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.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    We’re already on the south shore of the Rubicon for me. The line of no return has already been crossed. At this to the list of why this regime must be stopped.

  • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • Barbecue Cowboy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Uh, yeah. They overturned Roe vs Wade, also supported by the majority and Republicans and Democrats. They didn’t give a shit…

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

  • ssillyssadass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I’ve pretty much given up hope for the American people ever growing a spine and standing up for themselves, but if there’s one thing I still believe can make things start happening it’s if gay marriage is outlawed.

    Though I will prepare myself to be proven wrong. That hasn’t failed me before.

    • Carl@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’ll go the same way it went for abortion. Red states will get worse while blue states stay more or less the same, which will prevent libs in the blue areas from mobilizing effectively to protect minorities in the red ones.

      • djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I think at this point, organization efforts should be focused on evacuation and relocation of people from red states to blue states. Let the people who voted for this shit face all the inevitable consequences, and get the people who will most be in danger when Balkanization happens somewhere safe. They’re already killing trans people, it’s just gonna get worse.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        This, Roe V. Wade was the ultimate test, it was repealed and America went “Oh no… So anyway”

    • BadlyTimedLuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      While I agree with this sentiment.

      I’m hoping there’s an actual change with a plan, not just 100 Luigi’s for every 1 CEO

    • Slartibartfast@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Agree entirely on the value judgement but it’s not a right if a single party can remove it.

      It should have been written into the damn constitution with an ammendment along with bodily autonomy for women. But that would have taken some guts and foresight by the democratic leaders.

      Now it’s too late.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        It should have been written into the damn constitution with an ammendment along with bodily autonomy for women. But that would have taken some guts and foresight by the democratic leaders.

        An amendment would have taken 38 state legislatures ratifying it. There aren’t 38 state legislatures likely to pass ratification of an amendment that guarantees a right for any two adults to marry without exception and also guarantees a right for any woman to terminate any pregnancy without exception at her will.

        That’s probably tied for the lowest odds any hypothetical amendment has of being ratified.

      • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s the thing about rights.

        There’s no such thing as a “God-given right.” Rights are earned by fighting. By bloodshed and tears. And they’re lost once again by complacency.

      • phx@lemmy.ca
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        that would have taken some guts and foresight by the democratic leaders.

        My understanding is that constitutional amendments also take a high bar to pass with 2/3 of states agreeing to the proposal and 3/4 ratifying. Given the issues getting even more basic things through the Senate/House I could definitely see this getting blocked by red states.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          My understanding is that constitutional amendments also take a high bar to pass with 2/3 of states agreeing to the proposal and 3/4 ratifying. Given the issues getting even more basic things through the Senate/House I could definitely see this getting blocked by red states.

          Two routes to amend the Constitution.

          1. Both houses of Congress pass a proposed amendment by a 2/3 majority. Then 3/4 of states ratify that amendment in their state legislatures. This is how every amendment to date has occurred.
          2. 2/3 of state legislatures call for a Constitutional Congress, during which any number of changes may be made, but any changes must be agreed to by 3/4 of the states. Congress gets no say in this process. Congress getting no say in this process is the point - it exists so that if there’s an issue with the Constitution that Congress is unable or unwilling to resolve (for example if Congressional power needs to be curtailed in some fashion), it can be fixed despite them.

          Note the key thing here: Republicans have been pushing hard at the state level for decades, and 2 is why. If ever 38 state legislatures are red, they can more or less arbitrarily rewrite the Constitution to their will regardless of what the remaining states or anything at the federal level has to say about it.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Dear LGB Drop The T losers

    You played yourself, they were never concerned about “my kind” appropriating “your kind”, they were never after us, they were always after you, we were just in the way.

  • FosterMolasses@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • smeenz@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Don’t forget separate areas on the bus and theatre for coloured folk. Gotta regress fully.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      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 on the planet. He thought he was one of the GOOD ones. Turns out they never approved of him OR his marriage…

      • Ledericas@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        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?

    • OneMeaningManyNames@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

  • lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • ghen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.

        • ghen@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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.