Summary

Conservative lawmakers and activists are pushing to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver declared, “It’s just a matter of when.”

Some legislators, like Oklahoma Senator David Bullard, are introducing bills to challenge the ruling, while Justices Thomas and Alito have signaled interest in reconsidering it.

Though most Americans support same-sex marriage, the court’s conservative shift is concerning.

The 2022 Respect for Marriage Act ensures federal recognition but does not prevent states from restricting same-sex marriage if Obergefell is overturned.

  • lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    It’s okay because uncommitted are patting themselves on the back.

    In fact they’d probably go, “Harris would’ve done the same thing!” lmao.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I’m still seeing them saying it here on Lemmy, in fact. Still blaming the Democratic Party for things and choices that they themselves chose to make.

      And all because the Democratic Party did not give them a perfectly pretty, pretty pony.

    • ghen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Unfortunately uncommitted voters would not have changed the results pretty much at all. The representation in the voting population is a highly significant percent of the population as far as statistics are concerned.

      If there was 100% voting then statistically they results would be identical to the point of no changes considering the sample size of people who did actually vote versus the whole population.

        • ghen@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          I don’t think you understood my point when it comes to statistics and significance. I wasn’t talking about how many people didn’t vote, I was talking about how the people who did vote is a monumental sample size for the entire population. So if the entire population did vote the outcome would be very similar to what the sample size predicted with their actual votes.

          • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 hour ago

            Still mathematically incorrect, I’m afraid.

            Your point isn’t valid because “people who voted” is certainly not a random sample but it is also not an unbiased or stratified sample of the population.

            It’s very plausible indeed that (for example) democratic leaning voters were jaded and stayed home whilst republicans were excited about the disruptive influence their guy mightt have.

            Your sample contains no eligible voters whatsoever in the stayed-home category and it’s heinous extrapolation to assume that your proportion extends into this group with markedly different behaviour to those in your sample, especially when the percentages were so close in any case.

            Using your logic, I could do a hypothesis test with a tiny sample of hundred voters and get my margin of error under a SL of 5% and claim statistical significance, because if I excluded people who voted in person or people who voted by postal vote, I would get strikingly different outcomes. Thus, if voter preference is correlated so markedly even by method of voting, it’s absurd to suggest that there’s no correlation over fact of voting.

            By your logic (statistical significance irrespective of how non-random and non-stratified a sample is), no pre election poll could ever be wrong.

            Statistical significance isn’t the same as truth. How representive and free from bias your sample is are two things that are critical to the validity of your conclusions.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        Well sure but there are many niche groups who when aggregated together could’ve put us over the top. I just have to highlight this particularly group that so clearly shot themselves in the foot and should, ostensibly, know better. Trump supporters I can even understand more.

  • smeenz@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I wish the media would stop saying ‘conservative’ and start saying ‘fascist’.

  • FunkFakin420@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    I just love the hypocrisy from republicans. They preach smaller government, but are always the first in line to take rights and freedoms away from those they dislike.

    They may tell you otherwise, but their actions say they want to govern based on their own warped “Christian” ideals.

    MAGA needs to unfuck themselves, and remember that this is a secular nation. You may not like who someone loves or that they worship a different god, or no god at all. Guess what? It’s none of your damn business. And it certainly isn’t a basis for treating people differently.

    • Ledericas@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The gop, putin, fox, and right wing media has gotten them in such a knot that they cant untie themselves. they almost became selfware with luigi, when MSM dint realized by blasting him 24/7 was actually hurting them.

    • EndRedStateSubsidies@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Republicans are either too stupid to understand the hypocrisy or actively engage in it specifically because they enjoy trolling.

      Conservatives with a semblance of coherent thought are Democrats.

      Anyone that actually understands the system knows both parties are right of center and left is basically a boogie man with no real-world presence in the US.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        12 hours ago

        The Spartacist rose up way too damned early and got a solid chunk of what could’ve been resistance elements murdered. Including folks like Rosa Luxemburg who told them it was stupid and too early.

        • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          They were operating in the context of the ashes of World War 1 and disintegrating empires. The total collapse of centralized authority and subject nations forming governments independently can hardly be considered ‘too early’.

          Considering it ‘too early’ in the sense that roving bands of monarchist paramilitaries were still running amok unchecked and (then legitimized by the government?) Yeah, bad time for all who didn’t support Prussian hegemony.

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 hours ago

            I meant it in the second context, the Freikkorps out numbered them and were functioning as a de facto branch of the Weimar government. Combine that with the fact that the revolt happened when the Weimar Republic was at its strongest and well it was ill advised.

            Its also argueable that the slaughter of the Spartacists and leftist in general paved the way for the Nazis. While I dont buy into it I do suspect that if the Sparatacists couldve been a massive boon to the German Resistance later on.

            Also I will point out my bias, I do not think direct confrontation is generally all that effective unless its defensive in nature. I believe in absolutely abusing asymmetry when attacking someone. Thusly all my opinions on such actions will default to the idea of abusing asymmetry.

            • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Combine that with the fact that the revolt happened when the Weimar Republic was at its strongest

              That I think isn’t quite the case. The uprising occurred in the time period after the Armistice and before the 1919 elections. The Weimar government prior to the 1919 elections existed solely on the legitimacy inherited from the Kaiser. The Spartacists were extrajudicially executed a week before the elections. The constution wasn’t written until the following summer.

              • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                The problem with newly born governments is that their weakest periods can often times be their strongest periods since they are liquid and more adaptive.

                Just to use an example of what I mean, the modern United States will most likely collapse in on itself due to an over reliance on legalism and folks like Musk and Trump who just ignore it. On the otherhand had Musk and Trump somehow existed back during the founding years of the United States they wouldve been tared and feathered if not just outright shot.

