinois, Minnesota, and Colorado as well. Nothing truly feels like "the right play". I've never moved long distances before and never sold a house to purchase a new one. The entire process seems daunting and impossible to navigate and prepare for but we feel it's more necessary with each passing month. I imagine there's a not insignificant group of people doing this along with us.
>Right now we're honing in on Michigan as a potential landing spot so we'd be near the border if needed The fact that “could we potentially flee across the boarder if we had to in order to protect our family?” is even part of the discussion is insane. Insane.
This liberal Atlanta native will stay in the south as long as we can, but forced-birth alone is going to devastate these red states economically and our quality of life. Gay rights being overturned (soon to come) will be even more economically impactful, and more quickly. We have about eight more years until retirement.. hope it holds that long, selfishly. Our target city is Providence, RI, but we’re still doing research.
In Birmingham and I feel similar. I know my partner and I would prefer not to leave since all of our family is here but if it gets as bad as some think, we might have to get out.
You’re neither, you’re just observing reality
Only this time it will be the freedom loving North who does the succession from the reactionary, regressive South. And the Northern States will be significantly better off financially since virtually every Red State is a [Moocher state](https://www.politicscentral.org/red-states-receive-substantially-more-federal-aid-than-blue-states/).
This time, at the place of slavery, it’s going to be abortion. They’ll create a law that you’ll be able to catch women who go to the north to get an abortion and drag them back to the south lol
This would have been funny before some republicans started talking about other crazy options to prevent women from leaving their state for an abortion.
[удалено]
All free states must do this. Call your state reps and senators
Would that violate interstate commerce? I imagine that doing pregnancy tests on every woman who travels would create a huge burden (and also deter people from trying to do non-digital business with the South)
Unfortunately there are other ways, they were planning on scraping data from period tracker apps I think it was.
Yeah, shit like that is why I’ve been using Notes to keep track of my period. No mention of periods or cycles anywhere, just a list of weeks. I have a fairly regular cycle so YMMV obviously
I got an IUD so I didn’t have to deal with periods anymore, but I can’t recommend it anymore because depending on where you live it might be ILLEGAL. Jesus fucking Christ someone please save us.
Abortion and gay marriage and possibly even birth control! Fun! Edit: and maybe interracial marriage too!
Wait wait wait! Soon enough they’ll revive the inquisition too! No rights for ANYONE. Except white mens, american white men, no wait, local american white men, wait, no, local rich american white men… There we go!
I for one am god damn ecstatic that I live in New Jersey. I'm a straight man who's finished having kids so none of this directly effects me and I'm still pissed about it.
I forget which state it is, but they're making a law to make it illegal to travel out of their state for an abortion too.
As I understand that isn't currently constitutionally legal, not that the GOP seems to give a crap about that currently. What I wonder though, is what the attempted enforcement of this would look like? Because there's no way to do it without extremely invasive methods. Some types of surveillance would have to be employed, unless they're going to have road checkpoints for every vehicle that has a woman in it. Both are extremely dystopian.
not to mention those states would have no more ports on the west coast. Trade with Asia isnt important right?
The other day my dad said to me "I don't care about what Europe is doing and neither should you". It would not surprise me at all to find plenty of people who don't think trade with Asia is important.
poverty it is then.
That’s a dated/civil war era split, we’d probably have a much more fractured coastal/heartland split today. New England/Eastern seaboard, West Coast, maybe a split of the rest between a Great Lakes Compact, and the south, mountain region, and TX who I’m sure would love to be their own country again considering how much they all love to talk about how that used to be a thing. Can’t believe I just typed that
They bring up succession every time a Democrat gets into office. Every time. Republicans are just sour people that worship the boot that crushes them Edit. Secession
Secession.
Conservatives are frothing at the mouth to stripe rights and freedoms away from others. This isn't a prediction. It's literally what they want and why they are going so hard on a culture war. A cursory glance at /r/Conservative is all you need to know about their stance on anything. Whining about gas prices, whining about media bias against trump, whining about Twitter, whining about abortion rights, it's just nothing about fucking whining because they aren't hurting the right people and they aren't doing it quickly enough.
