Republicans May Get Gay Marriage Repealed

[brnbk]

On 10/15/2020 at 5:53 PM, BootmanLA said:

Anyone can ask you to do anything, whether or not it's legal for you to do what they ask.

In a prior post on another topic, you bragged about having "voted both sides and still in the middle". Were you referring to voting in another country, where it's legal for you to do so? Or was that a confession that you vote illegally here? 

In that topic, you also made a comment about what "this country" needs to do, electorally - do you think that's really appropriate if you aren't a citizen? I have no idea where you ARE a citizen, but I can assure you I'm not going to tell the voters of that country how they need to vote.

In yet another post, you referred to the United States of America as "our country". If you are not a citizen, why do you consider this "our country"?

I am curious, do you still feel the same way  about the US and see the United States of America as your country, now that the US has started  "porn removal" from your state, Louisiana and I understand that this site, BZ, is effectively banned in Louisiana. 

Do you realize this 'country' of the United States is built on a  ideology of "native removal" and the religious belief that the  christian God had asked and indeed, authorized the white race to kill native Americans, and steal  their lands and their wealth, since they where not white christian Anglo-Saxon protestants! 

If you can read this, I would love to know, if you still feel immigrants to the United States, have a right to call it 'our' i.e. their country especially since your country, unlike others, is almost entirely made up of immigrants, and built over the holocaust of native Americans. 

 

[BootmanLA]

On 2/16/2023 at 10:39 AM, brnbk said:

I am curious, do you still feel the same way  about the US and see the United States of America as your country, now that the US has started  "porn removal" from your state, Louisiana and I understand that this site, BZ, is effectively banned in Louisiana. 

Do you realize this 'country' of the United States is built on a  ideology of "native removal" and the religious belief that the  christian God had asked and indeed, authorized the white race to kill native Americans, and steal  their lands and their wealth, since they where not white christian Anglo-Saxon protestants! 

If you can read this, I would love to know, if you still feel immigrants to the United States, have a right to call it 'our' i.e. their country especially since your country, unlike others, is almost entirely made up of immigrants, and built over the holocaust of native Americans. 

 

I assure you I understand far more than you give me credit for, and as someone whose history studies through graduate school specifically covered the period in which of that "removal of the natives" occurred, I am much more aware than the average American voter.

It is not that I feel immigrants don't have the right to call out the United States for its sins - and lo, those sins are legion. In fact, I don't get where you think I said anything of the sort. I called out a *specific* individual ('NatureBoy', who seems to have left the site after making a series of shitposts) who made some contradictory, if not misleading, statements about his voting participation here.

And I called out his *specific* suggestion, as a non-citizen, as to who those of us who ARE citizens should elect. It's one thing for a Briton or Frenchman (or whomever) to criticize any policy of the United States, particularly on moral grounds. It's another thing to tell citizens of that country for whom they should vote.

And I called him out for saying, in a prior post, something about the United States where he referred to it as "our country", and yet he specifically identified himself as not a citizen here.

 

[viking8x6]

Happy Independence Day 2024, fellow BZ'ers!

As our felonious ex-President is running for office again this year, I am refreshing this thread and reminding you that advocacy for persons and parties inimical to the LGBTQ+ community are not appropriate on this site. Please review this topic if you're not clear on it.

Quote

To put it bluntly, any support of far right ideologies or politicians will be seen by the moderating team as an attack on the gay community and dealt with as such. As always, reasoned, fact-based political discussion is still completely OK (just make sure you quote quality sources with good data).

 

[ellentonboy]

So what about guys that are already legally married?  Not a commitment ceremony, but an actual marriage that was conducted at the court house.  Will these marriages be revoked or overturned?   

I find it surprising and I believe this will be costly.  For years we had "partner benefits" through our employer, each year we had to re-certify, have documentation notarized, etc.  This allowed us dental benefits, all areas of medical insurance, and the relationships were viewed as valid.  It wasn't just gay couples, many were couples who had lived together for a long time but for one reason or another they had never married.   The word "domestic partner" was used.  Now, once gay-marriage was approved, all of that went away.  We had to be married in order for our employers to cover the costs of these benefits, and from what I am told  same sex marriage  saved some local city and county employers millions of dollars.

So how will the government view couples that have been married - will it be up to the state you live in to decide if your relationship is valid or will our marriages be deemed null and void.

 

[BootmanLA]

1 hour ago, ellentonboy said:

So what about guys that are already legally married?  Not a commitment ceremony, but an actual marriage that was conducted at the court house.  Will these marriages be revoked or overturned?   

I find it surprising and I believe this will be costly.  For years we had "partner benefits" through our employer, each year we had to re-certify, have documentation notarized, etc.  This allowed us dental benefits, all areas of medical insurance, and the relationships were viewed as valid.  It wasn't just gay couples, many were couples who had lived together for a long time but for one reason or another they had never married.   The word "domestic partner" was used.  Now, once gay-marriage was approved, all of that went away.  We had to be married in order for our employers to cover the costs of these benefits, and from what I am told  same sex marriage  saved some local city and county employers millions of dollars.

