Opinion Do you think women will ever lose right to vote ? Or are Interracial marriage bans are possible?

[salamander]

I am sure if Trump or any other Republicans win the next election, they will:

-Ban Same sex marriage and interracial marriage
- Deny women and minorities from voting
- Bring back Jim Crow era segregation
-Make it illegal to be gay

really, there is no end to what they will do

lol

 

[Via Heeto]

he was president for 4 years and literally never attempted to do any of this lol

don't matter. he will do it for sure

 

[fungi]

In light of moving backwards on abortion and rumors of overturning same sex marriage.

Couls you see any countries in the world removing womens right to vote which all countries have except now it seems Taliban run Afghanistan.

What about interracial marriage bans which only Arab countries seem to have ? Could you see nations anywhere else doing this.


Do you think in the US or anywhere else in the world they will move backwards? Only countries I read dont allow this stuff are middle eastern ones.

Crazy times we in

From another thread.

Never say never. It's not like society keeps getting nothing but smarter, calmer, more rational and more empathetic.

 

[skysolo]

Interracial marriage? No.

Gay marriage? Maybe.

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

It's always fun to watch someone drum up a made up scenario in their head, project it on to other people and then get mad at the other people for it.

 

[Hdfi]

I think women and men will lose their right to vote or they will vote but it won't make any difference.

 

[Jack V Savage]

anyone who thinks this is a conspiracy-theorist promoting alarmist

That's exactly what people were saying about a Roe repeal. I don't think one can underestimate just how crazy today's right is.

 

[jamel]

I don’t think y’all really know how many interracial couples are out there.

no way in hell that happens in a country where a significant chunk of our military have the Jungle Fever!!!

 

[skold]

It's always fun to watch someone drum up a made up scenario in their head, project it on to other people and then get mad at the other people for it.

You mean like all the imaginary post birth abortions conservatives invent to argue against Roe?

 

[Diogenes of Sinope]

That's exactly what people were saying about a Roe repeal. I don't think one can underestimate just how crazy today's right is.

I think youre using a slippery slope argument tbh, which Ive been told is a right-wing fallacy
also, Roe appeal didnt ban abortion

 

[Bargey]

No but I bet there's quite a few War Room posters who don't think women should be able to vote.

You could probably guess that bunch: they hate Trump, love groupthink and are always telling minorities who they must vote for.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

I thin youre using a slippery slope argument tbh, which Ive been told is a right-wing falalcy
also, Roe appeal didnt ban abortion

there wont be a ban on women voting or interracial marriage, you can rest easy. The fact that people think its even possible tells me hopw jaded the left is.

How does interracial marriage square with originalism/textualism? The vast majority of states, even in the north, had laws banning interracial marriage when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. None of them repealed their laws as a result of the 14's passage. Cleary most people did not think it protected a "fundamental right" to interracial marriage.

Loving overturned the remaining 16(!) states' ban on interracial marriage only in 1967. Roe, Lawrence, and Obergefell built on the same reasoning used in loving to protect abortion, consensual homosexual sex, and SSM respectively. With Obergefell, we already know 3 of the current SCOTUS Justices dissented thus needing only 1 of the Trump appointees to join to wipe it out.

 

[PHATV]

Women's right to vote would be almost impossible to take away. Interracial marriage can be done much like what they did with Roe and will do to same sex marriage.

Absurd. At least two of the SCOTUS justices are in inter-racial marriages. This is drama queen BS from the left.

 

[PHATV]

I can see interracial marriages losing their protection, which is different from being "banned", but not women getting the right to vote because that one is in a Constitutional Amendment.

hahaha

Y'all are crazy.

 

[Rob Battisti]

All went downhill after women’s suffrage IMO. Suffering is more like it!

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Absurd. At least two of the SCOTUS justices are in inter-racial marriages. This is drama queen BS from the left.

The SCOTUS overturned Roe because abortion was not a right "deeply rooted in our nation's history". I'd love to hear how interracial marriage is a right "deeply rooted in our history" considering almost every state had banned it when the 14th Amendment was ratified.

But you're right in one sense, the hypocrites that make up the Conservative bloc of the SCOTUS would pretzel themselves in incomprehensible ways to uphold Loving despite it having the same strength of precedent and reasoning as Roe.

 

[Diogenes of Sinope]

How does interracial marriage square with originalism/textualism? The vast majority of states, even in the north, had laws banning interracial marriage when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. None of them repealed their laws as a result of the 14's passage. Cleary most people did not think it protected a "fundamental right" to interracial marriage.

Loving overturned the remaining 16(!) states' ban on interracial marriage only in 1967. Roe, Lawrence, and Obergefell built on the same reasoning used in loving to protect abortion, consensual homosexual sex, and SSM respectively. With Obergefell, we already know 3 of the current SCOTUS Justices dissented thus needing only 1 of the Trump appointees to join to wipe it out.

Im all for codifying it on a federal level, for the record..

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Im all for codifying it on a federal level, for the record..

So you're fine with the SCOTUS conservatives picking and choosing when to use strict originalism for judicial interpretation of Constitutional rights? That seems to me to be the only answer. Any self respecting "originalist" has to admit the 14th Amendment as originally understood obviously did not protect the right to interracial marriage.

Just proves the entire farce that originalism is and the façade of legitimacy it hides behind. For shame.

 

[Diogenes of Sinope]

So you're fine with the SCOTUS conservatives picking and choosing when to use strict originalism for judicial interpretation of Constitutional rights? That seems to me to be the only answer. Any self respecting "originalist" has to admit the 14th Amendment as originally understood obviously did not protect the right to interracial marriage.

Just proves the entire farce that originalism is and the façade of legitimacy it hides behind. For shame.

Well I view Abortion as a different case since I consider it murder. Equality is a human right, however (marriage, voting)

and really the supreme court is just leaving it up to the states. not banning it outright. But human rights IMO should be protected on a federal level. I consider the right to marry and vote a human right. I dont consider abortion a human right. I consider it the opposite if anything.

 

[LMP]

Absurd. At least two of the SCOTUS justices are in inter-racial marriages. This is drama queen BS from the left.

None of this changes what i said in my post