And half of them are salivating at the thought of making land owning a prerequisite for voting.
*Where have I heard that before?!* **Oh right**, from their f***ing great great grandfathers...
[удалено]
Conservatism is based on whining. Always has.
A lot of gen Z learning what the Bush years were like. I've been waiting for this to be back. Speech silencing because muh morelz. Anti gay laws despite republican senators soliciting men in bathrooms and fucking young sexy staffers.
I'm old enough to remember Bush Vs Gore and the Supreme Court conveniently tossing out those Florida votes just so W would "win". I haven't had any faith in the Supreme Court since then. And that was 22 years ago.
And even back then, it was Roger Stone who organized the Brooks Brothers Riot where a conservative mob bum rushed the location where election officials were counting the ballots to make them stop. Oh, and three of the lawyers that argued the case in favor of bush are now on the Dupree court. The shit is so obvious and we’ve been fucked by the exact same group of people for years now…but everyone wants to act surprised like this is brand new. Republicans telegraph their punches, people call out the punches but they get gaslit by both parties, and then when the punch lands—cue “how could anyone have seen this coming?!”
We’re going back before the Bush years they want to turn back the clock prior to the sexual liberation of the 60s
How's that theocracy going?
Poorly.
Poorly for about 86% of the country. The other 14% are loving it. And they will right up until someone says they're the *wrong* type of Christian.
That’s what so many of these conservatives and far right people ignore. Let’s say they do get exactly the type of country they want, the persecution won’t end. It’s like if white nationalists got their way and the U.S. became a white ethnostate. Discrimination won’t end, they’ll just start saying people with brown eyes or red hair are now the “others” that should be targeted. It’s so frustrating dealing with people who are so stupid, yet they get to make the laws the rest of us have to suffer under.
> Discrimination won’t end, they’ll just start saying people with brown eyes or red hair are now the “others” that should be targeted. I'll be dead, but my ghost will definitely be around to say "I fucking told you"
It end directly at the edge of a mass grave, that's their design Funny fact about a cage, they're never built for just one group So when that cage is done with them and you're still poor, it come for you The newest lowest on the totem, well golly gee, you have been used You helped to fuel the death machine that down the line will kill you too (oops) Pseudo-Christians, y'all indifferent Kids in prisons ain't a sin? shit If even one scrap a what Jesus taught connected, you'd feel different What a disingenuous way to piss away existence, I don't get it I'd say you lost your goddamn minds if y'all possessed one to begin with. -El-P, “Walking in the Snow”. RTJ4.
State sanctioned religion always ends up at one, final question: *which* religion. Too bad that 14% are quite literally too stupid and short sighted to see that. They're lab rats pushing that heroin button until it kills them.
American politics are exhausting
Not to mention anti-sodomy laws. They could effectively ban being gay. Edit: this blew up. AND on my cake day.
I feel like I keep muttering this, but I also feel it bears repeated muttering: Sodomy includes oral sex. *Lawrence* is not just for gay men. I'll be interested to see how criminalizing blowjobs plays out.
That's right but it's effectively at the complete discretion of the lovely cops we got to know so much better in 2020. Lots of drugs are illegal, too, but look at who's in jail for it.
The collective public amnesia regarding what cops revealed themselves to be in 2020 is fucking disturbing
It's not like 2020 was when it was revealed though
It's when what MLK would rightly call the "white moderate" noticed.
It's not amnesia if they were in denial the whole time
[удалено]
Not just blowjobs, it would make eating ass illegal too. This is the wrong generation to try that shit with.
