Republicans May Get Gay Marriage Repealed

[BruxoCub]

15 hours ago, topblkmale said:

 

I’m sensing you’re black…

If so, which countries are you considering?

Never mind if you’re white/Latin or Asian.

 

I'm Mexican, Black, Native American, and Spanish.

I'm considering Ireland or Portugal if my husband can get retroactive citizenship at either.

[PaganzofLA]

...yet one more reason we need a new queer identity to emerge online.  Queer real-estate on the www. before the rise of the hook-up/dating social networking craze, queer social media was trying to find it's legs, and IMHO despite it eventual, failing the Gay Social Media was a million times more appealing than anything there is currently available today. I need two other interested parties & I can knock over the first domino.  The insanity is this: for the past for years I've had to scale shear face learning curves to even be able to approach what I'm proposing, at my own expense.  Inadvertently, I created a platform though I set out to create an app. The platform can host multiple types of applications, and NOT only is it compatible with Web3 protocol, my MFB[x] Platform startles both web 2.0 & 3.0 (way past due) so it works like a web 2.5 ––and I think that step is absolutely necessary, because the development my "new" tech isn't really new it's more  a significant 'reprioritization' of what we already have. If we build it, it will work better. If it works better people will want to use it, and if you can see the win-fall of that equation alone, then you might concur that is a much stronger foundation than even the titans of social media currently have. Why? Because it all Win Win.  And why would anyone on this good earth think that's a bad idea?   

Edited December 31, 2024 by PaganzofLA

[topblkmale]

2 hours ago, BruxoCub said:

I'm Mexican, Black, Native American, and Spanish.

I'm considering Ireland or Portugal if my husband can get retroactive citizenship at either.

Cool. I sensed you were black mixed with other backgrounds. 
 

Which means you have paths to citizenship in other countries. 
 

As a black American descendant of slaves, I sadly do not. 
 

[TaKinGDeePanal]

3 hours ago, BruxoCub said:

I'm Mexican, Black, Native American, and Spanish.

I'm considering Ireland or Portugal if my husband can get retroactive citizenship at either.

Insofar as Irish citizenship is concerned? Only extends back to grandparents (if applicable grandparent was born in what is now Northern Ireland, DOB needs to pre-date 1922). There may be variations given by the Minister of Equality and Justice, but they would have to be exceedingly special. It is possible that you can claim through your great grandparents - but ONLY if your great-grandparent was born in Ireland and your parent registered with the Foreign Births Register before you were born. If he is granted Citizenship, you will then need to wait for 3 years before you can apply.

[Lucienblack88]

On 12/31/2024 at 8:33 AM, J-raw said:

I seriously Chief Justice Roberts or the rest of the liberal wing of the court would want to re-hash a marriage quality case; especially, so soon after the first ruling. States like California & Massachusetts will safe guard the right. I don't think the court leave marriage to the states like they did with abortion. I suggesting the supreme court would overturn marriage equality is just fear mongering. I think the GOP Congress & Trump are going to find their hands are full of other pressing priorities; although, if the economy does turn south some Republicans could it an issue to fan the base. Honestly, I hope both parties are moving beyond identity politics and focusing more on how to sustain federal programs like social security, medicare, etc . . . while also finding a way to  reduce the deficit. It's ironic that the most sane person in Trump's cabinet is his secretary of the treasury, Scott Bessent, who happens to be gay.  

They swore before Congress in their confirmation hearings—- under oath, which means you go to prison if you lie, that Roe was settled law and they have no interest in revisiting it or would overturn  it. Not to mention the justices have been being bribed by the alt right pro life lobby for years with dark money. Elimination of marriage equality and trans rights, it’s 1000% in their scope, everything is in their manifesto, just read it, it’s all there it’s no big secret. Whether they succeed is another story. 

Edited January 1 by Lucienblack88
Grammar

[BootmanLA]

1 hour ago, Lucienblack88 said:

They swore before Congress in their confirmation hearings—- under oath, which means you go to prison if you lie, that Roe was settled law and they have no interest in revisiting it or would overturn  it. Not to mention the justices have been being bribed by the alt right pro life lobby for years with dark money. Elimination of marriage equality and trans rights, it’s 1000% in their scope, everything is in their manifesto, just read it, it’s all there it’s no big secret. Whether they succeed is another story. 

Technically, I don't think any of the justices on the Court ever said, in confirmation hearings, that they would not revisit or overturn Roe. Saying that would be just as inappropriate as saying they would vote to decide any other, particular case in a certain way.

