Attempts to Roll Back Marriage Equality since the Trump Election.

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
16,478
Reaction score
2,625
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
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:

Tennessee Bill Would Undo Marriage Equality
A bill making its way through the Tennessee state legislature aims to roll back marriage equality in the Volunteer State. But LGBT advocates say the legislation is an unconstitutional attempt to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court.
Tennessee Republican Rep. Mark Pody, who claims God has called him to stop same-sex marriages, introduced House Bill 1412, the Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act, last September. At the same time, Sen. Mae Beavers, also a Republican, introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

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??

As written, the bill seeks to declare it "the policy of Tennessee to defend natural marriage between one man and one woman regardless of any court decision to the contrary." It requires state officials, including the attorney general, to "defend any state or local government official from any lawsuit" arising from an official's refusal to marry a same-sex couple. The bill also seeks to prevent state and local agencies from implementing any punishment for those violating the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling that mandated legal marriage equality nationwide.
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:

Amid GOP Pressure, Texas High Court to Hear Challenge to Spousal Benefits

The Texas Supreme Court Friday agreed to hear a case challenging some of the rights gained with marriage equality.
The case involves whether the city of Houston is obligated to provide benefits to same-sex spouses of city employees, The Dallas Morning News reports. In September the high court had declined to hear the case, but justices reversed that decision amid pressure from top Republican state officials, including Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Then we have this out of Arkansas.
Seriously, Arkansas? Even Trump Knows Same-Sex Marriage Is Done Deal
Guys, you aren’t actually going to even believe this. There are still people trying to get rid of same-sex marriage. If you’re all, “didn’t we already fight about this a long time ago?” you’d be right. Except that news apparently hasn’t hit Arkansas just yet. One of its esteemed legislators just filed a Senate Joint Resolution requesting the United States Congress to start working on a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the “union of one man and one woman.” How positively late-90s of him.

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.??
 
Last edited:

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
9,716
Reaction score
4,046
Points
400
Location
Pittsburgh
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.
 

Iceweasel

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
43,343
Reaction score
6,430
Points
1,870
Location
Washington State
Trump isn't a social conservative and it isn't on his radar. Y'all need to go calm the hens down.
 

Silhouette

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
25,815
Reaction score
1,926
Points
265
Trump isn't a social conservative and it isn't on his radar. Y'all need to go calm the hens down.
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).
 

Iceweasel

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
43,343
Reaction score
6,430
Points
1,870
Location
Washington State
Trump isn't a social conservative and it isn't on his radar. Y'all need to go calm the hens down.
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).
Trump isn't a social conservative and it isn't on his radar. Y'all need to go calm the hens down.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
68,907
Reaction score
14,508
Points
2,180
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.
 

Silhouette

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
25,815
Reaction score
1,926
Points
265
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....
.
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)
 

Syriusly

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Messages
54,851
Reaction score
7,126
Points
1,840
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....
.
Sorry, your logic doesn't fly. For one thing there are no constitutional insinuations for protections for deviant sex addiction behaviors. )
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.
 

Silhouette

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
25,815
Reaction score
1,926
Points
265
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.
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..
 
OP
TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
16,478
Reaction score
2,625
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
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..
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.

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..
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.

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.
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
 

Syriusly

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Messages
54,851
Reaction score
7,126
Points
1,840
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.
And, kids have a right to have marriage..
No- actually kids don't have a right to marriage- which is why your kids ended up with divorced parents.

Americans have a right to marriage. Children hopefully will have parents who care about them- and yes- hopefully their parents will be allowed to marry.

You want to harm the children of gay parents by preventing their parents from marrying.
 

Death Angel

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
32,747
Reaction score
15,036
Points
1,600
You sure are obsessed about deviant sex.
He didn't start the thread. Some of us who don't accept the normalization of the mental illness that is homosexuality still have the right to our opinion.

Americans do have protections from government intrusion into our sex lives, and we also have a right to marriage.
They've always had the right to marry.
Any man is free to marry any woman who accepts.

Marriage has a definition. Words don't simply mean whatever the hell you want them to mean.
 

aris2chat

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Messages
18,678
Reaction score
4,677
Points
280
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:

Tennessee Bill Would Undo Marriage Equality
A bill making its way through the Tennessee state legislature aims to roll back marriage equality in the Volunteer State. But LGBT advocates say the legislation is an unconstitutional attempt to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court.
Tennessee Republican Rep. Mark Pody, who claims God has called him to stop same-sex marriages, introduced House Bill 1412, the Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act, last September. At the same time, Sen. Mae Beavers, also a Republican, introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

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??

As written, the bill seeks to declare it "the policy of Tennessee to defend natural marriage between one man and one woman regardless of any court decision to the contrary." It requires state officials, including the attorney general, to "defend any state or local government official from any lawsuit" arising from an official's refusal to marry a same-sex couple. The bill also seeks to prevent state and local agencies from implementing any punishment for those violating the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling that mandated legal marriage equality nationwide.
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:

Amid GOP Pressure, Texas High Court to Hear Challenge to Spousal Benefits

The Texas Supreme Court Friday agreed to hear a case challenging some of the rights gained with marriage equality.
The case involves whether the city of Houston is obligated to provide benefits to same-sex spouses of city employees, The Dallas Morning News reports. In September the high court had declined to hear the case, but justices reversed that decision amid pressure from top Republican state officials, including Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Then we have this out of Arkansas.
Seriously, Arkansas? Even Trump Knows Same-Sex Marriage Is Done Deal
Guys, you aren’t actually going to even believe this. There are still people trying to get rid of same-sex marriage. If you’re all, “didn’t we already fight about this a long time ago?” you’d be right. Except that news apparently hasn’t hit Arkansas just yet. One of its esteemed legislators just filed a Senate Joint Resolution requesting the United States Congress to start working on a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the “union of one man and one woman.” How positively late-90s of him.

