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.

  • Archmage Azor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    I’ve pretty much given up hope for the American people ever growing a spine and standing up for themselves, but if there’s one thing I still believe can make things start happening it’s if gay marriage is outlawed.

    Though I will prepare myself to be proven wrong. That hasn’t failed me before.

  • leadore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 hours ago

    If they aren’t stopped, it’s only a matter of time before women won’t be able to own property, take loans or have credit in their names, and maybe even have bank accounts in their own name. Only men will be able to file for divorce. etc, etc.

  • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 hours ago

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

    This is all anyone needs to understand on the subject. They don’t give a shit about what the majority wants anymore- as they’re making it known far-and-wide that they are no longer employed by us. They’re employed by themselves.

    • Barbecue Cowboy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      They have a fairly large group that isn’t going to change their votes either way. Then, they have another group that actually might stay home, but things like this motivates them. They don’t have to care about the parts of their base that aren’t going to change their mind.

  • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 hours ago

    My supervisor is a hardcore trumper - and also a lesbian who proudly talks about her wife. Nothing that is happening now is good, but it will at least be a little amusing to hear her “but the leopards weren’t supposed to eat my face!” lamentations.

    • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Any LGBTQ person that voted for Trump deserves what they get. I have no sympathy for a person that can’t do the most basic google search and has no interest in bettering the world for other people.

      The only reason most people voted for Trump was Money or Immigrants. Two of the most selfish reasons.

    • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Yeah… she’s fucked. I wouldn’t be surprised if they anull every non-hetero marriage. And sadly, all the faces eaten by leopards will be of little consolation to those hurt by this.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      That’s a weird thing I’ve seen in my life. Of the 5 most loud, vocal Trump supporters I know, 3 are lesbians. It’s weird.

        • stardust@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Maybe what they all have in common is wanting to be the lone exception to all the suffering others of their kind will go through. Some sick joy found in being a lone survivor.

  • Vytle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    23 hours ago

    …yeah this isn’t happening. Cry all you want, that shits in the constitution.

    • Archer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 hours ago

      In order for the Constitution to be meaningful it must be enforced. Who will enforce it if the two other branches of government don’t?

    • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Dude, they want to decree all gays as pedos and give them the death penalty.

      And you’re going, "they can’t do that! That’s illegal!

      Seriously?

      • Vytle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Even the most devout cultists understand that culling 7% (and rising) of the population in a country with a negative birth rate is a bad move.

      • Vytle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Have you?

        Relevant excerpt: “…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;… nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

        The amendment was not properly interpreted prior to 2015. It would be nearly impossible to change the interpretation at this point because it would need to be changes from “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws” to “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws; except for gay people”

        The 14th amendment should have covered gay marriage from the get-go; and I seriously don’t see how you could argue that it can be restored to its prior; clearly wrong, interperitation.

        There is nothing to overturn. This is not the same thing as Roe V Wade; which arguably did not have constitutional precident. Its clearly written in the 14th that Americans are to have equal rights legally. 'Less there’s a fucking coup, that’s not changing.

        • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Ah, just how Roe v Wade interpreted the right to healthcare. Can’t reverse that. It’s a binding and permanent interpretation of the Constitution. Kavanaugh, Barrett both said that it was settled law, no backsies.

          • Vytle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Abortion is unfortunately political, and therefore goes beyond healthcare. To be frank; Roe V Wade was unconstitutional. I’m not arguing that it should be, I’m simply pointing out that it is. In all honesty, there is likely more ground to completely federally outlaw abortion than there is to protect it. The same is not true of marriage, which is constitutionally protected as a fundamental right, and the 14th amendment states that no one in the jurisdiction of the united states is to be subject to laws differently based on background. Its open and shut; gay marriage being outlawed is just as likely as a 3rd Trump term. It is possible, but not under the federal government as it exists now.

        • Glytch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 hours ago

          With this current supreme court I can definitely see them reverting to the previous interpretation. It doesn’t have to make logical or legal sense when it comes to activist judges.

          That’s not saying they should, just a pessimistic prediction based on previous actions of this court.

    • DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      this isn’t happening

      1. Roe v. Wade. I don’t need to say anymore

      2. It most certainly is not and only hinges from a SCOTUS decision from the Obama era

          • Vytle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Here is a compilation of my responses in this thread.

            Relevant excerpt: “…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;… nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            The amendment was not properly interpreted prior to 2015. It would be nearly impossible to change the interpretation at this point because it would need to be changes from “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws” to “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws; except for gay people”

            The 14th amendment should have covered gay marriage from the get-go; and I seriously don’t see how you could argue that it can be restored to its prior; clearly wrong, interperitation.

            There is nothing to overturn. This is not the same thing as Roe V Wade; which arguably did not have constitutional precident. Its clearly written in the 14th that all within the juridstiction of america are to have equal rights. 'Less there’s a fucking coup, that’s not changing.

            In short; marriage is constitutionally protected as a fundamental right, and the 14th amendment establishes that all laws apply to everyone within the jurisdiction of the united states equally, regardless of background. marriage is also not constitutionally defined by gender, and its a hell of a lot easier to argue that the 14th applies rather than it doesnt.

  • lobut@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    23 hours ago

    So … when are they going back to legalising child marriage and removing divorce?

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Child marriage is already legal. We don’t have to go back to that.

      No-Fault divorce is already on the chopping block.

      ‘Til death do us part’ is gonna be the only option soon, just an FYI for my peeps in abusive relationships out there.

      • Mirshe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I love how none of them ever had grandparents that got “divorced” before no-fault. You know what you did a lot of the time before no-fault if you wanted out? Killed your husband. Wives, when they were forced with a situation where they couldn’t simply leave the state/country, would just poison their spouse. In the early 1900s, when your wife was often the one who was at home all the time, preparing all your meals, it was INCREDIBLY easy to do in a way that looked like “oh well he just kept getting sicker and sicker”.

  • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    State’s rights means that if they can take away slavery then we can take away gay marriage.