It's true that they all acknowledged that Roe (and Casey) were the law of the land. But that is not the same thing as saying that they believe those cases were decided correctly, or that they do not think the cases should be revisited.

There is no "dark money" being given to the justices, either. "Dark money" has a specific meaning, and it refers to money contributed to an election or issue campaign the source of which is not disclosed to the public. Justices are not elected at all (nor are any federal judges), so "dark money" by definition doesn't enter the picture. The possible exception might be PR campaigns designed to shore up support for a nominee who's facing opposition in confirmation, but that money doesn't go to the nominee.

The ethical issue about justices accepting gifts (in particular, Clarence Thomas, who I don't think has ever paid for anything for himself in his entire life) and not disclosing those gifts. But that's not the same thing as dark money, and it's more specifically a problem for one particular justice, not the right wing of the Court as a whole. There's been no evidence that Gorsuch or Barrett or Roberts has any history of accepting expensive gifts at all, much less not declaring them.

None of this is to defend the judicial decisions of the right wing of the Court, which are (often) reprehensible in my view. But correctly identifying the problem is important. 

[BootmanLA]

On 12/31/2024 at 10:33 AM, J-raw said:

I seriously Chief Justice Roberts or the rest of the liberal wing of the court would want to re-hash a marriage quality case; especially, so soon after the first ruling. States like California & Massachusetts will safe guard the right. I don't think the court leave marriage to the states like they did with abortion. I suggesting the supreme court would overturn marriage equality is just fear mongering. I think the GOP Congress & Trump are going to find their hands are full of other pressing priorities; although, if the economy does turn south some Republicans could it an issue to fan the base. Honestly, I hope both parties are moving beyond identity politics and focusing more on how to sustain federal programs like social security, medicare, etc . . . while also finding a way to  reduce the deficit. It's ironic that the most sane person in Trump's cabinet is his secretary of the treasury, Scott Bessent, who happens to be gay.  

The problem is that Roberts + the liberal wing is only four votes. Alito and Thomas are guaranteed votes to overturn Obergefell. Kavanaugh is somewhere around a 90% likely yes. Gorsuch is kind of a wild card; his views on textualism suggest if he could find any textual support for a right to same-sex marriage in the constitution, he'd vote to uphold it (as when he wrote the opinion establishing orientation/identity protections in employment, by finding textual support in the statute in question). The problem is that there's really nothing about marriage, one way or the other, in the Constitution, and while I believe the right exists, it's not for textual reasons (because I'm not a strict textualist).

Barrett is also a wild card on this issue. Roberts, as he wrote in his initial dissent, doesn't believe that the right exists; but he's less willing than his ideological compadres to overturn precedent for the sake of overturning it. The question is whether he could keep Gorsuch and/or Barrett on that side. I'm not hopeful that he could.

[Lucienblack88]

5 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

The problem is that Roberts + the liberal wing is only four votes. Alito and Thomas are guaranteed votes to overturn Obergefell. Kavanaugh is somewhere around a 90% likely yes. Gorsuch is kind of a wild card; his views on textualism suggest if he could find any textual support for a right to same-sex marriage in the constitution, he'd vote to uphold it (as when he wrote the opinion establishing orientation/identity protections in employment, by finding textual support in the statute in question). The problem is that there's really nothing about marriage, one way or the other, in the Constitution, and while I believe the right exists, it's not for textual reasons (because I'm not a strict textualist).

Barrett is also a wild card on this issue. Roberts, as he wrote in his initial dissent, doesn't believe that the right exists; but he's less willing than his ideological compadres to overturn precedent for the sake of overturning it. The question is whether he could keep Gorsuch and/or Barrett on that side. I'm not hopeful that he could.

This is why I don’t like going into politics. I could go over reach point, one by one, but I’ll just say there is dark money from influencing organizations, you might not agree with it, but Heritage Foundation, Leonard Leo, we now know this goes back decades trying to get Roe overturned. I’ll just end with the Supreme Court needs to be completely overhauled. This court is completely out of control. Justices should be rotated out or something, these idiots are accountable to no one. 

