Current Events > You think America will lose marriage equality and inter racial marriage?

(+) Yeah! (+)

deoxxys posted...

Lmao you guys seriously think there's going to be some revert

Abortion was a right far longer than gay marriage.

TheVipaGTS posted...

they know that. Downplaying this shit is the first step in the GOP handbook, followed by convincing their (typically small minded and idiotic) base that if this doesnt happen they will die.

After all the "leave it to the states" rhetoric, Republicans are working towards introducing a bill for a federal ban. Complete truth. Eventually the rhetoric is going to turn into "well murder doesn't stop at state lines!"

TerraSeeker posted...

There's no evidence for such thoughts

2 sitting justices have taken multiple shots at obergefell. Maine GOP and Virginia GOP just reaffirmed their OPPOSITION to gay marriage. The GOP platform still calls for its ban. Tennessee tried pushing for "super special straight civil law marriage". An Indiana senator said Loving was a bad ruling.

But yeah if you ignore all that we have no evidence.

Isn't one of the conservative justices black? Then again I've run into black people that believe in segregation sooo yeah maybe interracial marriage isn't safe.

I can easily see gay marriage being attacked.

won't see outright bans on them but courts will be much more reluctant to enforce civil rights related matters (not that they have been knocking it out the park lately) expect Far Right state legislatures to go even more buckwild ini the next decade and some change.

AP3Brain posted...

Isn't one of the conservative justices black?

So?

His wife also participated in the insurrection and he voted to try covering it up. He has no shame.

Goldice posted...

Abortion was a right far longer than gay marriage.

After all the "leave it to the states" rhetoric, Republicans are working towards introducing a bill for a federal ban. Complete truth. Eventually the rhetoric is going to turn into "well murder doesn't stop at state lines!"

And that will be the thing that the GOP will break the filibuster for. And once that is gone the doors will open to every fucked up thing that they want.

coolboy11 posted...

won't see outright bans on them but courts will be much more reluctant to enforce civil rights related matters (not that they have been knocking it out the park lately) expect Far Right state legislatures to go even more buckwild ini the next decade and some change.

I mean they took a baseball bat to the VRA already (chief Roberts accomplishing his life's work).

About the only thing that gives me a tiny smile is the fact Roberts knows his legacy is tied to this court and he seems to clearly know how history will view him.

I've got a message for the GOP if they try and outlaw interracial marriage...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/6/7/AAb6zeAADMzT.jpg

With so many Black Republicans in interracial relationships. (not saying it is a republican thing, just saying it exist among republicans. ) That would hurt them with the few black people that support them.

cjsdowg posted...

With so many Black Republicans in interracial relationships. (not saying it is a republican thing, just saying it exist among republicans. ) That would hurt them with the few black people that support them.

Being a conservative is all about hurting yourself. They'd be pissed, royally pissed, but it's all for the greater good to them.

scorpion41 posted...

Theyre not going after either one, calm the fuck down.

"They're not going after trans people"
"They're not going after abortion"

Shut the fuck up you dishonest stooge

Given that the draft at issue takes several harsh, if not fatal, swings at substantive due process, then yeah, no protections of recent development are safe from the same treatment.

Southernfatman posted...

Being a conservative is all about hurting yourself. They'd be pissed, royally pissed, but it's all for the greater good to them.

I see what you did there. And honestly I was thinking about that when posting (lol)

I think interracial marriage might prove a bridge too far, but gay marriage is definitely going to be next on the chopping block

Intro2Logic posted...

I think interracial marriage might prove a bridge too far, but gay marriage is definitely going to be next on the chopping block

I think we'd see it framed differently than a straight ban on interracial marriages (at least for the next few decades).

We might see individuals with the power to declare certain marriages illegitimate, or you could see targeting of certain groups to make it less common (like banning anyone convicted of a felony from marrying).

It would be a gradual shift to make instances less common and carve out exceptions for "the good ones".

cjsdowg posted...

With so many Black Republicans in interracial relationships. (not saying it is a republican thing, just saying it exist among republicans. ) That would hurt them with the few black people that support them.

My dude, have seen the shit they do to rural white people? Yet the rural white demographic turns out reliably for them every time. Conservatism is a cult now, has been for decades.

Magyar15 posted...

Feel free to look it up yourself, but nearly the entire world is more restrictive of abortion than the US. This includes most of Western Europe as well as Germany

Okay, from your grammar I wasn't which way you were drawing the comparison.

You didn't or avoided my other question - what did you mean by "Now you have to enforce controversial decisions via the hard work of consensus building!"?

Cheater87 posted...

Found this. https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/gop-senator-struggled-interracial-marriage-question-rcna21141

Dude's an idiot, and i doubt any senator would stand by those statements today. But you found one it looks like, who maybe said it once as a gaff. Are you aware of anyone who actually advocates for that?

Ruvan22 posted...

Okay, from your grammar I wasn't which way you were drawing the comparison.

You didn't or avoided my other question - what did you mean by "Now you have to enforce controversial decisions via the hard work of consensus building!"?

Abortion is an issue where people have strong conviction, and one that clearly, from historical precedent, was not considered a right protected by the constitution judging from the fact that different states regulated abortion in different times at the right of the founding. This is the sort of thing, that by intent, people are supposed to argue and disagree with on and come up with policy compromises at the state level. Roe v Wade invalidated all that and was in effect an effort in social engineering and taking sides which has caused more strife and extremism than any decision in living memory. Bringing it back to the states should force some level of compromise.

Magyar15 posted...

