Republicans May Get Gay Marriage Repealed

[BootmanLA]

Of course it's speculation. My point is, if the Rethugnicans who said in 2016 that no justice should be considered 10 months before an election had any sense of principles, we wouldn't even be speculating whether Barrett might do this. 

Incidentally, it's "bear" arms, not "bare" arms, which is what you get with sleeveless shirts. It's also "cherish" not "churish", "country" not "contry", "hypothetical" not "hyperthectical", and "probably" not "probaly". Your arguments might sound more sensible if they were actually written in plain English.

[rawTOP]

Well, it's starting… The day after the election (11/4) the Supreme Court will hear a case where a Catholic adoption agency is saying their first amendment religious rights trump the City of Philadelphia's anti-discrimination laws. The Catholics had a contract with the city to handle adoptions for the city. When the city had children it needed adopted they would contract with various agencies to get them adopted. The Catholics refused to place kids with gay families. Since they were doing work for the city (not independently) the city canceled the contract when they refused to abide by the city's law and place kids with gay parents.

So far the courts have ruled consistently for the city and against the Catholics. The case isn't about whether Catholics have the right to discriminate when they do adoptions on their own. Saying the city can't demand the city's own contractors abide by the city's anti-discrimination laws when those contractors are performing governmental duties on behalf of the city would be a pretty big landmark decision.

https://www.washingtonblade.com/2020/08/19/supreme-court-sets-nov-4-to-hear-if-adoption-agency-can-reject-lgbtq-parents/

https://www.aclu.org/cases/fulton-v-city-philadelphia

I'm sure Alito and Thomas will find some justification to side with the Catholics. Where Barrett sides will tell us a lot about how she will be as a Supreme Court justice – whether she's a worst case scenario, or something a bit more moderate.

Remember they don't actually have to get rid of gay marriage to put us back to second class citizens. They can just keep chipping away at our rights until our we as  a community simply don't have equality.

[StageWhisper]

It takes a lot to make me hate people, but these people have proven they're nothing but skin tags in the armpit of humanity.  We have to be brave enough to play the game in the only way they understand:  with no mercy.  This is truly a battle for the definition of what it means to have a government for all the people.  If Drumpf wins, it's a sign we lost the USA a long long time ago and just didn't know it.  

Beyond that, these people will still be there.  So we have a LOT of deprogramming to do.  The examples they've set for our younger people will linger for generations.  We have to be strong enough to actively point out how people are hurting others, and not just rely upon their common sense and good graces to do it for us.  It's clear they simply do not agree everyone is human, and we have to stop pussyfooting around if we want any shred of what we all hope we can have for our futures.

[408curious]

On 10/16/2020 at 3:41 PM, PiginCalif said:

All you self hating gays that are supporting trump need your heads examined 

All he has done is attempt and keep attempting to dismantle gay rights 

keep voting against your own interests 

that makes real sense 

I don't believe there's a "self-hating" phenomenon.   It's merely hatred.  People have been shown to vote against their own self interests, if it would mean benefitting the "other", people they don't approve of.

Hatred with a sprinkle of cruelty and machismo.

[BootmanLA]

10 minutes ago, 408curious said:

I don't believe there's a "self-hating" phenomenon.   It's merely hatred.  People have been shown to vote against their own self interests, if it would mean benefitting the "other", people they don't approve of.

Hatred with a sprinkle of cruelty and machismo.

That's an issue too, but that doesn't mean self-hating doesn't exist. It's well documented, especially among gays who were raised in extremely conservative/religious households. They're taught that there is something wrong with them, and even if they give in, occasionally, to the physical need, they hate it. Some pray to have the desires taken away. 

The ones you're talking about are the Log Cabin Republicans and the GOProud and other house faggots. They're convinced that when push comes to shove, if they identify closely enough with the interests of their political masters, they'll be spared in the purges. They're wrong. 

[rawTOP]

On 10/31/2020 at 9:20 PM, 408curious said:

I don't believe there's a "self-hating" phenomenon.   It's merely hatred.  People have been shown to vote against their own self interests, if it would mean benefitting the "other", people they don't approve of.

Hatred with a sprinkle of cruelty and machismo.

Self-hatred is definitely a thing… 41% of LGB Republicans wished they were heterosexual and 38% see their being gay as a personal shortcoming…

https://www.out.com/politics/2020/11/02/almost-half-queer-republicans-wish-they-were-straight 

[cumslutfuckpig]

On 10/27/2020 at 9:11 AM, rawTOP said:

Remember they don't actually have to get rid of gay marriage to put us back to second class citizens. They can just keep chipping away at our rights until our we as  a community simply don't have equality.

Exactly.  I had to have one of those conversations with stupid relatives (the kind who thing "originalist" and "libertarian" are the same thing), who are mocking the handwringing from the LGBT community because they say it won't come to pass.  Not only are they poor students of history, and clearly have ever found things like "reading" interesting, but they fail to understand that it doesn't require a full scale overturn.  They just need to ensure that no one need respect our rights (as long as they're stacked against religious rights).  They've already demonstrated (2020 SCOTUS ruling re: death penalty & muslim prisoner) that some religions have more rights than others.  It's not a long trip from there.