[Lucienblack88]

17 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

The problem is that Roberts + the liberal wing is only four votes. Alito and Thomas are guaranteed votes to overturn Obergefell. Kavanaugh is somewhere around a 90% likely yes. Gorsuch is kind of a wild card; his views on textualism suggest if he could find any textual support for a right to same-sex marriage in the constitution, he'd vote to uphold it (as when he wrote the opinion establishing orientation/identity protections in employment, by finding textual support in the statute in question). The problem is that there's really nothing about marriage, one way or the other, in the Constitution, and while I believe the right exists, it's not for textual reasons (because I'm not a strict textualist).

Barrett is also a wild card on this issue. Roberts, as he wrote in his initial dissent, doesn't believe that the right exists; but he's less willing than his ideological compadres to overturn precedent for the sake of overturning it. The question is whether he could keep Gorsuch and/or Barrett on that side. I'm not hopeful that he could.

You are right about which justices are likely to vote which way. I remember Kavanaugh issued a surprise ruling about defining sex under US law. In terms of textualism, I think and maybe you’ll agree, maybe not, they have departed way from that. I don’t think they can beat that drum any more. There’s nowhere in the founding documents where or suggests the president has immunity, and (I’ll get shit for this one, but even conservative legal scholars have written about it) that aid and comfort in rebellion under the amendment disqualifies a person from holding federal office ever again.
 

The nice thing about the constitution is that it’s adaptation ability to conform to time periods. Textualism advocates annoy because of hypocrisy. Take alcohol prohibition it took away a freedom, the constitution is a blueprint of government and lays out rights, not restrictions. It was misused. 
 

Bottom line is this Supreme Court is off the rails and the country doesn’t trust them. 49% of country elected Trump again, minority rule, Thomas will retire, and that lady from Florida has a good chance to replace him. Anyway, i appreciate your thoughts above. 

Edited January 2 by Lucienblack88

[BootmanLA]

9 hours ago, Lucienblack88 said:

You are right about which justices are likely to vote which way. I remember Kavanaugh issued a surprise ruling about defining sex under US law.

That was Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh actually dissented in that case (Bostick v. Clayton County), ie he voted that the protections "on account of sex" did not extend to sexual orientation or identity. The votes in favor in the Bostick case were Gorsuch, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

9 hours ago, Lucienblack88 said:

aid and comfort in rebellion under the amendment disqualifies a person from holding federal office ever again.

That much is clear in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. The problem that the Court (and it was a unanimous ruling, so not a conservative v. liberal split) found that individual states could not declare someone ineligible for office; that Congress, in fact, had to pass legislation implementing that provision. (To their credit, Congress has, in fact, passed such legislation, but the trigger is conviction of one of several offenses that constitute insurrection (as a concept, not a specific legal term). And Trump has yet to be convicted of any such offense, and is unlikely to, given his re-election.

9 hours ago, Lucienblack88 said:

Take alcohol prohibition it took away a freedom, the constitution is a blueprint of government and lays out rights, not restrictions. It was misused. 

Prohibition was a completely separate issue. The US passed a constitutional amendment (the Eighteenth) which specifically prohibited the production, transportation, or sale of alcohol within the US. One can argue it took away a freedom, but it did so in a perfectly legal way. Luckily, a dozen years later the amendment was repealed (the only amendment, to date, to be repealed).

9 hours ago, Lucienblack88 said:

Bottom line is this Supreme Court is off the rails and the country doesn’t trust them. 49% of country elected Trump again, minority rule, 

Actually, in recent decades, election by a plurality without a majority (ie the most votes, but not over 50%) has become a regular thing. Clinton did not win a majority either election; Bush II did not win a majority in his first election; and Trump, of course, did not win a majority in either of his elections. That's more of a result of third-party candidates keeping either party from getting a majority than anything else, plus the fact that we do not have any provisions for a runoff (the way most states do for offices like governor, etc.).

Trump's 49.7% is actually higher than Clinton's first election in 1992 or his second election in 1996. No one claims Clinton won with "minority rule". 

[BootmanLA]

21 hours ago, Lucienblack88 said:

This is why I don’t like going into politics. I could go over reach point, one by one, but I’ll just say there is dark money from influencing organizations, you might not agree with it, but Heritage Foundation, Leonard Leo, we now know this goes back decades trying to get Roe overturned. I’ll just end with the Supreme Court needs to be completely overhauled. This court is completely out of control. Justices should be rotated out or something, these idiots are accountable to no one. 

I'm not saying there isn't "dark money" (as a general concept) trying to change public opinion on things that may go before the Court. I'm saying that "dark money" is generally a term of art in politics referring specifically to political donations (whether for an issue on the ballot, or for/against a candidate) the source of which is not publicly revealed.

