this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
163 points (100.0% liked)

LGBTQ+

6191 readers
4 users here now

All forms of queer news and culture. Nonsectarian and non-exclusionary.

See also this community's sister subs Feminism, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC


Beehaw currently maintains an LGBTQ+ resource wiki, which is up to date as of July 10, 2023.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"Making matters worse, if Trump is elected this year he could veto any congressional attempt to reverse such a disastrous ruling of the Court by passing a law guaranteeing same sex marriage rights."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 98 points 8 months ago (2 children)

God I'm tired of this backwards ass country. His entire argument is "Christian snowflakes got their feelings hurt when they were called bigots for being against gay marriage".

Maybe because they were bigots for being against gay marriage?

Sorry their feelings got hurt, so this entire group of people can't have rights anymore.

[–] [email protected] 52 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

Personally I am increasingly uncomfortable feeling the "need" to apologize to regressive people about feeling hurt or insulted. They are entirely responsible for their actions.

They are also not sorry that they are pushing the majority of people (women, LGBTQ+, basically anything non-cis-white-men) into a second class or even subhuman status.

I realize that most people are only open to changing themselves when their feelings are not threatened and when they're feeling understood. But what we're talking about here, I don't know the right word, but "accidental" or "unintentional" are not part of it. If regressive leaders like trump or desantis or whoever get elected then we're talking about borderline genocide done on purpose. I don't see how we can come back to acknowledging the feelings of bigots at that point.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This country gets more frustrating when you realize that most of the issues we face right now are (at their root) because most americans have no ability to self reflect on themselves.

Why do I hate X people? Why am I afraid of this? Should I be afraid of this? Why do I feel like I should trust this person instead of that person? Why does this person's views make me uncomfortable. ...why do I feel like I need to have the biggest truck?

If Americans could self reflect on any of those we would be a very different country.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

100%. Honestly after growing up borderline right-wing, self-reflection was one of my main tools for personal and political deconstruction. That and good parents. Anyway, very little stood the test of "why am I doing this, and is it what I really want" when I stopped and looked more than 3 feet in front of my own dumb face. That and realizing I'm hopelessly queer lol.

Of course, self-reflection opens the door to a whole lot more than just politics. I get the sense that, if they started self-reflecting without guidance, the first thing they'd be scrambling for answers about would be why they believe in whatever random religion they were born into. There's a whole lot of fervent people that are one solid reflection away from crying over a toilet on a Monday at 3AM because they'd accidentally deconstructed their faith and can't ctrl-z the issue (not a joke, just an observation/personal experience).

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah when most religion and deeply held beliefs fall apart real quick when the reason for why they're held is "because my parents believed it". Younger generations who are still republican usually start to realize they aren't when asked "why are you republican" and all they can do is spout stuff their parents say. Which is why the best way to help counter their beliefs isn't to say "it's stupid" or "you're wrong", but to instead keep asking questions. "Why do you think that?" "Why do you think marriage should only be between a man and a woman?" "Why do you believe the bible claims that?" Keep asking whys and maybe they'll start thinking

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

Personally I am increasingly uncomfortable feeling the “need” to apologize to regressive people about feeling hurt or insulted. They are entirely responsible for their actions.

The "I'm so sorry your feelings are hurt" non-apology is always an option. It sounds like an apology, but it basically means "I'm sorry you suck" rather than apologising for doing something wrong. In most contexts, it's an asshole thing to do because it's a refusal to acknowledge that someone has a good reason to be hurt. When dealing with bigots, "I'm sorry you suck" is perhaps the most appropriate response.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yeah, fuck ‘em. Don’t apologize.

In addition to what you’ve mentioned, don’t forget it’s the same groups of people who want to give guns more rights than women/people of color/LGBTQ+. After reading things like this… you realize you shouldn’t be apologizing because these people don’t give a shit.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 8 months ago (8 children)

Any judge who makes a ruling based on their personal beliefs rather than on factual evidence is not truly acting as a judge, but rather as a petulant child determined to force everyone else to do things their way. Allowing even a single ruling of law to be based on personal beliefs, whether religious or otherwise, reduces the entire court system to nothing more than a mockery of legal justice.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You just described most of the major SCOTUS rulings over the last couple of decades, at least.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

A judge can’t make rulings solely based on facts, because facts cannot provide a foundation for ethics. Facts can only tell you the way things are, not the way they should be. Rulings should be informed by facts and based on the values of society as a whole.

I agree that they shouldn’t be based on the judge’s personal beliefs. I suppose our judicial system kind of makes this inevitable, though…

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I'm from Japan. They don't even have judges as corrupt as SCOTUS and still don't allow same sex marriage because the ruling party is conservative. Well, the court ruled it's unconstitutional, but we learned that a law in this country can stay unconstitutional if the government ignores the situation. And apparently 90% of the people (at least on the internet) support that because they are conservative.

Makes me realize how broken my country is. It doesn't even count as corruption because it's lawful. Fucking hell...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

They're not wrong, but the title feels sensationalized. Alito and Thomas have talked about Obergefell in a half dozen rulings since Roe v. Wade (including Roe v. Wade) and none of this information is new. They aren't 'preparing' so much as they have been prepared, for some time now.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 8 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

I don't know you but I think I love you.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Maybe they do. If nothing else, that'll give the police an excuse to bust out all of their military surplus armaments for a play date.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

This is what I'm scared of. I don't want to sit at home and do nothing, but whenever there are riots, it feels like people get killed and the causes they died for are just buried in the news cycle.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I might be misunderstanding but I thought legislation was passed and signed to protect same sex marriage at a federal level? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/biden-set-sign-sex-marriage-bill-white-house-ceremony-rcna61423

[–] [email protected] 31 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The law will not, however, require states to issue marriage licenses contrary to state laws.