The sad part is that although the Dems have tried to play grown-ups to the GOP wrecking ball for the most part, this taking advantage of non-democratic circumstances (Senate composition, 2016 minority win) requires an expansion and reform of the court (be sure if the Dems don't, the GOP will the next chance they get anyways).  We're in an arms race that I don't see having an end unless / until there is some substantial demographic change (e.g. texas, florida or both swing reliably blue, puerto rico and/or dc joins as a state).  It's going to be a shitshow.  

[120DaysofSodom]

Won't happen.

[BreedMyAssPHL]

On 10/8/2020 at 10:44 AM, rawTOP said:

I find it appalling that people on a gay website are actually supporting candidates that are actively working to harm our community. Case and point - Justices Thomas and Alito have said they favor reversing the decision that gave our community marriage.

[think before following links] https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/05/politics/thomas-alito-obergefell-same-sex-marriage-analysis/index.html

If Amy Coney Barrett gets confirmed you can kiss our community's freedoms goodbye. The stakes couldn't be higher for us right now.

I completely respect "1970s Republicans" that wanted balanced budgets and limited government. But the Republican party today is a long way from that. When Republicans like Ana Navarro and the Bushes are supporting Biden, it's time to rethink things if you're a gay Republican.

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).

If you don't understand how Trump and his administration are a threat to the gay community, start here…

[think before following links] https://www.glaad.org/trump

There's been a serious attack on our community by him or his administration roughly once a week since he took office.

I couldn't agree more! There's nothing more repulsive than a gay republican. They haven't worked on changing their self-loathing. I don't think gay marriage will be repealed per se. I think what'll happen is it'll be moved to be legislated by the states. So, in Mississippi, where dentists and education are things of luxury, we'll have no rights. I got into an argument with a 20 something gay man. He insisted both parties were the same and voted third party (Jorgensen) because she will do more for LGBTQ people. He knew nothing of Reagan and ignorance of AIDS, nothing of Clinton DADT, and didn't believe, DIDN'T BELIEVE me when I said that Democrats were the only ones who fought for our equality. When the orange shit stain first was elected gay republicans claimed that we were safe and he was an advocate. Three SCOTUS judges later and we're on our way back to being second class citizens.

[BootmanLA]

12 hours ago, BreedMyAssPHL said:

I couldn't agree more! There's nothing more repulsive than a gay republican. They haven't worked on changing their self-loathing. I don't think gay marriage will be repealed per se. I think what'll happen is it'll be moved to be legislated by the states. So, in Mississippi, where dentists and education are things of luxury, we'll have no rights. I got into an argument with a 20 something gay man. He insisted both parties were the same and voted third party (Jorgensen) because she will do more for LGBTQ people. He knew nothing of Reagan and ignorance of AIDS, nothing of Clinton DADT, and didn't believe, DIDN'T BELIEVE me when I said that Democrats were the only ones who fought for our equality. When the orange shit stain first was elected gay republicans claimed that we were safe and he was an advocate. Three SCOTUS judges later and we're on our way back to being second class citizens.

FWIW I always tell people who insist on voting third-party that it must be nice to have the luxury of not caring who wins at all - because to vote for a candidate who has zero chance of winning even one electoral vote is exactly equal to saying "I don't care who wins". 

And I say that knowing that at times, a particular third-party candidate *might* be closer, overall, to my views on most issues than either the Democrat or the Republican. But given that one or the other of those two is going to win, it's in my interest to vote for the one whose views more closely align with mine than the other - even if one only aligns with me 15% of the time, that's better than the one who only aligns with me 5% of the time.

[BreedMyAssPHL]

8 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

FWIW I always tell people who insist on voting third-party that it must be nice to have the luxury of not caring who wins at all - because to vote for a candidate who has zero chance of winning even one electoral vote is exactly equal to saying "I don't care who wins". 

And I say that knowing that at times, a particular third-party candidate *might* be closer, overall, to my views on most issues than either the Democrat or the Republican. But given that one or the other of those two is going to win, it's in my interest to vote for the one whose views more closely align with mine than the other - even if one only aligns with me 15% of the time, that's better than the one who only aligns with me 5% of the time.

Agreed. I'm the same way. I have two friends, a mother and daughter, 84, 64 respectively. They're VERY wealthy, all inherited. But, surprisingly down to earth except on one thing. They won't vote for a major party candidate unless he's Bernie. They feel the system needs to break and burn to the ground so we can rebuild it. They're very liberal or I'd begin to wonder if it was a ruse to just keep a republican in office. I almost voted for McCain because he was a good man, but then Sarah Palin. Now, I will never, ever vote republican. They've shown us what they are.

[BreedMyAssPHL]

On 10/27/2020 at 12:11 PM, rawTOP said:

Well, it's starting… The day after the election (11/4) the Supreme Court will hear a case where a Catholic adoption agency is saying their first amendment religious rights trump the City of Philadelphia's anti-discrimination laws. The Catholics had a contract with the city to handle adoptions for the city. When the city had children it needed adopted they would contract with various agencies to get them adopted. The Catholics refused to place kids with gay families. Since they were doing work for the city (not independently) the city canceled the contract when they refused to abide by the city's law and place kids with gay parents.