Abortion is an issue where people have strong conviction, and one that clearly, from historical precedent, was not considered a right protected by the constitution judging from the fact that different states regulated abortion in different times at the right of the founding. This is the sort of thing, that by intent, people are supposed to argue and disagree with on and come up with policy compromises at the state level. Roe v Wade invalidated all that and was in effect an effort in social engineering and taking sides which has caused more strife and extremism than any decision in living memory. Bringing it back to the states should force some level of compromise.

Ahh so you were saying it should have been left up to the states. A few questions:
A) Do you believe Texas, Florida, Idaho, etc had discussions before enacting their recent abortion restrictions?
B) Why do you believe "historical precedent" should be the determining factor in whether something is a right? Different states at the time of founding had varying laws about lots of things but the country has decided to implement (14th and 19th for example).
C) You mentioned the US being less regressive than other countries - why was this relevent?

Ruvan22 posted...

Ahh so you were saying it should have been left up to the states. A few questions:
A) Do you believe Texas, Florida, Idaho, etc had discussions before enacting their recent abortion restrictions?
B) Why do you believe "historical precedent" should be the determining factor in whether something is a right? Different states at the time of founding had varying laws about lots of things but the country has decided to implement (14th and 19th for example).
C) You mentioned the US being less regressive than other countries - why was this relevent?

A)No idea.
B) It's about more than being right. It's about people having the right to decide what kind of society they want to live in. From that perspective, we have been getting less and less free, partciularly as the administrative bureaucracy has grown.
C) What do you mean?

they are 100% coming for gay marriage and any equal rights laws for lgbt people.

some super nuts want to go after interracial marriage but that is just a bridge too far, even for the current chuds. no way would thomas or roberts or gorsuch roll that back. thomas would likely do it if he wasn't actually in an interracial marriage imo but he isn't going to invalidate his own 40+ year marriage.

part of me wishes the gop would loudly go after interracial marriage just so they would lose all the hispanic votes they have and half of the suburban whites

I've known quite a few people of many different races throughout my life who were disgusted at the idea of dating outside of their race. So much so that they'd call interracial couples race traitors. I've never seen the problem with interracial relationships/marriages. Then again my dad raised me to respect everyone regardless of race/gender/sexuality/etc. ._.

No

Magyar15 posted...

which has caused more strife and extremism than any decision in living memory.

Why is this the issue on which we should cave to the extremists?

I dont know if we'll lose it or not, but I guarantee the right will go after it.

andel posted...

they are 100% coming for gay marriage and any equal rights laws for lgbt people.

some super nuts want to go after interracial marriage but that is just a bridge too far, even for the current chuds. no way would thomas or roberts or gorsuch roll that back. thomas would likely do it if he wasn't actually in an interracial marriage imo but he isn't going to invalidate his own 40+ year marriage.

part of me wishes the gop would loudly go after interracial marriage just so they would lose all the hispanic votes they have and half of the suburban whites

He doesn't have to invalidate his own marriage. Just make it a states' rights decision. His wouldn't be touched because he lives in DC which isn't a racist shithole.

Blo posted...

Why is this the issue on which we should cave to the extremists?

Because pretty soon it's likely to be harder to enforce your extremist viewpoint at gunpoint.

undefined posted...

Ahh so you were saying it should have been left up to the states. A few questions:
A) Do you believe Texas, Florida, Idaho, etc had discussions before enacting their recent abortion restrictions?
B) Why do you believe "historical precedent" should be the determining factor in whether something is a right? Different states at the time of founding had varying laws about lots of things but the country has decided to implement (14th and 19th for example).
C) You mentioned the US being less regressive than other countries - why was this relevent?

Magyar15 posted...

A)No idea.
B) It's about more than being right. It's about people having the right to decide what kind of society they want to live in. From that perspective, we have been getting less and less free, partciularly as the administrative bureaucracy has grown.
C) What do you mean?

A) So why do you believe leaving it up to the states will lead to a conversation and compromise? Recent laws were not reached through that, but through slim Republican majority in most of the states (that don't match population desires)
B) Apologies for the grammar - I wasn't asking "abortion being right", I was asking "abortion being a right", since you referenced precedence as a guiding principle in determining what rights people have.
C) I'm asking why you mentioned abortion rights/restrictions in other parts of the world? How is that related to US abortion rights/restrictions?

MixedRaceBaby posted...

maybe not interracial marriage, but definitely same sex.

This. I could see conservatives go after this.

Ruvan22 posted...

and compromise? Recent laws were not reached through that, but through slim Republican majority in most of the states (that don't match population desires)
B) Apologies for the grammar - I wasn't asking "abortion being right", I was asking "abortion being a right", since you referenced precedence as a guiding principle in determining what rights people have.
C) I'm asking why you mentioned abortion rights/restrictions in other parts of the world

A) I believe that it will be state by state, with some kind of equilibrium being reached through compromise that will likely land around typicaly Western European abortion policy (which is pretty close to where abortion polling is in the US at the moment).

B) Precedent is a guiding principle. However, it is not the only guiding principle. Dred Scott was bad precendent, and deserved to be overturned on it's merits. Being an absolutist is usually not very practical.

C) It's another datapoint. Selective Europhilia is certainly a thing; however, in my experience, Progressives are far more likely to point to Western European policy as a better way to do things than Conservatives (nevermind that Western European policies tend to differ more by country than most people think). Most people in the U.S. are unawhare of how extremist of a policy Roe v Wade enacted relative to the rest of the world, and how this is the case even 50 years later.