That legislation ensures the federal government recognizes it and requires states to recognize marriages from other states. It does not prevent a state from banning it within that state. (Really shitty that NBC doesn’t link to the actual text so people can read it themselves)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

If you read the article it does not mean states will have to issue licenses to same sex couples in their own state, just, from my understanding, honor ones issued in states where it is legal (which while Obergefell stands is all of them). It is also important to note that the Supreme Court had the power to overturn legislation if it deems it unconditional, so, while it would be hard for them to outright overturn this bill using the constitution, since a state cannot hold religious preference due to seperation of church and state, it cannot be ruled out entirely. I feel it is likely they rule in favor of an individual, such as a county clerk, not having to issue a marriage license if it "goes against their religious beliefs", which could basically mean a ban for large areas of some states with highly religious conservatives.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

I keep saying we gotta fight these laws through the power of malicious compliance.

Get a job as a clerk with the department of marriages. Say "I'm an atheist, and I don't believe in marriage as in my mind it has a religious character." Sue the state for 10 years salary for firing you.

It's the same as those Florida laws. Sue your kids' school for referring to your child with a gendered pronoun. Sue the library for stocking the Bible. Establish precedent that these laws go both ways. It's the same stuff the Satanic Temple has been doing for years.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Question because my reading comprehension is bad: would this kill same-sex marriage nationwide, or would it just allow red states to say they won't recognize it? Not to say the latter isn't bad, I'm just curious if this would fuck over my ability to even get married in, say, Washington or Oregon.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Yeah, it essentially makes it a state issue, and each state can ban, or not, and choose to recognize marriages from other states, or not. So if you got married in Washington that might allow same-sex marriage and respect marriages from other states, and then you move to e.g. Tennessee that banned it and didn't recognize out of state marriages, your marriage essentially wouldn't exist there. I also imagine for the case of emergencies and whatnot, if you were traveling through such a state, you wouldn't be recognized as spouses, making it literally a life or death issue for travel.

It's very, very bad.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Holy shit, I didn't draw up the situation of travelling while married as a problem but you're absolutely right. It's already getting extremely tricky to figure out what places are OK or no-go for trans and NB people, this is just going to make things so much more fucking worse.

Atlanta for example is a massive air travel hub. What if Georgia doesn't uphold same-sex marriage? What about international travellers who are married abroad?

JFC. These idiots.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

Shows how sheltered I am, but it never occurred to be that same-sex couples from other countries might have trouble traveling in the US because of this. I just thought of this as an American problem.

That said, I started boycotting tourism to the United States in the Bush administration and haven't been back since. My passport even expired over a decade ago.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

What an excellent scheme to keep talents away from entering the red states for a job.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

It sounds odd but that’s the point. Educated voters vote democrat.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

Current federal law requires states to recognize all marriages, including same-sex marriages, from other states but does not require them to issue licenses within their state. The previous Supreme Court had determined the constitution required states to do so, but that could be overturned. They could also decide the federal law is unconstitutional, but that is less likely.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Maybe even that depends on the judges.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

Could this failed state just fail like any other failed state?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

“Making matters worse, if Trump is elected this year he could veto any congressional attempt to reverse such a disastrous ruling of the Court by passing a law guaranteeing same sex marriage rights.”

Call me crazy and naive but there is a small part of me that thinks the democrats can peel off enough republicans to make that happen. There are a lot of pink districts/states with GOP in their seats that would instantly lose their next election if they did that.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

LMAO no. They absolutely cannot. The Repubs have basically deadlocked Congress now in their ideological war. Dems won't get any Repubs to join. But it's moot because Dems won't even bother. Even if they had a supermajority trifecta, they'd still kowtow and refuse to pass a bill without bipartisan support (like they always do). And we even have examples already. Congress knew for over a month that Roe was about to fall and did literally nothing to stop it. And in the time since, Dems haven't said a single word about it or done anything to codify reproductive rights at the federal level.

[–] thedevisinthedetails 5 points 8 months ago

The dems haven't had a supermajority trifecta in over a decade and even that was just a few months and included a few independents. They passed massive legislation in this short time too. So it's time to get over it and learn how our government has worked at every other moment in time.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

For all of our sakes I hope you're right.

Then again, underestimating regressive politicians leaves us with a massive blind spot. You can bet they're counting on that while they lie to literally anyone who will listen about how "evil" progressives are.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Regrettably, it seems like most mainstream Democrats are happy being the anti-Republican Party. They've been happy to try to play centrist or even center right for the last 30 years on a great many issues.

Are enough of them willing to step up on this issue? I wouldn't bet on it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sometimes I wonder if POTUS could declare national emergency due to an unhinged SCOTUS.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

No way this wouldn't lead to at least a few attempts on a Supreme Justice's life

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Nah, that's rather what right wingers do.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

If it really did, it would have happened by now.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Not saying they won't do what the title suggests but I feel like the article itself takes a pretty big leap from the quotes used to the headline. Alito's comments seem to be more focused on governmental discrimination based on religious beliefs than on attacking the legality of same sex marriage

load more comments
view more: next ›