Law Founding fathers rolling over in their graves

[Lucas1980]

100%. I am 100% pro gay marriage rights because that's the actual conservative position. People should have the right to marry whoever they want so long as they're both consenting adults. That's the actual conservative position.

Now you have your rights, so be quiet.

The first President when he entered the office that held the position that Gays can get married is the same one all these limp noodles have been calling a Nazi and they don't even know that fact and won't admit it.

 

[Sinister]

The day activism should've died.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that sanctions, including any form of criminal punishment to all forms of private, consensual adult sexual activities are Unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the concept of a right to privacy that earlier cases had found the U.S. Constitution provides. The 6-3 ruling invalidated the laws of 14 states, and the court based its ruling on the notions of personal autonomy to define one's own relationships and of American traditions of non-interference with any or all forms of private sexual activities between consenting adults.

If not then, when.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all 50 states to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities.

Neither of those ended overt homophobia, nor did they erase anti-sodomy laws Historically used against homosexual men particularly. Activism isn't merely about getting a blanket general victory, as much as it is about ending discriminatory behaviors broadly by making them less socially acceptable. Given that a few towns and States have responded to any progress on this front for LGBTQ people by revitalizing the practice of enacting restrictive laws, I'd say activism still being alive is a good thing.

 

[Deorum]

Neither of those ended overt homophobia

That will never, ever happen.

nor did they erase anti-sodomy laws Historically used against homosexual men particularly.

Right. The ruling just rendered them toothless. Most of the states that were overruled have made a point of deliberately keeping them on their books, lol.

Activism isn't merely about getting a blanket general victory, as much as it is about ending discriminatory behaviors broadly by making them less socially acceptable. Given that a few towns and States have responded to any progress on this front for LGBTQ people by revitalizing the practice of enacting restrictive laws, I'd say activism still being alive is a good thing.

 

[Sinister]

That will never, ever happen.



Right. The ruling just rendered them toothless. Most of the states that were overruled have made a point of deliberately keeping them on their books, lol.

They're toothless if a case is appealed all the way to the SCOTUS, and you have a SCOTUS that upholds precedent. I feel a ton less confident about that with a Heritage Foundation goon squad, one of whom is in a cultish Catholic sect that mandates every decision the make be run by their spouse, sitting on the bench.

 

[Deorum]

They're toothless if a case is appealed all the way to the SCOTUS, and you have a SCOTUS that upholds precedent. I feel a ton less confident about that with a Heritage Foundation goon squad, one of whom is in a cultish Catholic sect that mandates every decision the make be run by their spouse, sitting on the bench.

Hence:

The problem with all of these - which 'both sides' could take issue with depending on the lens they're viewed through - is that none of them were achieved the way they really should've been, which is through federal congressional legislation. It was the SCOTUS wielding its extraordinary power to legislate from the bench and determine law for all 50 states.

Cons don't like it because of 'judicial activism' and overreach on states rights rhetoric, Libs because the decisions that solidified the rights could just as well be overturned in the future.

 

[Sinister]

Hence:


Cons don't like it because of 'judicial activism' and overreach on states rights rhetoric, Libs because the decisions that solidified the rights could just as well be overturned in the future.

To be fair, in the case of abortion, the Courts that upheld those rights were majority conservative, just a different flavor of conservative politics. With the original Roe being won on Texas, it was their SC telling a reactionary AG "no." Then the SCOTUS upheld this using the 14th Amendment.

I dont buy the more modern premise that the right to privacy doesnt actually exist, which I've read in plenty of opposition to Roe, which always dominoes into other decisions like Obergefell where the 14th Amendment at the center. Though I do agree the best legal action is both Court precedent and act of Congress. However the problem with that is always going to be rogue States. And when I say rogue States I dont mean a State where the people are just largely homophobic and dont want gays getting married in their State...I mean States where legislators ignore even the will of the people. Like the ones currently trying to figure out how to get rid of and ignore ballot measures.

 

[Deorum]

To be fair, in the case of abortion, the Courts that upheld those rights were majority conservative, just a different flavor of conservative politics. With the original Roe being won on Texas, it was their SC telling a reactionary AG "no." Then the SCOTUS upheld this using the 14th Amendment.

I dont buy the more modern premise that the right to privacy doesnt actually exist, which I've read in plenty of opposition to Roe, which always dominoes into other decisions like Obergefell where the 14th Amendment at the center. Though I do agree the best legal action is both Court precedent and act of Congress. However the problem with that is always going to be rogue States. And when I say rogue States I dont mean a State where the people are just largely homophobic and dont want gays getting married in their State...I mean States where legislators ignore even the will of the people. Like the ones currently trying to figure out how to get rid of and ignore ballot measures.

