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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
They can’t handle “just a matter of men”.
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.
And then they will come after them for back taxes or something.
Maybe that’s the long game. There are worse ways to get out of a relationship.
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.
She’ll just blame Democrats and the left, somehow.
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.
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.
Just more government fingers in places they shouldn’t be from the party of supposedly small government.
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.
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.
Though most Americans support same-sex marriage, the court’s conservative shift is concerning.
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.
More people need to see this comment.
Yep. They didn’t give a flying fuck about public sentiment on the right to abortion, either.
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…
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.
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.
Don’t forget separate areas on the bus and theatre for coloured folk. Gotta regress fully.
Banning interracial marriage
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.
and whether or not they want to respect the interracial marriages performed by other states.
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…?
You really think the rules will apply to the ruling class?
The rate they’re going, we won’t need to wait long to find out.
hitler only took 53 days to gain full control of germany,.
Of course it is. Did you ever believe that it would stop at trans people?
The definition of “First they came for the communists…”
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 stun lock proceeds
…yeah this isn’t happening. Cry all you want, that shits in the constitution.
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.
Oh to be so young that you don’t remember gay marriage being illegal
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Except…
COVID-19.
1 million+ dead. And they were OK with that.
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.
The US Constitution? It most certainly is not
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.
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.
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.
Abortion is unfortunately political
Name something that isn’t these days.
If you think gay marriage isn’t political you are stupid.
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.
Lol
Have you learned nothing? If these morons don’t like it, it’s going.
I saw that episode the other week. Don’t know when it came out, but very accurate.
this isn’t happening
-
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.
-
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.
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.
im not gay! im deeply closeted!
foot tapping echo gets louder
“wide stance”.
