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.
…yeah this isn’t happening. Cry all you want, that shits in the constitution.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Lol
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
The US Constitution? It most certainly is not
I saw that episode the other week. Don’t know when it came out, but very accurate.
Have you learned nothing? If these morons don’t like it, it’s going.
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.
-
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…
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.
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.
Clayton Bigsby divorced his wife because he won’t be married to a n-word lover.
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.
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.
christian terrorists strike again
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.
So … when are they going back to legalising child marriage and removing divorce?
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.
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.
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”.
Clocking in!
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.
wow! What a rollercoaster ride
“Liberty Council” seems to take away liberties. Yup. That sounds like conservatives all right.
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.
Very “Ministry of Truth” of them.
Imagine being so gay that you sit around thinking about gay sex.
I don’t have to imagine it
What office are you going to run for?
I dunno something gay
Office of missionary for the sole purpose of procreation probably
Chairman of the Federal Department of Cum Guzzling
DOGE?
My god. If Elon could read he’d be dead from that one.
DOGE?
Department Of Guzzling Ejaculate? Explains why they’ve got Big Balls working there. Somebody’s got to be the supply side.
So, Focus on the Family?
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.
They were after all of us. We wouldn’t’ve been spared by not being in the way
You would have been stronger together, though.
That’s why most of us have stood together yes
By being “in the way”, I mostly mean society had moved on from “The Gay Debate” and was now onto the “Trans Debate”
The Conservatives needed to end the “Trans Debate” in their favor, even if by force moreso than actual public opinion, before they could turn back time to undo the “Gay Debate” ended in a way they didn’t like
First they came for the communists.
When you sell yourself out as a lapdog, don’t be surprised if you end up reaping what you sow.
First they came for the Trans people…
Just more government fingers in places they shouldn’t be from the party of supposedly small government.
The stun lock proceeds
And after that I’m sure inter-racial marriage will be next. Fuck these people
And Thomas would vote to repeal without a second thought.
In his concurring opinion on Dobbs (eliminating constitutional protection for abortion), Thomas wrote:
The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue.
This is basically a list of precedent cases he wants the court to revisit. The conspicuously absent case is Loving v. Virginia, which is what protects interracial marriage. There’s also a pretty obvious reason why: he’s in an interracial marriage.