I honestly don't see much of a threat to Lawrence or Obergefell considering the 2020 Bostock decision came from a court that was already majority conservative, and by a 6-3 ruling at that. If the SCOTUS believes that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could be interpreted to include sexual orientation (much less gender identity) when it really, clearly didn't then I've got serious doubts they're going to suddenly be giving states the green light to criminalize consensual sexual activity again or overturn marriage equality.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

It's the conservative political position and arguably even in a social sense given the otherwise rampant levels of promiscuity. But not the religious one, and that fusion with politics is where the objection comes from. It also wasn't even the end of it.

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights decision in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is necessarily also discrimination "because of sex" as prohibited by Title VII. The ruling has been hailed as one of the most important legal decisions regarding LGBT rights in the United States, along with Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).

^ The problem with all of these - which 'both sides' could take issue with depending on the lens they're viewed through - is that none of them were achieved the way they really should've been, which is through federal congressional legislation. It was the SCOTUS wielding its extraordinary power to legislate from the bench and determine law for all 50 states.

100%. Anti abortion and anti gay marriage are religious, not political positions.

Unfortunately in America, religion and politics are joined at the hip with republicans generally being Christian and democrats generally being lgbt/climate doom culters.

 

[king hippo]

LGBT isn’t a religion you moron

woke is a utopian cult religion. we'd have peace on earth and be free to paint pictures and sing kumbaya if only these deplorable dipshits weren't in the way preventing us from having our communist paradise.

 

[emefer]

woke is a utopian cult religion. we'd have peace on earth and be free to paint pictures and sing kumbaya if only these deplorable dipshits weren't in the way preventing us from having our communist paradise.

Hey mods, what’s the point of banning these people if they just come back?
This is nintendorks 4th account this year.

 

[king hippo]

Hey mods, what’s the point of banning these people if they just come back?
This is nintendorks 4th account this year.

what's your problem?

 

[Limbo Pete]

As we've seen. The '03 Lawrence decision itself was an exercise in disregarding and overturning a previous ruling on the same issue (Bowers vs. Hardwick) and that had been as recent as 1986.

I mean, what would have happened if anti-abortion activists had thrown in the towel at Roe? In the long run, there's nothing static about an SC decision, and that's even setting aside other ways in which discrimination can circumvent legal remedies.

 

[Seano]

Hey mods, what’s the point of banning these people if they just come back?
This is nintendorks 4th account this year.

Whats this tattle tale shit? Grow up.

 

[king hippo]

some super guy is living rent free in their heads and they're after anyone who spells in lower case

 

[LangfordBarrow]

so you want to screw the majority to accommodate a minority?

The majority is free to do as they please at home, just like anyone else, but they can't force their beliefs on everyone else. That's the point of being secular. It seems a lot of the division in our country is due to people fearing the country ceasing to have a White Christian majority.

 

[JadeOwl]

Louisiana becomes 1st state to require the Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms



Commandment 1: Yahweh or the highway, bitches.

Commandment 2: see rule 1

Commandment 3: don’t say god damnit, Jesus Christ dude, or “Yahweh or the highway, bitches.”

Commandment 4: Sundays are magical god days.

Yup. Super relevant to our legal and the education process. Can’t wait til the cash strapped school districts gets sued and have to spend thousands to get laughed out of court because of political theater.

The most widely used definition of corruption in international circles that study the phenomenon is "the use of public office/resources for private gain".

And this shit is as transparent an example of that as you are ever likely to find.

Under the Constitution of the United States, this law is transparently unconstitutional. It will be struck down every step of the way because it doesn’t resist the bare minimum legal analysis.

But the people passing it don’t care because the purpose of the bill is not actually to put the 10 Commandments in classrooms, it is to rile up their base and get them to vote. They pass an unconstitutional religious law, and then when it is struck down because it is unconstitutional, they’ll tear their hair out and decry the "godless liberals" and "activist judges" (of the most conservative leaning Supreme Court in living memory) to get campaign contributions and get their base to the voting booth.

And all the while throwing public money down the drain in lawyers to defend the indefensible for the sole purpose of generating free press and free campaigning material for themselves at the expense of the public treasury.

 

[Sinister]

I honestly don't see much of a threat to Lawrence or Obergefell considering the 2020 Bostock decision came from a court that was already majority conservative, and by a 6-3 ruling at that. If the SCOTUS believes that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could be interpreted to include sexual orientation (much less gender identity) when it really, clearly didn't then I've got serious doubts they're going to suddenly be giving states the green light to criminalize consensual sexual activity again or overturn marriage equality.

Thomas and Alito absolutely would. The other conservatives aren't quite as gung-ho about it, that's true.

 

[pv3Hpv3p]

If their rolling over in their graves because of the ten commandments in classrooms, I wonder how they feel about drag queen story hour and generals being furries??

 

[DoctorTaco]

If their rolling over in their graves because of the ten commandments in classrooms, I wonder how they feel about drag queen story hour and generals being furries??

The dudes who wore giant wigs, tights And makeup?

 

[djacobox372]

There should be some sort of penalty for passing unconstitutional laws. Law makers should lose their right to run for office in the future if they attempt to violate our rights.