Republicans May Get Gay Marriage Repealed

[Lucienblack88]

3 hours ago, Poz50something said:

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. 

Sadly yes

[Erik62]

On 1/2/2025 at 11:18 AM, 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.

Question 🤔, please. Doesn't the Constitution say that every person has an inalienable right to freedom 🤔?? Why doesn't same sex marriage capability get covered by any such declaration???

[Erik62]

On 1/3/2025 at 2:18 PM, 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. 

How does one fund a campaign, without funding the individual. 

    Is it done by donating to party (Republicans) as an organisation, rather than individuals. Disbursements are then given to individuals 🤔🤔??? 

    As in previous questions, on topic, they may sound weird / flaky but, they are genuine questions. You have a very "strange" but fascinating system. 

[Erik62]

7 hours ago, Poz50something said:

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. 

Over the course of the election, I saw interviews with several "effeminate" men. Unfortunately, their justification seemed to be simply that Trump has come across as tough. Almost as if they were. voting with their, dare I say, penises. 

[Poz50something]

10 hours ago, Lucienblack88 said:

Sadly yes

People don’t learn from history….the cheers from the gay community when Reagan was elected by, among others, LGBTQ people. That was until AIDS decimated the community, and Reagan did nothing and said nothing. 

[Lucienblack88]

9 hours ago, Erik62 said:

How does one fund a campaign, without funding the individual. 

    Is it done by donating to party (Republicans) as an organisation, rather than individuals. Disbursements are then given to individuals 🤔🤔??? 
 

 

 

9 hours ago, Erik62 said:

    As in previous questions, on topic, they may sound weird / flaky but, they are genuine questions. You have a very "strange" but fascinating system. 

In your nation and mine, it stems from the same country of origin point. Jolly old England. Much of how American government operates we got from the mother country and the crown . 

[brnbk]

On 1/4/2025 at 9:19 AM, Poz50something said:

People don’t learn from history….the cheers from the gay community when Reagan was elected by, among others, LGBTQ people. That was until AIDS decimated the community, and Reagan did nothing and said nothing. 

Regan was truly a monster.  There is an interesting excerpt from the book, The Gay Metropolis: The Landmark History of Gay Life in America by Charles Kaiser, on Slate., on how he actually brought about the gay holocaust that AIDs was back in the 80s and 90s. 

[think before following links] https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/03/the-reagans-surrounded-by-discreet-gays-still-did-little-to-help-with-aids.html

 

[BruxoCub]

On 1/3/2025 at 3:14 PM, TaKinGDeePanal said:

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

Hehe, not at all. We were officiated by my husbands father with a few close (socially distanced outdoors) family members to witness.

We were enGAYged in 2019. By the 2020 pandemic we decided to preemptively elope to have the legal aspect of our union complete before the 45/Biden election. 4 years have warped by and we are faced with Fuck-face's return. Keeping options open always seems has always been my general life strategy.

[BootmanLA]

On 1/4/2025 at 12:32 AM, Erik62 said:

Question 🤔, please. Doesn't the Constitution say that every person has an inalienable right to freedom 🤔?? Why doesn't same sex marriage capability get covered by any such declaration???

Not specifically, no. The Declaration of Independence (which is not, in any sense, "law" in the United States) does say that among our inalienable rights are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". But again, that's not law.

In any event, "freedom" would require a lot of interpretation by the courts. Does "freedom" encompass the right to steal? To maim or kill? To have sex with minors? While the Constitution is broadly written, in many places, particularly in the Bill of Rights, it doesn't recognize anything nearly so broad as general "freedom".

[BootmanLA]

On 1/4/2025 at 12:51 AM, Erik62 said:

How does one fund a campaign, without funding the individual. 

    Is it done by donating to party (Republicans) as an organisation, rather than individuals. Disbursements are then given to individuals 🤔🤔??? 

    As in previous questions, on topic, they may sound weird / flaky but, they are genuine questions. You have a very "strange" but fascinating system. 

The general mechanism is what's called a PAC (Political Action Committee). PACs can be controlled by and affiliated with a campaign, or they can be independent. So I could, for example, create a PAC dedicated to supporting X candidate and/or defeating Y candidate, and as long as I don't coordinate at all with X or Y, I'm not subject to the same limitations as the actual campaign of the candidate.

A PAC affiliated with a particular candidate is a little different. So, for example, the Speaker of the House can have a PAC (call it "SpeakerPAC") and he can solicit major donations to that PAC, then dole out the proceeds to his allies in the House who need more support. There are limits on PAC donations (no more than Z amount per election cycle from a particular PAC to a particular candidate), but they're larger, in some cases, than individual contribution limits directly to the campaign.

There are also "issue" campaigns and PACs, which support or oppose issues on the ballot (constitutional amendments, initiatives by the voters, referendums proposed by the legislature, etc.). There's a whole set of rules about those, too.

And yes, people can make contributions to recognized political parties, which can then also support candidates directly as well as make independent, non-coordinated expenditures on their behalf. At least, in theory they're non-coordinated. It's very difficult to prove coordination, just as it's difficult to prove a conspiracy in criminal law, so in reality, as long as they're reasonably careful there's little chance of getting caught working directly with the candidate.

And since the regulatory body that governs campaign contributions and spending - the Federal Election Commission - is by law evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, it's very difficult to get them to act in any but the most egregious cases.