  • FosterMolasses@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Holy shit. This is fucking huge.

    This is fourth reich shit, non-hyperbole. The definition of “First they came for the communists…”

    What do you think will come next? Banning interracial marriage? Banning divorce and women having bank accounts? Or banning speaking anything that is critical of the regime.

    People need to start freaking out about this right now, not when they’re already on the otherside of ghettos and barbed wire fences.

    • smeenz@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Don’t forget separate areas on the bus and theatre for coloured folk. Gotta regress fully.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Well, they are probably going to come for the birth control and sex toys next.

      But if they come for interracial marriage, I bet Clarence is going to be one of the most pikachu-faced motherfuckers (besides Peter Thiel?) on the planet. He thought he was one of the GOOD ones. Turns out they never approved of him OR his marriage…

      Also, I want to add - this is not that huge, at least in the sense that it’s not at all surprising. I’m pretty sure Trollito and pals signaled they wanted to end Obergefell, as well as decisions on contraceptives and sodomy. Technically, a blowjob is sodomy. I wonder how many cishet men know that? I also don’t think it will be enforced for any of the insiders. I doubt the Sodomy Police are going to kick in the doors of fElon’s house when he’s getting a beej from one of his baby-mamas.

      The only thing that is the least bit surprising (to me, anyway) is how many people ignored that this is who and what the cons really are. They are not for freedom. They hate people exercising their freedoms. They think THEY should decide who marries who. That THEY should decide how family planning is done. And that THEY get to decide what sexual encounters are allowed. And that THEY get to decide even how many dildos people own.

      Also: what kind of pervert concerns themselves to this degree about what consenting adults do? It’s sick.

      • Ledericas@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        im betting THomas will be estatic when she can get rid of his wife, also thiel can just flee to NEW ZEALAND with his hubby.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Banning interracial marriage

      Banning? No, probably not; Thomas’ wife is white. (As is Thomas, aside from his skin color.) OTOH, they’ll probably say that it’s up to the states to allow it or not, and whether or not they want to respect the interracial marriages performed by other states.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        and whether or not they want to respect the interracial marriages performed by other states.

        That’ll require some very entertaining twisting of the full faith and credit clause, or do you think we’ll be well past the point where they even go through the motions to pretend to have a legal rationale for anything they’re doing by the time this happens?

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          I couldn’t even make a semi-coherent claim as to how Alito, Thomas, Goresuch, Barret, and Kavanaugh (with Roberts tagging along) would toss that out, without also tossing out a ton of other stuff. Then again, Those six justices haven’t always been making coherent arguments for their ideologically-aligned decisions, so…?

    • Slartibartfast@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Agree entirely on the value judgement but it’s not a right if a single party can remove it.

      It should have been written into the damn constitution with an ammendment along with bodily autonomy for women. But that would have taken some guts and foresight by the democratic leaders.

      Now it’s too late.

      • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        12 hours ago

        That’s the thing about rights.

        There’s no such thing as a “God-given right.” Rights are earned by fighting. By bloodshed and tears. And they’re lost once again by complacency.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        12 hours ago

        It should have been written into the damn constitution with an ammendment along with bodily autonomy for women. But that would have taken some guts and foresight by the democratic leaders.

        An amendment would have taken 38 state legislatures ratifying it. There aren’t 38 state legislatures likely to pass ratification of an amendment that guarantees a right for any two adults to marry without exception and also guarantees a right for any woman to terminate any pregnancy without exception at her will.

        That’s probably tied for the lowest odds any hypothetical amendment has of being ratified.

        • Slartibartfast@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          Thankyou. I didn’t realise quite how difficult it would have been.

          So sad that things so obviously harmless and bettering for humanity can’t get anywhere near that 76% support in the richest most privileged nation the world has ever seen.

          Humanites high water mark is decidedly low considering the potential.

          Oh well.

      • phx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        that would have taken some guts and foresight by the democratic leaders.

        My understanding is that constitutional amendments also take a high bar to pass with 2/3 of states agreeing to the proposal and 3/4 ratifying. Given the issues getting even more basic things through the Senate/House I could definitely see this getting blocked by red states.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          My understanding is that constitutional amendments also take a high bar to pass with 2/3 of states agreeing to the proposal and 3/4 ratifying. Given the issues getting even more basic things through the Senate/House I could definitely see this getting blocked by red states.

          Two routes to amend the Constitution.

          1. Both houses of Congress pass a proposed amendment by a 2/3 majority. Then 3/4 of states ratify that amendment in their state legislatures. This is how every amendment to date has occurred.
          2. 2/3 of state legislatures call for a Constitutional Congress, during which any number of changes may be made, but any changes must be agreed to by 3/4 of the states. Congress gets no say in this process. Congress getting no say in this process is the point - it exists so that if there’s an issue with the Constitution that Congress is unable or unwilling to resolve (for example if Congressional power needs to be curtailed in some fashion), it can be fixed despite them.

          Note the key thing here: Republicans have been pushing hard at the state level for decades, and 2 is why. If ever 38 state legislatures are red, they can more or less arbitrarily rewrite the Constitution to their will regardless of what the remaining states or anything at the federal level has to say about it.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Dear LGB Drop The T losers

    You played yourself, they were never concerned about “my kind” appropriating “your kind”, they were never after us, they were always after you, we were just in the way.

  • Ledericas@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    many of the the gop men are in sham marriages anyways, they have to project somehow.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        17 hours ago

        In his concurring opinion on Dobbs (eliminating constitutional protection for abortion), Thomas wrote:

        The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue.

        This is basically a list of precedent cases he wants the court to revisit. The conspicuously absent case is Loving v. Virginia, which is what protects interracial marriage. There’s also a pretty obvious reason why: he’s in an interracial marriage.