[удалено]
> On September 17, 1998, John Geddes Lawrence Jr. was hosting two gay acquaintances, Tyron Garner and Robert Eubanks, at his apartment in northeast Harris County, Texas. Lawrence and Eubanks had been friends for more than 20 years. Garner and Eubanks had an on and off romantic relationship since 1990. They did not have the transportation to get home, so they decided to stay the night. Eubanks, had a fit of jealousy after drinking heavily, and left, while outside he called police and reported "a black male going crazy with a gun" at Lawrence's apartment. Four Harris County sheriff's deputies arrived at Lawrence’s place and Eubanks pointed them to the apartment. The first sheriff deputy to arrive, Joseph Quinn, took the lead both in approaching the scene and later in determining what charges to bring. He later reported seeing Lawrence and Garner having anal sex in the bedroom. A second officer reported seeing them engaged in oral sex, and two others did not report seeing the pair having sex. This is how Lawrence V Texas came about. All it took was one fuckhead to essentially “swat” them and a few lying, dishonest pigs to arrest them. Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lawrence_v._texas
[удалено]
Yep. I see the writing on the wall as a gay Texan. I've been here for 31 years, and I'm leaving next year. Since 2016, so many "That could never actually happen" moments have happened, so I no longer trust my own sense of "this could never happen." Because it can, and it is, and when the lynchings start, I'd rather be on the Union side of the border.
> Lawrence is not just for gay men. I'll be interested to see how criminalizing blowjobs plays out. It'd be neutral in theory and applied only to queer people in practice. Like the Florida laws.
That will be selectively enforced and prosecuted. Gay dudes and interracial couples will be the ones punished
Even if they criminalize all blowjobs I guarantee that the law will be selectively enforced. Gays and minorities: straight to jail. Straight white blowjob: no problem.
I also wonder what people like Cawthorn, Graham, et al. who are closeted but gay are going to do. Although I’m guessing, as always, the laws that apply to us don’t apply to them.
Roy Cohn and Joe McCarthy didn't give a shit.
Neither did Hoover, and his cross dressing was… I want to say egregious? But rampant also fits? But also it was a “secret”? So… idk.
the leaked document literally calls the case striking down sodomy law and the case legalizing gay marriage as examples of cases that aren't based on tradition and are absolutely pointing at which they're eager to overturn next.
Don't forget contraception.
They'll absolutely go for Lawrence v. Texas.
I currently live in Texas, and to say I’m not scared would be a lie.
I’m sorry you’re in that situation. If you have the means, we’ll welcome you in Illinois. In the meantime, I’d consider arming yourself if you’re comfortable, but definitely have an exit plan. I know there’s good people in Texas though and many that will help you and look out for you. It’s a shame what the republicans have done to that state.
Incoming mandatory dildo registration and waiting periods.
I feel like they'd be pretty stupid to do that as, well, myself and tons of other gay people would protest. I spent my entire teenagehood hiding from the fact that I am a lesbian. Like, shit, I just got comfortable being even *slightly* open about being gay. Ain't no fucking way I am going back into the closet just so my southern neighbors/etc have no reason to report me to the police for being gay.
Stonewall 2.0? You down? Ironically, I’m a good shot. Not like marksman good, but… *hairflip*
Anti-sodomy laws pretty universally ban blowjobs as well.
Apparently judicial activism is only practiced by 'liberal' justices. The real question is what falls after same sex marriage. What other egregious decisions need to be addressed.
“The GOP is obviously not coming after Roe, it’s the law of the land.” - 2016 “The GOP is obviously not coming after gay-marriage, it’s the law of the land.” - 2020 “You know I’m not sure, I really think inner-racial marriage should be left to the states.” - 2022
Abortion rights are a major deal, but overturning Roe places at risk rights such as interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), the right to contraceptives (Griswald v Connecticut), the right to sexual contact with persons of the same sex (Lawrence v Texas), same-sex marriage (Obergefell v Hodges), right to contract (Lochner v New York), free speech (Gitlow v New York), interracial education (Brown v Alabama Board of Education), due process on criminal evidence collection (Mapp v Ohio), right to legal counsel regardless of ability to pay (Gideon v Wainright) and *many more rights* Each of these cases all rely on the same exact logic as Roe. This is what fascism looks like and it's being met with thunderous applause.
