Republicans May Get Gay Marriage Repealed

[BootmanLA]

5 hours ago, Erik62 said:

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. 

If we were closer I'd be happy to connect, though I don't drink (just a personal preference). But there are other places to meet up and have a conversation.

[BootmanLA]

5 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" 🥴🥴🥴🤣🤣

To clarify @Lucienblack88's generally excellent answer: Under the U.S. system of federalism, certain powers are solely the province of the federal government, certain things are outside the power of the federal government, and certain powers can be exercised by either state or federal officials. Each state has a constitution, outlining the specifics of its government, the rights its citizens enjoy under the state constitution, and so forth.

Broadly speaking, a state may not restrict a right recognized under the US Constitution, but it may recognize a right that the US constitution does not. For instance, currently per the Supreme Court, same-sex marriage is a recognized right. Should the Court overturn that decision, that leaves the matter up to the states to decide. Prior to that recognition (in 2015), some states, like Massachusetts, had already decided that recognition of same-sex marriage was mandatory under its state constitution. Several other states' highest courts have ruled similarly. If the US Supreme Court were to rule that in fact the federal constitution does not guarantee the right to same-sex marriage, those state guarantees would still hold.

Other states have legislatively adopted same-sex marriage while not necessarily enshrining a right to such marriages in the state's constitution. Again, if the Supreme Court were to overturn its previous holding, those states' same-sex marriages would still be valid and couples could continue to marry, but (in theory) the legislature could repeal that authorization (which might set up new legal challenges under that state's constitution.

Many states had, between 2004 and the 2015 Supreme Court decision, adopted constitutional bans on same-sex marriage (typically by limiting it to one man and one woman, which thus also bans any form of poly marriage, should such be proposed). Those bans were struck down by the 2015 decision. Since then, some states, but not many, have repealed their constitutional bans. In the others, if the Supreme Court were to reverse itself, those bans would "kick back in", although there's broad agreement that it (probably) wouldn't invalidate any existing marriages.

Finally: because the federal government can require states to do certain things, under limited circumstances, in theory a more progressive Congress and president could pass a law mandating the recognition of same-sex marriages. However, the federal power to legislate is limited to certain "enumerated" topics (for example, to appropriate funds, to declare war, to regulate interstate commerce, and so on), and they'd have to assert one of those enumerated powers in the process. This Court has been a little more skeptical of such powers than it was in, say, the 50's, 60's and 70's. The general fail-safe way to pass such legislation is to tie federal money to it - ie requiring states to recognize SSM in order to get 100% of their medicaid matching funds, for instance. That's how we got a de facto national drinking age of 21 - the feds withheld a portion of highway construction and maintenance funds from any state that refused to adopt that drinking age. Eventually they all complied.

So that's the interaction of federal and state law, in a (large) nutshell, regarding what happens when our Supreme Court rescinds its recognition of a right it previously recognized under the US constitution.

[PozBearWI]

26 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

If we were closer I'd be happy to connect, though I don't drink (just a personal preference). But there are other places to meet up and have a conversation.

My friend my offer is dinner...  conversation...  and take it from there.  🙂

[BootmanLA]

3 minutes ago, PozBearWI said:

My friend my offer is dinner...  conversation...  and take it from there.  🙂

Whenever I get back to Wisconsin, you know you're the first person I'm contacting.

[hntnhole]

On 1/3/2025 at 5:15 PM, BruxoCub said:

trapped in this backwater trailer park experiment of a nation

LOL .... 

Well, I get that sometimes it seems that way - lately more often than not, and it's only going to get worse.  The president-Elect wants to buy Greenland from the Danes, thinks the Canadians would put up with becoming the 51st State, the Panamanians would gladly return the Canal, on and on.  

I don't ever want to hear about what "the polls" say about upcoming elections again (assuming we even get to keep having them, obviously ...) 

[BruxoCub]

40 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

LOL .... 

Well, I get that sometimes it seems that way - lately more often than not, and it's only going to get worse.  The president-Elect wants to buy Greenland from the Danes, thinks the Canadians would put up with becoming the 51st State, the Panamanians would gladly return the Canal, on and on.  

I don't ever want to hear about what "the polls" say about upcoming elections again (assuming we even get to keep having them, obviously ...) 

The endless examinations on why uncultured misogynistic racists behave the way they do is exhausting. Fuck em.

[BootmanLA]

59 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

LOL .... 

Well, I get that sometimes it seems that way - lately more often than not, and it's only going to get worse.  The president-Elect wants to buy Greenland from the Danes, thinks the Canadians would put up with becoming the 51st State, the Panamanians would gladly return the Canal, on and on.  

I don't ever want to hear about what "the polls" say about upcoming elections again (assuming we even get to keep having them, obviously ...) 

Today Terra Cotta Hitler refused to rule out military action to take Greenland and the Panama Canal if need be. I used to be fairly sure that something would stop that kind of crap - like the 25th Amendment - but nowadays I'm not so sure. 

[Lucienblack88]

This is what the people wanted, to rehire a failed businessman game show host who can barely read and write, and left office with the country in shambles. 

[Lucienblack88]

31 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

Today Terra Cotta Hitler refused to rule out military action to take Greenland and the Panama Canal if need be. I used to be fairly sure that something would stop that kind of crap - like the 25th Amendment - but nowadays I'm not so sure. 

They will likely want a 3rd term for him. 

