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.
So … when are they going back to legalising child marriage and removing divorce?
They’re already working on it.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/no-fault-divorce-advocates-fret-vance-ban/
I love how none of them ever had grandparents that got “divorced” before no-fault. You know what you did a lot of the time before no-fault if you wanted out? Killed your husband. Wives, when they were forced with a situation where they couldn’t simply leave the state/country, would just poison their spouse. In the early 1900s, when your wife was often the one who was at home all the time, preparing all your meals, it was INCREDIBLY easy to do in a way that looked like “oh well he just kept getting sicker and sicker”.
Lack of no fault also meant you often had to lie about your spouse in order to get a divorce. Sometimes these lies were agreed to by the spouses beforehand, sometimes they were not.
Clocking in!
Child marriage is already legal. We don’t have to go back to that.
No-Fault divorce is already on the chopping block.
‘Til death do us part’ is gonna be the only option soon, just an FYI for my peeps in abusive relationships out there.
Well there is a clause in there.
Child marriages were never banned in the US. Hell, the GOP has been pushing to lower the age of consent from 18 already, and carving more and more pedo loopholes into the law.
Like, it’s not being a pedo, if you raised her from aged 4 (ie, child from previous marriage), and married her at 16, because “She loves Daddy so much!”. Or, it’s not being a rapist if you’re a good swimmer. And, well, divorce… That’s pretty hard for some women, in some states, already.
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.
Just more government fingers in places they shouldn’t be from the party of supposedly small government.
…yeah this isn’t happening. Cry all you want, that shits in the constitution.
I saw that episode the other week. Don’t know when it came out, but very accurate.
Dude, they want to decree all gays as pedos and give them the death penalty.
And you’re going, "they can’t do that! That’s illegal!
Seriously?
Even the most devout cultists understand that culling 7% (and rising) of the population in a country with a negative birth rate is a bad move.
EDIT: I must admit, this reply has been living in my head rent free, and I have a lot more to say about it:
Are you aware of how much the death penalty costs? It is on average $3,000,000 for the state to execute someone (legally). Assume for a second you are a billionaire oligarch. You’ve cut taxes for you and your billionaire friends and raised them for the working class. Now assume you have 7.1% of the population that earns a roughly 10% higher wage on average (please note that although the median household income is lower than average for lesbian couples, both women do still make roughly 7% more than heterosexual women, as the gay wage gap exceeds the gender wage gap)
Now, although this percentage of he population produce more income, they are still firmly generally working class. So what do you do? Obviously you’d try to make it so they can’t marry so you can collect more from them in taxes; you wouldn’t fucking spend your tax dollars to murder them, that makes no sense.
They’re evil, they aren’t stupid.
They’re evil, and absolutely yes, they’re fucking stupid. They aren’t gonna go to all the trouble of a fair trial and appeals, they just want to kill whoever they want, when and where they find them.
I just don’t see it; the only thing these fucks care about is money. They have the working class where they where they want them, and randomly assassinating its members is the easiest way to get people rioting.
I know I would be.
They randomly kill members of the working class every single day, and you barely even notice.
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.
The US Constitution? It most certainly is not
Have you learned nothing? If these morons don’t like it, it’s going.
Have you read the constitution?
Have you?
Relevant excerpt: “…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;… nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The amendment was not properly interpreted prior to 2015. It would be nearly impossible to change the interpretation at this point because it would need to be changes from “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws” to “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws; except for gay people”
The 14th amendment should have covered gay marriage from the get-go; and I seriously don’t see how you could argue that it can be restored to its prior; clearly wrong, interperitation.
There is nothing to overturn. This is not the same thing as Roe V Wade; which arguably did not have constitutional precident. Its clearly written in the 14th that Americans are to have equal rights legally. 'Less there’s a fucking coup, that’s not changing.
Ah, just how Roe v Wade interpreted the right to healthcare. Can’t reverse that. It’s a binding and permanent interpretation of the Constitution. Kavanaugh, Barrett both said that it was settled law, no backsies.
