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.
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.
If they aren’t stopped, it’s only a matter of time before women won’t be able to own property, take loans or have credit in their names, and maybe even have bank accounts in their own name. Only men will be able to file for divorce. etc, etc.
Right. Any kind of fiscal autonomy means any uppity women are a flight risk and they need to be brought to heel and kept within states that enact the most draconian laws. And we certainly cannot have them getting any ideas about booking flights to other countries…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Liberty Council” seems to take away liberties. Yup. That sounds like conservatives all right.
Very “Ministry of Truth” of them.
Liberty Council
If nothing else, qons can always be counted on to take meanings of words and employ them in ways that are not the meanings normal people have.
Take for instance, their use of the terms and phrases: liberty, freedom, patriotism, small government, and political correctness.
These are the exact same types of assholes that would think nothing of putting a motto like “Arbeit macht frei” on a goddamn concentration camp.
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.
I just love the hypocrisy from republicans. They preach smaller government, but are always the first in line to take rights and freedoms away from those they dislike.
They may tell you otherwise, but their actions say they want to govern based on their own warped “Christian” ideals.
MAGA needs to unfuck themselves, and remember that this is a secular nation. You may not like who someone loves or that they worship a different god, or no god at all. Guess what? It’s none of your damn business. And it certainly isn’t a basis for treating people differently.
I just love the hypocrisy from republicans. They preach smaller government, but are always the first in line to take rights and freedoms away from those they dislike.
More than anything else, their inability to perceive the friction between these stances is what frustrates me the most about conservatives, and convinces me that all their supposed “values” are just the high sounding words they use to justify various forms of bigotry and control.
Another amazing contradiction they never manage to grasp lies among the subpopulation of MAGAs that call themselves libertarian. I had a right-wing friend that freely professed libertarian viewpoints for years. Railed against the government for even getting involved in social issues. Now, like many of the rest of em, he’s one of the biggest apologists for reproductive care restrictions and reigning in the press…
I’m not sure if it’s the hivemind or they just really can’t stand a world full of differences they have to endure.
i know 1-2 asian tubers i used to followed like that. one is a sht for brains when turned full maga and anti-vax , he celebrated trump winning but congragulated NEVADAS “ABORTION RIGHTS” STANCE. i was saying in that sub of thier channel, which is it? do you support trump who is probably going to rubber stamp abortion bans or do support anti-abortions? and the other ones slightly more clever, is called liberterians by his fans, but hes so low info like the other dude its embarrassing, and immediately call things woke when it contradicts his rants. also being asians that you are and supporting maga is pretty “disrespectful/disgraceful to asians”, i can understand vietnamese for being the way they are with maga, but you being “other asians” which are almost always a butt of a joke when referring to race,and having almost no influence in hollywood, unless you play a asian stereotype, and almost hold no political positions at large state or national level. in general because asians do not like to ruffle the feathers.
The gop, putin, fox, and right wing media has gotten them in such a knot that they cant untie themselves. they almost became selfware with luigi, when MSM dint realized by blasting him 24/7 was actually hurting them.
Republicans are either too stupid to understand the hypocrisy or actively engage in it specifically because they enjoy trolling.
Conservatives with a semblance of coherent thought are Democrats.
Anyone that actually understands the system knows both parties are right of center and left is basically a boogie man with no real-world presence in the US.
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.
I wish the media would stop saying ‘conservative’ and start saying ‘fascist’.
The stun lock proceeds
“I don’t know how you think things could get worse for LGBT folk in the US than they currently are!” - Very Useful Idiots, 2024
The American people need to rise up, just a matter of when.
When did the Germans rise up?
The Spartacist rose up way too damned early and got a solid chunk of what could’ve been resistance elements murdered. Including folks like Rosa Luxemburg who told them it was stupid and too early.
They were operating in the context of the ashes of World War 1 and disintegrating empires. The total collapse of centralized authority and subject nations forming governments independently can hardly be considered ‘too early’.
Considering it ‘too early’ in the sense that roving bands of monarchist paramilitaries were still running amok unchecked and (then legitimized by the government?) Yeah, bad time for all who didn’t support Prussian hegemony.