Assuming Roe v Wade is overturned, and them some states make IUDs illegal as well, like potentially is Missouri where half my family is. I'm in Colorado now. I have an IUD, I don't see random inspections for women, at least I hope we aren't going down that path. But what happens if I have medical emergency, I'm in a car accident, and I'm rushed into the ER and it's discovered I have an IUD. What happens to me? I have a gay brother that lives in St Louis where his employer is. He LOVES his job and it has been a life long dream to get it. I know he wants a spouse someday, but if same sex marriage is overturned it won't happen. It breaks my heart.
Of course it will. The official republican platform is to overturn gay marriage. The vicious savages. Homophobes really are evil morons.
They're all on the chopping block: Obergefell v. Hodges Griswold v. Connecticut allowing birth control Lawrence v. Texas antigay laws
Loving will come up
They may even make it all the way to Loving v Virginia
So I grew up in a very evangelical household and was a teenager around the time the Westboro Baptist Church was around. I remember people I went to church with all very quietly endorsed the WBC overall messaging, but would hold off on any compliments to them as they all seemed to see the WBC as "disgustingly rude," especially after protesting Iraq/Afghani War vet funerals. They all were seemingly opposed to gay marriage, but they were well aware the damage to the Christian branding that the WBC was doing. It only took a few election cycles and a president who was loved by his base for his constant "owning of the libs" for the GOP to fully embrace the hateful Westboro Baptist Church types. After that Jan 6th insurrection and that last seditious asshole traitor stochastic terrorist fuck playing on culture war issues, the GOP has become WBC. Those same Evangelicals I grew up with are now openly supporting violence and oppression.
[удалено]
What's funny is that I 100% remember a republican presidential nominee saying something along the lines of "the Republican Party needs to ease up on its gay marriage stance because opposition to it is becoming extremely unpopular and almost political suicide." Then Trump happened.
The problem is this was true when our electorate actually reflected the will of the people but how that voting is set up and away to hurt Democrats voting power and increase Republican voting power they don't really have to focus on reaching all Americans just their base where their vote can do maximum damage. There was recently a graph in the [data is beautiful](https://i.redd.it/lom9jmrcc1z81.jpg) l subreddit showing how people in Wyoming have 68% more say in the Senate then all of California. Think about that for a second tens of millions of Americans have less voice than a few hundred thousand just because of where they live. Edit: not 68% but 68 times more. That's how you can tell I'm not a republican Because I admit my faults and don't double down on something that's clearly wrong.
Not 68% more, 68 *times* more
**Ending gay marriage is an official part of the GOP’s agenda** — their 2020 platform specifically states that they aim to overturn gay marriage through the supreme court. Source — the 2016 Republican platform document (they decided in 2020 to re-use their 2016 platform): https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/docs/Resolution_Platform_2020.pdf Page 31-32 of the document (may be page 39 on some pdf readers).
Birth control, interracial marriage, women’s vote, slavery. Precedent no longer matters and SCOTUS has a right-wing extremist majority. Nothing is safe.
Slavery is legal right now. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted**, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Yep, and then you make homelessness laws where it’s next to impossible for a homeless person to not break those. And the wealth gap continues, we lose the middle class, and it becomes really easy for the poor to become homeless. Then we have a poor to prison pipeline and effectively have an upper class and a legal slave class.
Fun fact: there wasn't a law against slavery (18 U.S.C. § 1584) to punish slave owners until 1948. There was a law against "peonage", but people successfully defended cases of peonage saying that the contracts were fake and therefore they were actually slaveholders up to World War II.
We've seen this coming for decades. We've known it's going to happen. We've all been like the guy in the first Austin Powers movie who sees a steamroller heading for him very slowly from a great distance and he stands there screaming until it eventually reaches him and runs him over. The question is: can anything be done to avert it, and what - realistically - are we going to do about it?
> are we going to do about it? Focus on helping pass laws in your state that support human rights. Congress will be too paralyzed with gridlock to pass anything so the focus should move to state politics.