Abortion is unfortunately political, and therefore goes beyond healthcare. To be frank; Roe V Wade was unconstitutional. I’m not arguing that it should be, I’m simply pointing out that it is. In all honesty, there is likely more ground to completely federally outlaw abortion than there is to protect it. The same is not true of marriage, which is constitutionally protected as a fundamental right, and the 14th amendment states that no one in the jurisdiction of the united states is to be subject to laws differently based on background. Its open and shut; gay marriage being outlawed is just as likely as a 3rd Trump term. It is possible, but not under the federal government as it exists now.
Abortion is unfortunately political
Name something that isn’t these days.
deleted by creator
What’s wrong? Didn’t want to respond to the other 116 words?
Go fuck yourself. I provided a paragraph of explanation for my viewpoint, and the best you could muster was a strawman of the first 4 and a personal insult.
Nah, everything you said was all just staggeringly naive and amounts to nothing more than “they can’t do that, it’s unconstitutional!”
The ultrawealthy want us all dead or enslaved, and nothing else will do.
With this current supreme court I can definitely see them reverting to the previous interpretation. It doesn’t have to make logical or legal sense when it comes to activist judges.
That’s not saying they should, just a pessimistic prediction based on previous actions of this court.
Lol
Oh to be so young that you don’t remember gay marriage being illegal
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.
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.
-
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.
Obvious it was coming but that doesn’t make it hurt any less.
… I said, wiping his load from my eye.
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.
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.
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
She’ll just blame Democrats and the left, somehow.
I actually know a few people in LGBTQ who voted for Bronzo the Clown. Have not heard their reactions to how things have been going since he took office.
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.
christian terrorists strike again
All while pretending to be libertarians.
While Libertarians spread the “both sides” false equivalency and mark ‘R’ on their ballots…
“Gay marriage violates the nap somehow” like they’ve already been doing that for abortion
One thing they’re going after is adoption and surrogacy.
According to project 2025. A child shall be raised by their biological mother and father.
Queer erasure won’t end with TQ. They’ll go after LGB too.
That hits divorce, IVF, and IUI for heteros as well
dude just look at the taliban and know that’s where we’re headed. except jesus flavored. divorce is irrelevant if all you have to do is accuse your wife of something and…“redeem your family’s honor”
and if the (forced into marriage) wife wants a divorce? “LOL shut your filthy whore mouth and get back in the kitchen”
except jesus flavored
There is no trace of Jesus Christ flavoring in whatever the fuck those “christians” are practicing. Even Satan is into punishing the wicked. These motherfuckers reward evil.
Mmmm holy infant so tender and mild 😋
I agree, there is no Jesus is those ideas. Unfortunately, there is some Peter and Timothy. :( I’ve been reading the New Testament on my own as religious exploration. I’ve enjoyed who Jesus is, but his disciples represent more of their times.
Just remember the names assigned to the gospels are not reflective of the actual apostles. John is likely several different people. Paul wrote most of his letters etc.
Reddit’s academicbiblical subreddit is very good if you want non-theological takes on the scriptures.
Thanks for that note. I’m reading it first hand without much supporting text.
I encourage looking into how some of the more rigorous traditions interpret it all once you’re done. Catholicism in particular has some valuable ideas such as the non-overlapping magesteria of science and religion. The basic concept of which being that if the Bible says something that science counters it was likely metaphorical or a more primitive understanding, as the point of it is to convey spiritual truth and not scientific or historical fact.
I left Christianity myself due to theological disagreements, but there are many paths up the same mountain and I wish you the best of luck in your seeking
Yeah, it was a blast hearing the priest preach around Jesus’ words during sunday mass. He died for our sins, now let’s cherrypick his teachings to justify ours.
You say that, and yet transubstantiation. Jesus flavored wine and crackers every Sunday.
It’s the false prophets and antichrist of revelations. That’s their whole thing, using the aesthetic of holiness to convince Christians away from the teachings of Jesus. On their foreheads they wear a symbol of their devotion to the antichrist.
I’m not a Christian and I think revelations was a really bad trip influenced by a fascistic wave during the early Roman empire, especially considering what a shitshow the Julian dynasty was. But still I don’t see any good interpretation of their religion that doesn’t damn Christian nationalists
and if the (forced into marriage) wife wants a divorce
Well, you have to understand, she’s much, much, younger than he is, nearly a child, she can’t possibly know what she really wants. She’s 17, he’s 50, just the arrangement Jesus approves of, ask any Republican geezer and he’ll tell you.