I meant it in the second context, the Freikkorps out numbered them and were functioning as a de facto branch of the Weimar government. Combine that with the fact that the revolt happened when the Weimar Republic was at its strongest and well it was ill advised.
Its also argueable that the slaughter of the Spartacists and leftist in general paved the way for the Nazis. While I dont buy into it I do suspect that if the Sparatacists couldve been a massive boon to the German Resistance later on.
Also I will point out my bias, I do not think direct confrontation is generally all that effective unless its defensive in nature. I believe in absolutely abusing asymmetry when attacking someone. Thusly all my opinions on such actions will default to the idea of abusing asymmetry.
Combine that with the fact that the revolt happened when the Weimar Republic was at its strongest
That I think isn’t quite the case. The uprising occurred in the time period after the Armistice and before the 1919 elections. The Weimar government prior to the 1919 elections existed solely on the legitimacy inherited from the Kaiser. The Spartacists were extrajudicially executed a week before the elections. The constution wasn’t written until the following summer.
The problem with newly born governments is that their weakest periods can often times be their strongest periods since they are liquid and more adaptive.
Just to use an example of what I mean, the modern United States will most likely collapse in on itself due to an over reliance on legalism and folks like Musk and Trump who just ignore it. On the otherhand had Musk and Trump somehow existed back during the founding years of the United States they wouldve been tared and feathered if not just outright shot.
Marriage is a religious ceremony. The state should have nothing to do with it. This is the problem with mixing the state religion with theistic religion. Fuck the social and monetary benefits bestowed on those who participate. This kind of religious bullshit should be entirely removed from the state’s system of violent coercion.
Fuck off. My marriage happened in a judge’s chambers without the slightest whiff of religion, as we’re both atheist.
Marriage is a contract, not a religious ceremony. Being married carries a ton of legal benefits and rights that most people aren’t even aware of.
There’s a reason you have to see a judge and not a priest to get divorced.
Marriage is not a “contract”. The legal benefits and rights that you mentioned aren’t possible with just a contract between the married couple.
…so what, you do the ceremony and God just says “Thou shall now file thy taxes together”?
My same-sex marriage ceremony occurred in a judge’s chambers, nothing religious whatsoever. My husband and I are both very much atheist and would not have allowed any religious bullshit in our marriage.
It’s more accurate to say that the IRS allows us to jointly file taxes once married. If we’re unmarried the IRS wouldn’t allow that. The benefit of filing jointly isn’t granted because of a “contract” between my husband and I, the benefit was already there and waiting for us to become eligible by getting married.
Ah, sincere apologies, I believe I mixed up who I was responding to.
No worries!
What the actual fuck are you talking about? The rights I mentioned aren’t possible just because a priest says so. The contract is what makes them possible.
I didn’t say anything about priests. No priest involved in my same-sex marriage. I’m not addressing religion at all here.
Legally, marriage is not simply a contract between the two married people.
For example, hospital visitation. If marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between my husband and I, how could it possibly compel a hospital to allow my husband to visit me if I’m hospitalized? The hospital didn’t agree to anything in our contract, so how else are they compelled?
My entire point is that marriage has legal benefits that go far beyond what a mere contract between two married parties can possibly grant.
The legal benefits are provided by the marriage contract. The papers you sign at the courthouse to declare you’re legally married are the contract.
How is a hospital legally bound by a contract, which they didn’t sign and doesn’t mention them, to allow my husband to visit me?
The answer is that they aren’t. They are bound by federal regulations to do so, not by the content of any marriage paperwork.
I think there may be some confusion in this thread between marriage contract and marriage license lol.
State’s rights means that if they can take away slavery then we can take away gay marriage.
Capitalism is slavery so america runs on slavery.
Log Cabin Republicans:
surprised_pikachu.jpg
any lgbtq+ and soon to be interracial ones too.
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.
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.
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?
hitler only took 53 days to gain full control of germany,.
The rate they’re going, we won’t need to wait long to find out.
Don’t forget separate areas on the bus and theatre for coloured folk. Gotta regress fully.
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.