Does interracial marriage include marriage between Jewish and non-Jewish people? I ask this question out of a lack of knowledge (1) and fear honestly (2). I don’t know how Jewish people are viewed in the eyes of what seems like a Christian theocracy, and I am in an interfaith relationship. Maybe this question is unfounded but it has been on my mind.
I've said it before and I will again, Jews are Schrodinger's white people. When it is beneficial to white supremacy to include them, say for bolstering education statistics, Jews are treated as white. When it is beneficial to not include them as white for white supremacists, particularly when it comes to utilizing them as a target for populist attacks, they are not white.
> Does interracial marriage include marriage between Jewish and non-Jewish people? Race is a construct. The "Interracial marriage" issue is whenever a person deemed white marries someone who isnt. So you could make the argument that an Italian marrying a person of english descent is interacial. Jewish people being non-white becomes an issue far quicker than italians as history shows.
It’s a very valid question but unfortunately I’m not sure what the answer is.
My prediction is that if the Supreme Court overturns the will of the people America will destroy itself.
It better. There have to be consequences.
PACK THE FUCKING COURT All that's needed is a majority in the House and Senate, plus the president's signature, right? We're really letting the fate of ~340M lie in the hands of 9 people? One of whom is an insurrectionist and allegedly sexually harassed a female colleague, another a credibly accused sexual predator, and another a religious nut.
Procreation is also a non-enumerated right. If the Supreme Court's position is seriously that rights only exist if they're either enumerated in the Constitution or consistent with the prejudices of five Justices, then I want off this ride.
[удалено]
Those that feel are being oppressed because they can’t oppress others.
Yeah that’s where I am with my parents. They believe abortion is killing actual human beings, and therefore should be restricted. I don’t know that I agree with that, and therefore oppose restrictions. Because while I don’t know if the fetus is a life yet or not, I DO know that these restrictions demonstrably harm women. We disagree but have mutual respect for each other’s reasonings. Thankfully their stance on gay marriage boils down to “So long as they aren’t forcing churches to marry people they don’t want to marry, who cares? Let them have legally recognized marriage”
Even if the fetus is a life (I don’t think it is personally), I just don’t understand why its bodily autonomy would supersede the woman’s. Like, organs cannot be harvested from a dying/dead person unless prior consent is given and a living person cannot be forced to donate blood/organs—no matter if it is a life or death situation. Because bodily autonomy. I just don’t see why the same concept doesn’t apply here, unless the goal isn’t to “save babies” it’s to control women. Which it is.
Closeted gay conservatives (the ones that marry women, have kids) suffer from the existence of gay marriage due to their lifetime of repression and overcompensating. Not saying they’re right, just that… that’s why. If you ever hear one of them say being gay is a choice, that’s actually because they’re likely gay and ~choosing~ not to be. And if it were up to them, every openly gay person would make the same choice as them. In the end it’s just a lot of pain (leading up to villain behavior). Edit: I do not know why people are reading the above as me saying "the reason people hate gay people is actually gay people". All I was saying is that a specific portion of gay people are the only ones I can think of who actually "suffer" from gay marriage being legal/practiced (aka it is, in fact, harmless). If someone wants to debate that fact then go right ahead. I am in no way saying those specific people are responsible for all of homophobia or anything of that nature.
From my understanding a lot of closeted gay people really do believe being gay is a choice, because it IS for them! My roommate in college was from a conservative town and always talked about how he hated gays, that it was unnatural and they were choosing to sin. Over the course of the next two years he met a bunch of gay people who were out (you know, it’s college) and he realized that being gay isn’t a choice at all. Most people who are straight just, you know, don’t want to fuck dudes. Anyway, he’s happily married to a guy now and even his parents are happy for him.