Yep, that’s the goal. Only the wealthy, who are otherwise protected from the arm of the law, will be the only ones who are not just chattel for the workhouses.
They need more workers? Impregnate more women via IVF, with the “economic exclusion” that will be crafted into law, that only applies to the workplace. Why worry about divorce when your master is choosing for you? Too many workers to feed? UID, ordered by your master.
They control everything for the working class, even the reproductive cycle. Even love needs to be removed from the equation. 1984 laid out the “why” for it all.
“You will live as we tell you to”
Adoption, in many cases, contributes to a situation where pregnant people are coerced into giving up their child. It’s a problem most people don’t want to hear about, though, like most problems primarily faced by women.
Not all cases though. So project 2025 is going to be pretty damaging even in this area.
Gonna need a source on those “many cases” of coercion, I’d like to hear about it.
I’m sure that’s true for some cases.
Many though? I’m going to need a source otherwise I’m calling bullshit.
TBH I just know about this because of people I know who’ve given up children for adoption. Mirah Ruben’s The Stork Market looks like it covers a lot of what they talk about basically, but I haven’t read it.
There are a lot of things that I was raised to believe in a liberal society, like police being good for everyone, America being the good guys, communism being bad; and of course later I learned that it was not as it had seemed. For me, learning about the harm done by the international adoption industry was also one of those eye-opening moments. Fundamentally, it’s an industry with little oversight and which has an incentive to acquire babies from people in a rough spot in life, because the middleman makes a profit; that this incentive exists should give you pause, if nothing else.
How has this realistically altered my worldview? I now think adoption ought to be considered a duty or perhaps a privilege, but not a right. In other words, nobody should have the absolute right to have children just because they can’t conceive them in the usual way. I also think that adopted children should always have the right to know who their birthparents are and to reach out to them or their next of kin. I also think there shouldn’t be an international adoption industry, or at least it should have vastly more oversight. For what it’s worth, this is quite a centrist position compared to the more radical viewpoints of the people I know who have given up children. (They tend to think adoption is wrong in all cases – though that’s generally for a certain definition of “adoption” which basically means “erasure of the birthparents.”)
Anyway, I don’t particularly desire to argue about this back and forth, so I won’t. Maybe you think the people I know are naïve for being salty about choices they made as teenagers that they regret now. That’s what I thought at first. If you call bullshit, ok, but I hope that next time you hear about this issue from someone else you’ll be inclined to give them a listen at least.
(Is it homophobic to say that you don’t have a right to raise children if you can’t conceive them? Perhaps. If it means anything, I’m gay myself; but I also don’t have any interest in children, so that doesn’t really matter either way.)Edit: tree_frog has convinced me that I shouldn’t have mentioned that this wasn’t about adoption in same-sex marriage specifically, since apparently that just makes it sound like I’m secretly homophobic, and also small-minded apparently, so please ignore that I guess.It’s small-minded. In response to your question.
And I understand that there are economic incentives for people to give up their children for adoption. I also know that there’s economic issues that can make it difficult to raise a child.
And I also know that the way project 2025 is written, this will also target surrogacies.
If you didn’t want to argue, if you didn’t want to debate, why bring it up? Because from here it feels like propaganda to be honest.
Paraphrasing: I’m a gay man who has no interest in raising children. And I’m okay with the far right targeting queer folks because won’t someone think of the women? Also, here’s my left cred and I don’t really want to debate my position.
I mean that’s what you just did right? Do you see how that looks like propaganda?
I’m not sure how to respond to any of your questions. Does the fact that my argument looks like propaganda to you invalidate the argument? Should I have not touched on homophobia at all, despite it being relevant?
As for leftist cred, I’ve said it elsewhere but I’d consider myself only about 50% leftist, and <50% liberal. Sorry to disappoint.
I don’t really understand what’s small-minded. It’s small-minded to say you don’t have the right to raise children if you can’t conceive them? I would think small-mindedness is normally associated with not thinking critically, but given that I changed my mind after – ah sorry, that will sound like propaganda again. I’m not sure how to argue here.