So far the courts have ruled consistently for the city and against the Catholics. The case isn't about whether Catholics have the right to discriminate when they do adoptions on their own. Saying the city can't demand the city's own contractors abide by the city's anti-discrimination laws when those contractors are performing governmental duties on behalf of the city would be a pretty big landmark decision.

[think before following links] https://www.washingtonblade.com/2020/08/19/supreme-court-sets-nov-4-to-hear-if-adoption-agency-can-reject-lgbtq-parents/

[think before following links] https://www.aclu.org/cases/fulton-v-city-philadelphia

I'm sure Alito and Thomas will find some justification to side with the Catholics. Where Barrett sides will tell us a lot about how she will be as a Supreme Court justice – whether she's a worst case scenario, or something a bit more moderate.

Remember they don't actually have to get rid of gay marriage to put us back to second class citizens. They can just keep chipping away at our rights until our we as  a community simply don't have equality.

I know this case well. Every court before SCOTUS said that their religious rights weren't trampled on. CSS signed a contract, agreeing to the City's non-discrimination policy. The city closed intake, not cancelled the contract, until this is over.  There are still children in placement through CSS. 

 

As soon as the handmaiden was placed on the court, this was the first case that came to mind... Then I heard Alito and Thomas (married to a white woman, who's marriage would have been illegal had it not been for SCOTUS) were going to try to get marriage equality overturned.

I'm so tired of the religious liberty bullshit. You're right. They don't need to overturn it. They can make it a state controlled issue and we're going to have a patchwork of rights in this country. 

[BootmanLA]

7 hours ago, BreedMyAssPHL said:

I know this case well. Every court before SCOTUS said that their religious rights weren't trampled on. CSS signed a contract, agreeing to the City's non-discrimination policy. The city closed intake, not cancelled the contract, until this is over.  There are still children in placement through CSS. 

 

As soon as the handmaiden was placed on the court, this was the first case that came to mind... Then I heard Alito and Thomas (married to a white woman, who's marriage would have been illegal had it not been for SCOTUS) were going to try to get marriage equality overturned.

I'm so tired of the religious liberty bullshit. You're right. They don't need to overturn it. They can make it a state controlled issue and we're going to have a patchwork of rights in this country. 

The one thing that gives me a little hope: Gorsuch's opinion this past June in the employment discrimination cases, where the Court held (6-3!) that the provisions of federal law that ban discrimination in employment based on sex included, by its very nature, discrimination against LGBT people. Chief Justice Roberts was in that 6-3 majority.

Having established that, even with replacing Ginsburg with Barrett, it'll be hard not to see how that would govern most laws that prohibit discrimination "on the basis of sex".

Unfortunately, the oldest conservative justices are only 72 and 70, with the others being 65, 55, 53, and 48. So none of them may retire during this term. Breyer is 82, so he might want to think about doing so and letting Biden replace him with a younger liberal sooner rather than later. Sotomayor and Kagan are 66 and 60, respectively, so they could still have 15-20 years on the bench.

[drscorpio]

Good news for now. 
[think before following links] https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/even-with-three-trump-appointed-justices-on-the-bench-scotus-declines-to-roll-back-marriage-equality/?fbclid=IwAR1LDu3JYtI-Y_xmnNL3C2GEjol-9Q2B46iCqjmFN-2NZ_FegeY1QBxHWc4

[BootmanLA]

23 hours ago, drscorpio said:

Good news for now. 
[think before following links] [think before following links] https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/even-with-three-trump-appointed-justices-on-the-bench-scotus-declines-to-roll-back-marriage-equality/?fbclid=IwAR1LDu3JYtI-Y_xmnNL3C2GEjol-9Q2B46iCqjmFN-2NZ_FegeY1QBxHWc4

It's good news "for now" (as you noted), but the article itself is wrong in saying that you can take this as a signal that SCOTUS isn't interested in limiting marriage equality. All we can say is that "this case" wasn't chosen for that effort. And that could be for any number of reasons.

It may be that some justices are sensitive to the idea of using a case involving children (imagine the headlines: SCOTUS rules children of gay couples can be tagged 'illegitimate'). It may be that some of the details of this case don't lend themselves to a clean, fast rule that the justices would want to use. All we can definitely say is "they didn't take this case, so the law in the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin) is, for now, pretty set. 

That doesn't mean that, say, a similar case in the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi) couldn't go the other way. Or in the Eleventh Circuit (Florida, Georgia, Alabama). Circuit court rulings are binding precedent only within the particular circuit.

It's true that when two or more circuits "split" on an important question of law, coming to different conclusions, that's often when SCOTUS will finally agree to take a case to resolve the split between the circuits. But even that is not guaranteed, and there are any number of points of law that are treated differently in federal courts in, say, the Fifth Circuit as compared to the Ninth Circuit.