Certainly money from Heritage and Leo is used to bolster conservative judges' profiles. That money pays for lots of things like conferences where conservative donors mingle with conservative judges; they provide scholarships to conservative students at elite law schools, and they help funnel those students into clerkships with conservative judges and justices. And in the sense we don't know where all of Heritage's money comes from, it's "dark money" in a sense. But the same could be said about donations to environmental groups who don't reveal their donor lists. Or pro-choice groups. It's been long settled law that organizations, in general, don't have to reveal their funding sources, or their membership rosters.

What's changed about that, in the last several decades, is that electoral law - again, for both candidates and for issues on the ballot - used to be a recognized exception to that; if you wanted to influence an election, you had to at least reveal your funding. The decision Citizens United v. FEC, from just over 15 years ago, laid waste to that concept, allowing for anonymous funding of issue ads in general, and campaign ads as long as they were independent of the candidate in question. 

[Lucienblack88]

13 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I'm not saying there isn't "dark money" (as a general concept) trying to change public opinion on things that may go before the Court. I'm saying that "dark money" is generally a term of art in politics referring specifically to political donations (whether for an issue on the ballot, or for/against a candidate) the source of which is not publicly revealed.

Certainly money from Heritage and Leo is used to bolster conservative judges' profiles. That money pays for lots of things like conferences where conservative donors mingle with conservative judges; they provide scholarships to conservative students at elite law schools, and they help funnel those students into clerkships with conservative judges and justices. And in the sense we don't know where all of Heritage's money comes from, it's "dark money" in a sense. But the same could be said about donations to environmental groups who don't reveal their donor lists. Or pro-choice groups. It's been long settled law that organizations, in general, don't have to reveal their funding sources, or their membership rosters.

What's changed about that, in the last several decades, is that electoral law - again, for both candidates and for issues on the ballot - used to be a recognized exception to that; if you wanted to influence an election, you had to at least reveal your funding. The decision Citizens United v. FEC, from just over 15 years ago, laid waste to that concept, allowing for anonymous funding of issue ads in general, and campaign ads as long as they were independent of the candidate in question. 

Oh, it was Gorsuch, you’re right. I appreciate you looking up some of this stuff, i forget or just don’t have time. In terms of rule by minority, my point was 51% of the country didn’t want him, and it’s interesting how we can still have a winning minority party to govern the majority. There was a big stink in 2000 about Bush jr legitimacy. There’s been, as you know a movement to abolish the electoral college for some time now. But returning to @rawTOP original premise, i think he has a very real concern that should not be minimized, because according to the conservative manifesto, marriage equality is on the chopping block if it gets to them. I read that lady from Kentucky who refused to issue  marriage licenses years back has lawsuits going and the conservative law firm representing her (and funding it all) maintain they have one goal - to get the RFMA to the supreme court and overturned. So, if this happens, the one federal backstop we have or Obergefell is overturned in case that happens, all the LGBTQ who voted for Trump can’t ever, ever complain about their rights being taken away in that regard. 

[BruxoCub]

On 12/31/2024 at 3:15 PM, TaKinGDeePanal said:

Insofar as Irish citizenship is concerned? Only extends back to grandparents (if applicable grandparent was born in what is now Northern Ireland, DOB needs to pre-date 1922). There may be variations given by the Minister of Equality and Justice, but they would have to be exceedingly special. It is possible that you can claim through your great grandparents - but ONLY if your great-grandparent was born in Ireland and your parent registered with the Foreign Births Register before you were born. If he is granted Citizenship, you will then need to wait for 3 years before you can apply.

I learned this holiday his father and brother claimed theirs already. He needs to work on it so my 3 year timer may begin. I'll be damned if I'm trapped in this backwater trailer park experiment of a nation.

[TaKinGDeePanal]

57 minutes ago, BruxoCub said:

I learned this holiday his father and brother claimed theirs already. He needs to work on it so my 3 year timer may begin. I'll be damned if I'm trapped in this backwater trailer park experiment of a nation.

Quick off-the-topic question - was your celebrant a lady by the name of Carol Merletti?

[Poz50something]

6 hours ago, Lucienblack88 said:

So, if this happens, the one federal backstop we have or Obergefell is overturned in case that happens, all the LGBTQ who voted for Trump can’t ever, ever complain about their rights being taken away in that regard. 

Are there any gay men openly supporting Trump? There were, obviously, LBGTQ people who did….they’re out there. But I don’t think they would be open about it.