So how will the government view couples that have been married - will it be up to the state you live in to decide if your relationship is valid or will our marriages be deemed null and void.

 

That's an issue for the courts, not surprisingly. Here's my "best guess" on what would happen.

There are basically two paths an attack on same-sex marriage could take. The first is (kind of) already underway, where people challenge whether same-sex marriages are entitled to the same kind of legal status that opposite-sex marriages have always received. The idea that the Court might be open to this kind of attack is one I explored elsewhere, where a Supreme Court opinion from this term basically said that a U.S. citizen married to a foreign national did not have her rights violated when the State Department refused to grant her husband a visa to enter the US, on the grounds that this wasn't a "right" she had in the first place. In other words, just because you're a citizen who is married doesn't mean your marriage does anything for your spouse's rights. 

Take that principle outside of immigration, and suddenly there are a lot of new questions, like benefits. In theory, those questions were answered already, but this Court has shown it's willing to toss decades-old precedent when it doesn't like the results, and I could easily see at least 5 of the 6 conservatives on the Court doing the same for same-sex marriage, and eating away at how states, counties, cities, and private entities must recognize same-sex marriages.

The second way is a head-on challenge, where someone sues to overturn Obergefell directly. Obergefell is the decision that said states could NOT prohibit same-sex marriages. If that's overturned, the way that Roe was overturned, every state that still has a law on the books banning same-sex marriage would find those laws back in effect immediately. And then it's a state-by-state fight to see what remains.

Some states enacted marriage equality without a court ordering them to. In those states, same-sex marriages would presumably continue undisturbed. Call this Group A.

Some states enacted marriage equality under court order, but those states nonetheless enacted it, so it would require a repeal of state law in order to stop any future same-sex marriages. This is Group B.

Some states have never enacted marriage equality at all; they've simply had to grant the licenses because SCOTUS said states can't refuse. But on the books, there's still a law saying you can't do that. This is Group C.

So, back to overturning: Group A states won't see any changes. Group B and Group C states would have more to sort out, but the general rule is, marriage is a contract, recognized by the state, and in every state I know of, the state can't impair that contract. So they'd almost certainly have to allow those marriages to continue, even if the state repealed marriage equality (Group B) or just started barring them again (Group C). But that doesn't mean that they couldn't start fucking around the edges, like saying employers don't have to give benefits to a married spouse if that spouse couldn't marry the employee today.

So yeah, this is a serious issue. 

[BergenGuy]

2 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Some states have never enacted marriage equality at all; they've simply had to grant the licenses because SCOTUS said states can't refuse. But on the books, there's still a law saying you can't do that. This is Group C.

The "Respect for Marriage Act" would at least require that the Group C states recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.  Of course, if the Republicans hold the Senate, the House and the White House, they could simply repeal the law.  I don't really expect the filibuster, which would be the only way to stop them, to survive if Republicans win across the board.  They'll want to do as much damage in two years as possible knowing that, historically, they'll lose the House or Senate in two years.

[BootmanLA]

3 minutes ago, BergenGuy said:

The "Respect for Marriage Act" would at least require that the Group C states recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.  Of course, if the Republicans hold the Senate, the House and the White House, they could simply repeal the law.  I don't really expect the filibuster, which would be the only way to stop them, to survive if Republicans win across the board.  They'll want to do as much damage in two years as possible knowing that, historically, they'll lose the House or Senate in two years.

Alternatively, this Supreme Court might simply find a pretext for striking down the Respect for Marriage Act. At this point, with the Court firmly in the hands of right-wingers, you can't really put anything past them; and if Trump were elected this November, expect at least Alito (age 74) to resign so that Trump could appoint a 40-year old replacement who's just as far right. You might even see Thomas (age 75) doing the same, although he's privately said he wants to stay on as long as he's able.

Our only prospects for regaining sanity on the Court lie in Alito and Thomas both dying during Democratic presidential terms where we also have the Senate (because I can't see either retiring under those circumstances). Gloomy outlook to say the least.

[NEDenver]

We’ll be lucky if they don’t repeal Lawrence.  

[Cumfilledbottomboi]

On 7/5/2024 at 6:24 PM, NEDenver said:

We’ll be lucky if they don’t repeal Lawrence.  

Thats on their agenda too

[nanana]

I asked John Bolton to marry me and said no, so I asked Expedia to send him free airfare AND hotel to Sanaa Yemen where I learned from YouTube how to simulate a drone mouth that could suck war-semen out of a neocon and pour it over studio 54 of the past, the harlot that I never Was but wished to be who could cum against a velvet rope in the New York -15-degree sky in my major Tom suit. Happy Halloween dear John Bolton of the nuclear skies. Kisses through my harelip-shaped drone-mouth

[BruxoCub]

I need to get the fuck outta this KKKuntry.