Attempts to Roll Back Marriage Equality since the Trump Election.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by TheProgressivePatriot, Feb 7, 2017.

  1. TheProgressivePatriot
    Offline

    TheProgressivePatriot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    7,150
    Thanks Received:
    957
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
    Ratings:
    +3,287
    While Trump himself has been pretty quiet on the subject of same sex marriage and LGBT rights in general, we know that he has surrounded himself with some of the most opprobrious bigots - both religious and those that are just far right-or alt right -ideologues and hate mongers.

    There was the recent report - a resulted from a leak from the White House- that an executive order was being drafted to overturn Obamas EO prohibiting discrimination against Federal LGBT employees and contractors. If put in front of Trump, the lazy and incurious plutocrat might have mindlessly signed it. Fortunately, Jerod and Ivanka Kushner- two of the few rational and decent people on his inner circle interceded and it was quashed.

    Nevertheless, the knowledge of the anti gay forces lurking in the White House, have , apparently ,emboldened ideological bigots and religious zealots across the country to take new aim at marriage equality.

    There are at least three attempts in progress to do so. All have been launched since the election, and I can't help but to believe that they have been inspired and encouraged by the reactionary forces that have gained power and influence recently. No doubt that the prospect of tipping the balance of the Supreme Court is also a factor. Consider:


    This is really stupid and unconstitutional is light of the Obergefell ruling. What are these people thinking and do they not have anything better to do? Are there not some actual problems to address that they will spent time, money and energy on this??

    They cannot possibly get away with this unless they can get Obergefell and Windsor overturned, and that is not happening. Similarly, the City of Houston is trying to undermine the right of same sex partners of city employees to recieve spousal benefits, also in violation of Obergefell:


    Then we have this out of Arkansas.

    Yes, it is unlikely to go anywhere, and even congressional Republicans know that it is unpopular and a colossal waste of time. However, the point is, as I have said, that there has been a flurry of this type of activity since the election. Does anyone deny the obvious connection given that fact that no such attempts to roll back marriage equality in the 18 months or so since the Obergefell ruling were introduced until now.??
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2017
  2. DGS49
    Offline

    DGS49 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    5,152
    Thanks Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Ratings:
    +3,761
    You are a fool to believe this nonsense. "Gay marriage" is here to stay - not because a majority of Americans want it - they don't - but because the workings of our court system make it impossible to turn back the clock. REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING ELSE, both the Federal Government and the states are required unambiguously by the Constitution to give "full faith and credit" to the legal acts of every other state. Therefore, as long as at least one state has "gay marriage" then the Feds and every other state are forced to recognize the institution, and it is pointless to fight it - you will ultimately, definitely lose.

    As for discrimination against the [sexually fucked-up] community within the Federal government, it is, as a practical matter, not possible, and no Executive Order or memorandum can change that. And one might also point out that Our Exalted President has no animus whatsoever against the [sexually fucked-up] community, and has never shown any inclination to sign such a document.

    Parenthetically and slightly to the contrary, the President and many people on his staff CLEARLY intend to nullify any regulations or executive orders that have the effect of compelling any private business to cater to the wishes of any potential customer whose public behavior is found morally repugnant - public behavior including, for example, getting married to someone of the same gender. And anyone feeling oppressed by this "seller's right" should be slapped and beaten about the head and shoulders until some sense returns to their empty, pathetic, sensitive little souls.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. Iceweasel
    Offline

    Iceweasel Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    43,358
    Thanks Received:
    6,399
    Trophy Points:
    1,870
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +33,198
    Trump isn't a social conservative and it isn't on his radar. Y'all need to go calm the hens down.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  4. Silhouette
    Offline

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    21,977
    Thanks Received:
    1,505
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +7,504
    Well I'm sure these new challenges to the illegal Obergefell Ruling will make their way to the new USSC by next year or so. Nothing to worry about, right? I mean Obergefell's interpretation of the Constitutional application is rock-solid....right? :lmao: Oh, wait...there's Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) that found the opposite of Obergefell. Hmmmm.. Is it OK for one of the Justices who sat on Obergefell to have been advertising her Ruling on it weeks in advance of the hearing? Runs in my mind that is not allowed by law: Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal (2009).
     
  5. Iceweasel
    Offline

    Iceweasel Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    43,358
    Thanks Received:
    6,399
    Trophy Points:
    1,870
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +33,198
    Trump isn't a social conservative and it isn't on his radar. Y'all need to go calm the hens down.
     
  6. TNHarley
    Offline

    TNHarley Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages:
    47,805
    Thanks Received:
    7,094
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +46,172
    Trump said Caitlyn jenner could piss in any bathroom he wanted. But yeah, he hates LGBT. I mean, obviously. Right?!
    The TN law was introduced BEFORE the election. I quit reading after that.
     
  7. Silhouette
    Offline

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    21,977
    Thanks Received:
    1,505
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +7,504
    Sorry, your logic doesn't fly. For one thing there are no constitutional insinuations for protections for deviant sex addiction behaviors. For another, it's legal in New Hampshire for 13 year olds to marry, that doesn't mean in all 50 states 13 year olds may marry. Might want to look up Windsor 2013 to see who has the final say on outlining who may or may not marry state by state. Either every type of configuration may marry across all 50 states without their permission or states still draw up the requirements for marriage: one of which may very well be that it provides vital mother and father to children the state anticipates will statistically arrive... Remember, the gays said it first: "marriage benefits are for the children!"...that's how they convinced Kennedy (who forgot that chief of those benefits was kids getting both vital mom AND dad)
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    43,872
    Thanks Received:
    5,714
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +16,568
    You sure are obsessed about deviant sex.

    Americans do have protections from government intrusion into our sex lives, and we also have a right to marriage.

    Despite your ardent wishes that the government should regulate our sex lives, and ban marriages between consenting adults.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Silhouette
    Offline

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    21,977
    Thanks Received:
    1,505
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +7,504
    And, kids have a right to have marriage mean "finally we get both a vital mom and dad". Remember, you guys told Kennedy "marriage benefits the kids!" You just neglected to remind him of the chief of those benefits to kids. It'll all come out in the wash though. This song ain't over yet..
     
  10. TheProgressivePatriot
    Offline

    TheProgressivePatriot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    7,150
    Thanks Received:
    957
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
    Ratings:
    +3,287
    That's quite a rant Bubba. Maybe you would be taken more seriously if you refrained from the disparaging comment, toned down your anger, and got your facts straight.
    So I'm a fool? Why. I'm just reporting the facts as to what is happening. I didn't say that it would happen in fact I predicted that it won't happen

    Now here is where you go wrong with regards to the facts. The marriage question was not decided on full faith and credit. It was decided on the 14th amendment. As such, the court would have ruled in favor of marriage equality even if no states had it at the time.

    And where do you get the idea that "most people don't want gay marriage" This is the year 2017, not 1971.

    How is discrimination in the federal government not possible ? That makes no sense. As for YOUR Pussydent, he has not soul, no brain and no core values. He may well do whatever the bigots Bannon and Pence and others tells him to do.

    That is another topic but let me ask you.....Are you aware that the business community by and large are opposed to these draconian so called "religious liberty bills" They are bid for business
     

Share This Page