Edited January 6 by BootmanLA

[BruxoCub]

On 1/3/2025 at 3:53 PM, Poz50something said:

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. 

Very much lost a long time friendship to a Trump voting HIV positive Gay Latino.

He's a closet case who started going to church weekly during lockdowns and is constantly seeks validation from his migrant family in a way that will never make sense to me. He works trade jobs and he just fell into the machismo working class rhetoric and memes of heteronormativity.

I gave much more to his life than he gave to me; still, it's sad to lose a decade longs friend because he thinks my "lifestyle" is deviant from the lord lol. I'm like babes, I'm on the board of a non-profit, I am married in an accepting family, and I suck dick when and where I want. I made heaven, I don't need to fake my way into a club that I'm not wanted.

[Lucienblack88]

On 1/3/2025 at 10:32 PM, Erik62 said:

Question 🤔, please. Doesn't the Constitution say that every person has an inalienable right to freedom 🤔?? Why doesn't same sex marriage capability get covered by any such declaration???

As @BootmanLA correctly points out, the American declaration of independence is not a legal document. It’s mostly a list of grievances against the British government by American colonialists. Marriage has historically been a religious function. The US has a division between church and state civil government, unlike most other countries, and certainly like the country we broke away from where the sovereign is head of the State and church. 
 

Marriage made its way more into legal category, and is basically a new economic class with state marriage. That is what this all about, having the same financial and other benefits married heteros do. There is no written right or freedom specific to marriage in the US Constitution, but some individual states have put it in their state constitutions. 

[Erik62]

15 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

The general mechanism is what's called a PAC (Political Action Committee). PACs can be controlled by and affiliated with a campaign, or they can be independent. So I could, for example, create a PAC dedicated to supporting X candidate and/or defeating Y candidate, and as long as I don't coordinate at all with X or Y, I'm not subject to the same limitations as the actual campaign of the candidate.

A PAC affiliated with a particular candidate is a little different. So, for example, the Speaker of the House can have a PAC (call it "SpeakerPAC") and he can solicit major donations to that PAC, then dole out the proceeds to his allies in the House who need more support. There are limits on PAC donations (no more than Z amount per election cycle from a particular PAC to a particular candidate), but they're larger, in some cases, than individual contribution limits directly to the campaign.

There are also "issue" campaigns and PACs, which support or oppose issues on the ballot (constitutional amendments, initiatives by the voters, referendums proposed by the legislature, etc.). There's a whole set of rules about those, too.

And yes, people can make contributions to recognized political parties, which can then also support candidates directly as well as make independent, non-coordinated expenditures on their behalf. At least, in theory they're non-coordinated. It's very difficult to prove coordination, just as it's difficult to prove a conspiracy in criminal law, so in reality, as long as they're reasonably careful there's little chance of getting caught working directly with the candidate.

And since the regulatory body that governs campaign contributions and spending - the Federal Election Commission - is by law evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, it's very difficult to get them to act in any but the most egregious cases.

Thanks 😘BootmanLA. As usual your clarification is extremely helpful. No doubt your opinion will be required, probably more often than you want, over the next 2-3yrs. Would love to know a person, such as yourself, just to go to pub with & have a few drinks. 

[Erik62]

5 hours ago, Lucienblack88 said:

As @BootmanLA correctly points out, the American declaration of independence is not a legal document. It’s mostly a list of grievances against the British government by American colonialists. Marriage has historically been a religious function. The US has a division between church and state civil government, unlike most other countries, and certainly like the country we broke away from where the sovereign is head of the State and church. 
 

Marriage made its way more into legal category, and is basically a new economic class with state marriage. That is what this all about, having the same financial and other benefits married heteros do. There is no written right or freedom specific to marriage in the US Constitution, but some individual states have put it in their state constitutions. 

Thanks Lucienblack88. Can any action at a  Federal level override any part or all of a States Constitution 🤔???

You can tell me to, "go away" 🥴🥴🥴🤣🤣

[Lucienblack88]

3 hours ago, Erik62 said:

Thanks Lucienblack88. Can any action at a  Federal level override any part or all of a States Constitution 🤔???

You can tell me to, "go away" 🥴🥴🥴🤣🤣

Yes, it can. Marriage equality is banned in most states’ constitutions. The state bans are currently unenforceable and marriage equality is legal across the board thanks to a Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago, which me and boot man were discussing. He doesn’t think they want to bother to reverse it, even though some of the justices themselves have written clearly that they do and that’s the goal of their beliefs and platform. 

If that were to happen, there is a federal law that would kick in called respect for marriage act, and places marriage equality back to the states, but they must honor a marriage in another state, even same sex marriages. This law will be challenged most likely and lawsuits are in the works. 
 

So, if the 2015 court ruling is reversed and the respect for marriage act struck down, that leaves just a handful of states where marriage equality is legal, and could only be performed. The next step they would ban it all together at the federal level and reinstate marriage law is only opposite sex couples. 
 

This is a very realistic scenario. 

The best thing we have here in the US  at federal level is respect for marriage act. It repealed definition of marriage of only to opposite sex couples and protects marriage benefits for same sex couples at federal level. It can also be put into the US federal constitution, but it would need to clear the hurdle of passing being passed by both houses of our congress then pass 3/4 states legislatures to be ratified. It’s very unlikely.