Btw, I’m not okay with project 2025, and I am sure that they will do only harm here. But Hitler painted dogs, and I won’t condemn painting dogs. I’m not going to back down from my belief that the adoption industry is harmful just because project 2025 wants to end adoption. I don’t even want to see adoption ended entirely, as I said; so yeah I don’t agree with project 2025 even in this area. Do I sound less like propaganda now? Or does trying to sound less like propaganda only make it worse.
Edit: Ah, I get it now. You are annoyed that I mentioned I’m gay. Yeah I mean, I try to avoid playing the minority card to win an argument usually. In this case, I thought people might think I’m just being homophobic, and was trying to signal that my beliefs about adoption have nothing to do with adoption in same-sex marriage specifically. But, yeah, point taken.
Anyway, if you want to argue about pointless stuff like this, yeah, sure, I mean, I’ll bite. But if you’re going to be asking me for specific data relating to pregnant people being coerced into giving up their children, I’m really not terribly knowledgeable so you aren’t going to learn much more than what I’ve already said. I mean, I can pester my friends for talking points, I guess.
And finally, edit 2, just because it bothers me: this is lemmy, this is the 2020s, please, stop assuming everyone on the internet is a man.
edit 3: no actually, I’m just stuck on this “propaganda” thing. Is there some magic shibboleth to prove that I’m actually speaking genuinely? Is that not a general-purpose argument against anyone who happens to disagree with you? Or, like, do you personally have such a narrow Overton window that you literally think that anyone who disagrees with you on one (1) matter must be secretly a plant for your furthest political rivals, and the fact that they have included other sentiment which looks like an ally’s only proves it’s a false flag? “Shit – she just said she doesn’t agree with project 2025. She must be lying! Don’t ask how I know.”
I didn’t read your whole comment. I got to the point where you said you don’t want to see adoption end entirely.
And what I want you to understand, is the language in project 2025 is about ending adoption entirely for queer families.
So yes, when you come in to a thread about queer erasure, with concern trolling about women, yeah it’s going to feel like propaganda. And I had to go through your comments to be sure you weren’t a bot.
Because not all adoptions are wrong. To use your painted dog argument, yes some adoption agencies are predatory. Yes capitalism is predatory and it puts women in a shitty position when it comes to adoption. But that doesn’t make all adoptions evil.
Like if me and my partner wanted to be surrogates for a couple that couldn’t have babies, illegal.
That’s some authoritarian bullshit.
And I don’t know where you fall on the left spectrum but I’m a fucking anarchist. I don’t need authoritarians telling me my partner and I can’t carry children for our friends. Fuck that.
So yeah, adoption is way more nuanced than you are making it out. And in your defense of women, you defended queer erasure.
And then played your gay card to justify your shitty take. While throwing queer families under the bus.
For the umpteenth time: I don’t support project 2025! Why would you even think that? I do think adoption in some cases is okay. Being queer has nothing to do with whether or not adoption is okay. Project 2025 has nothing to do with my feelings about adoption. I have mixed feelings about surrogacy, but if it’s for friends I believe it’s okay. I’m not an anarchist anymore, I’m more authoritarian these days – after all, I do think there should be an authority stopping people from polluting the planet and coercing pregnant people into giving up their children.
Can you please remember the human and not assume that someone who disagrees with you is arguing in bad faith and is intentionally using evil tactics or a “concern trolling” bot?
I do not know how to be more clear about me not supporting project 2025, me supporting queer people, and me understanding that not all cases of adoption are the same. Like, I feel like almost every sentence I have said is about one of those things, in support of that thesis. It is as though you are imagining I have said things entirely the opposite of what I have said.
International adoption yeah that’s definitely absolutely fucked. I will say I think it shouldn’t be a right per se to be allowed to adopt, but I do think that adoption agencies should have grounds on which they aren’t allowed to discriminate.
Oh yeah for sure. By “nobody should have a right to adopt” I didn’t mean “only some people of certain demographics should have the right to adopt.”
Orphan crushing machine comes one step closer to reality
“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.
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’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.
Meanwhile a ton of conservatives are closeted gays
im not gay! im deeply closeted!
foot tapping echo gets louder
“wide stance”.
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.