[Erik62]

3 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

To clarify @Lucienblack88's generally excellent answer: Under the U.S. system of federalism, certain powers are solely the province of the federal government, certain things are outside the power of the federal government, and certain powers can be exercised by either state or federal officials. Each state has a constitution, outlining the specifics of its government, the rights its citizens enjoy under the state constitution, and so forth.

Broadly speaking, a state may not restrict a right recognized under the US Constitution, but it may recognize a right that the US constitution does not. For instance, currently per the Supreme Court, same-sex marriage is a recognized right. Should the Court overturn that decision, that leaves the matter up to the states to decide. Prior to that recognition (in 2015), some states, like Massachusetts, had already decided that recognition of same-sex marriage was mandatory under its state constitution. Several other states' highest courts have ruled similarly. If the US Supreme Court were to rule that in fact the federal constitution does not guarantee the right to same-sex marriage, those state guarantees would still hold.

Other states have legislatively adopted same-sex marriage while not necessarily enshrining a right to such marriages in the state's constitution. Again, if the Supreme Court were to overturn its previous holding, those states' same-sex marriages would still be valid and couples could continue to marry, but (in theory) the legislature could repeal that authorization (which might set up new legal challenges under that state's constitution.

Many states had, between 2004 and the 2015 Supreme Court decision, adopted constitutional bans on same-sex marriage (typically by limiting it to one man and one woman, which thus also bans any form of poly marriage, should such be proposed). Those bans were struck down by the 2015 decision. Since then, some states, but not many, have repealed their constitutional bans. In the others, if the Supreme Court were to reverse itself, those bans would "kick back in", although there's broad agreement that it (probably) wouldn't invalidate any existing marriages.

Finally: because the federal government can require states to do certain things, under limited circumstances, in theory a more progressive Congress and president could pass a law mandating the recognition of same-sex marriages. However, the federal power to legislate is limited to certain "enumerated" topics (for example, to appropriate funds, to declare war, to regulate interstate commerce, and so on), and they'd have to assert one of those enumerated powers in the process. This Court has been a little more skeptical of such powers than it was in, say, the 50's, 60's and 70's. The general fail-safe way to pass such legislation is to tie federal money to it - ie requiring states to recognize SSM in order to get 100% of their medicaid matching funds, for instance. That's how we got a de facto national drinking age of 21 - the feds withheld a portion of highway construction and maintenance funds from any state that refused to adopt that drinking age. Eventually they all complied.

So that's the interaction of federal and state law, in a (large) nutshell, regarding what happens when our Supreme Court rescinds its recognition of a right it previously recognized under the US constitution.

Once again a very clear answer👍. Thanks. 

[Lucienblack88]

9 hours ago, Erik62 said:

Once again a very clear answer👍. Thanks. 

@Erik62You’re welcome. I typically don’t get into politics. I’m an independent and have beliefs that are considered liberal and some conservative. I try to be objective as possible, and it seems @BootmanLAstrives for that as well. But, this was an interesting and intelligent discussion. 

[Erik62]

5 hours ago, Lucienblack88 said:

@Erik62You’re welcome. I typically don’t get into politics. I’m an independent and have beliefs that are considered liberal and some conservative. I try to be objective as possible, and it seems @BootmanLAstrives for that as well. But, this was an interesting and intelligent discussion. 

I thought I was "strange", as I have over the years found that both major Australian parties have excellent & horrible policies. Like you I try & take the best of both & probably annoy people when I ask questions. My mind just keeps finding questions & I keep asking them. Pity I wasn't like this at school. I might now be a politician 😱, lawyer 😵‍💫😤. No, fortunately I just ended being a sex pig to any Top who could fill me 🐷😂😂😂😂. 

[hntnhole]

22 hours ago, Lucienblack88 said:

They will likely want a 3rd term for him

Sure they will - but I doubt he'll live that long.  He's not taken care of himself at all - eats like a pig (meaning consuming that which normal human beings avoid), seems to think riding around in a heavy-duty golf cart is "exercise", coats his corpulence with orange substances, exercises only his mouth (braying stupidness and gobbling Big Macs).  

He can't carry a thought-train any farther than he could carry a real one.  It's Vancy-pants that we need to be watching closely.  I doubt the muskrat will be able to co-opt the Constitution quite as easily as he's co-opted the Presidency.  

[hntnhole]

23 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I used to be fairly sure that something would stop that kind of crap

If he gets all his nominations through the committees, he'll get whatever filth he can dream up easily.  When I hear others grousing about this or that, I just ask them ... who did you vote for?  But, there's some small measure of hope - at least around here.  The local Democratic Action Committee starts the first meeting of the year tonight, and yes - I will.  

[Erik62]

2 hours ago, hntnhole said:

If he gets all his nominations through the committees, he'll get whatever filth he can dream up easily.  When I hear others grousing about this or that, I just ask them ... who did you vote for?  But, there's some small measure of hope - at least around here.  The local Democratic Action Committee starts the first meeting of the year tonight, and yes - I will.  

A very difficult time for the US. We ALL acknowledge the hard times ahead but, what really worries me, as well, is the influence that this administration will have on the next 2-4yrs of elections throughout the west. Australia 🇦🇺 comes up for Federal elections around May & we already know that our richest woman, Gina Rheinhardt, is a bum-chum of Trump. Our AG is also now of to Israel to know tow to Netanyahu after he called Australia an "enemy" of Israel. What influence will Trump, Musk, Putin, Netanyahu, now Zuckerberg & his right wing cabal of power crazed idiots exert on western elections.

VERY FRIGHTENING TIMES.