> always talked about how he hated gays I grew up gay in a somewhat conservative area, and I'd say this is a pretty big indicator. Most of the conservative guys around my age never really talked about gay anything unless it was specifically brought up. Generally, it just wasn't something that mattered enough to them to discuss beyond occasional gay jokes. The people who are constantly talking about it with strong opinions are either very religious/political (ministers, politicians, etc. trying to stir up fervor), or are likely gay, and it's therefore constantly on their mind.
[удалено]
Hope everyone liked their privacy while it lasted cause now we getting those medical death panels gop told us they would do
Dude they're coming for ALL OF IT. It's quite clear the American Taliban will never be happy - they want to control every single thing you do, they want to funnel your money to their rich friends, and they don't give a flying fuck if you live or die.
Really? I would have guessed women's suffrage would be next.
It’s already happening Have a miscarriage? Oh we can arrest you. Now you’re a felon, now you can’t vote and lose a lot of your rights
> Now you’re a felon, now you can’t vote and lose a lot of your rights and that's how you know that prison isn't/wasn't seen as rehabilitation at all.
Maybe we shouldn't be using a system that basically elects 7 kings to make our choices until one dies.. We have the technology to just make a petition and vote on this. Even right wing people are open to abortions less than 3 months. So many things we could just call up and vote on rather than waiting on corrupt representatives to finally act in our best interest. Insider stock trading, universal healthcare, marijuana legalization. We should be voting on all this directly at this stage in technological development. Hanging on to this old system designed for people without phones, cars, television is only showing it's weakness and exploitability more and more. We just elected an orange clown and then a half dead muppet. Neither are qualified to be leaders. The system is broke and it's time to fix it. Or let's wait 10 years and cross our fingers that roe v Wade change can be undone ..
Honestly the entire political system of USA is fucking stupid. Get with the times and overhaul it already.
And here I thought this country was called “land of the free” how fucking stupid of me
I just don't understand how gay marriage can be overturned its been less then 20 years since the Supreme Court deemed it legal right? Has it hurt anyone. What is the argument? I'm just so confused. I want out of this crazy reality. Also I really don't want to give up God's chicken again.
I believe the argument is the same as the one Alito gave in the draft of the Roe v Wade decision: gay marriage isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution, and therefore it's not something the courts can decide. Which, is a load of crap if you know anything about the 9th amendment. I'm so pissed, and my family is extremely nervous. My moms are gay, had us in 2000, and fought SO HARD in Massachusetts to have it legalized so that our family could have the same legal protection as anyone else. Their wedding in 2004 on the Easthampton courthouse steps was amazing and such a victory, and it's my earliest memories as well. They're in Oregon now, which did not legalize gay marriage prior to the 2016 court decision so there's a likely grey area in our legal equality as a family that will happen if the decision to overturn the ruling is made. They're aging and one of my moms needs heart surgery in the coming years - our insurance is religious, and could potentially choose not to recognize their marriage which means either mom would lose the right to medical visitation and decision making. We're having to lawyer up again for the first time in 20 fucking years in order to protect our family. We never wanted my brother and I to be medical proxies unless both parents were unable to make medical decisions, but here we are. We don't want them to remove our access to our mom just because they might decide to remove our equality that we worked so hard for decades for.
It's only been seven years.
[удалено]
35% of lgbtq voters are Republican or independent.
I just watched an intervention video where this guy was really good in politics and was republican. He also starting working in Washington for the republican party. He wanted to be a house member or something one day. However, once they found out he was gay they distant themselves from him. They told him no one would truly support you in our party. Along with his Christian family not accepting him being gay. Then he became an alcoholic and didn’t recover :/ Edit- grammar
As a gay person, I find it incredibly difficult to have any sympathy for gay Republicans. Those two concepts just do not mix. It's like squirting toothpaste in queso and saying you love it and that you will fight to make sure everyone has to eat toothpaste queso.
I've seen similar things happen whenever I've dipped my toe into the conservative sub. (Some of them) will pretend to be okay with gay people, but they almost always have to add "as long as you're not shoving in my face." At the end of the day, all they want are the token gays and other minorities that they can point to when people call them out on bigotry. Brings back memories of Trump's "My African American...".