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.??
there were gays on his transition team.

Gays have the same rights to marry and to not be discriminated the same as other minorities.

Trump is about all americans, not special interest groups. Contact your state instead.
 

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
97,181
Reaction score
24,818
Points
2,220
Location
Tested Negative For COVID-19
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:

Tennessee Bill Would Undo Marriage Equality
A bill making its way through the Tennessee state legislature aims to roll back marriage equality in the Volunteer State. But LGBT advocates say the legislation is an unconstitutional attempt to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court.
Tennessee Republican Rep. Mark Pody, who claims God has called him to stop same-sex marriages, introduced House Bill 1412, the Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act, last September. At the same time, Sen. Mae Beavers, also a Republican, introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

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??

As written, the bill seeks to declare it "the policy of Tennessee to defend natural marriage between one man and one woman regardless of any court decision to the contrary." It requires state officials, including the attorney general, to "defend any state or local government official from any lawsuit" arising from an official's refusal to marry a same-sex couple. The bill also seeks to prevent state and local agencies from implementing any punishment for those violating the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling that mandated legal marriage equality nationwide.
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:

Amid GOP Pressure, Texas High Court to Hear Challenge to Spousal Benefits

The Texas Supreme Court Friday agreed to hear a case challenging some of the rights gained with marriage equality.
The case involves whether the city of Houston is obligated to provide benefits to same-sex spouses of city employees, The Dallas Morning News reports. In September the high court had declined to hear the case, but justices reversed that decision amid pressure from top Republican state officials, including Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Then we have this out of Arkansas.
Seriously, Arkansas? Even Trump Knows Same-Sex Marriage Is Done Deal
Guys, you aren’t actually going to even believe this. There are still people trying to get rid of same-sex marriage. If you’re all, “didn’t we already fight about this a long time ago?” you’d be right. Except that news apparently hasn’t hit Arkansas just yet. One of its esteemed legislators just filed a Senate Joint Resolution requesting the United States Congress to start working on a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the “union of one man and one woman.” How positively late-90s of him.

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.??
The only people in Washington trying to deal with this is fear-mongers in the Democrat Party.
Trust me.....this isn't going to happen, and if it does I'll raise as much Hell as you.
It's law now. The GOP has bigger fish to fry.
 

Tipsycatlover

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
43,799
Reaction score
16,297
Points
2,290
Trump is not anti gay. He has those New York values. He is surrounded by people chosen to be the best at their jobs without having a gay rights litmus test. Rex Tillerson, life long Eagle scout and a member of the BSA board was the leading voice in getting the boy scouts to accept gays.
 

Silhouette

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
25,815
Reaction score
1,926
Points
265
Gays have the same rights to marry and to not be discriminated the same as other minorities.
You mean like polygamists? And since when do deviant sex behaviors have minority status? I've never seen that even remotely insinuated in the Constitution. The judges on the Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit) panel never have either, apparently...

Do gays have the "right" to permanently divorce kids involved, via a contract, of ever having either a mother or father...for life?
 
Last edited:
OP
TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
16,478
Reaction score
2,625
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
You sure are obsessed about deviant sex.
He didn't start the thread. Some of us who don't accept the normalization of the mental illness that is homosexuality still have the right to our opinion.

Americans do have protections from government intrusion into our sex lives, and we also have a right to marriage.
They've always had the right to marry.
Any man is free to marry any woman who accepts.

Marriage has a definition. Words don't simply mean whatever the hell you want them to mean.
I really don't believe that I'm seeing the same bigoted bovine excrement that I've come across all to many times before!! Anyone who believes that crap is a moron. Are you a moron?

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)

Kitchen V. Herbert Utah Gay Marriage

On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).

Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)
Windsor is the other case referred to above\

DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)

It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:

The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)

We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”

We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59
A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
 
OP
TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
16,478
Reaction score
2,625
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
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:

Tennessee Bill Would Undo Marriage Equality
A bill making its way through the Tennessee state legislature aims to roll back marriage equality in the Volunteer State. But LGBT advocates say the legislation is an unconstitutional attempt to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court.
Tennessee Republican Rep. Mark Pody, who claims God has called him to stop same-sex marriages, introduced House Bill 1412, the Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act, last September. At the same time, Sen. Mae Beavers, also a Republican, introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

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??

As written, the bill seeks to declare it "the policy of Tennessee to defend natural marriage between one man and one woman regardless of any court decision to the contrary." It requires state officials, including the attorney general, to "defend any state or local government official from any lawsuit" arising from an official's refusal to marry a same-sex couple. The bill also seeks to prevent state and local agencies from implementing any punishment for those violating the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling that mandated legal marriage equality nationwide.
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:

Amid GOP Pressure, Texas High Court to Hear Challenge to Spousal Benefits

The Texas Supreme Court Friday agreed to hear a case challenging some of the rights gained with marriage equality.
The case involves whether the city of Houston is obligated to provide benefits to same-sex spouses of city employees, The Dallas Morning News reports. In September the high court had declined to hear the case, but justices reversed that decision amid pressure from top Republican state officials, including Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Then we have this out of Arkansas.
Seriously, Arkansas? Even Trump Knows Same-Sex Marriage Is Done Deal
Guys, you aren’t actually going to even believe this. There are still people trying to get rid of same-sex marriage. If you’re all, “didn’t we already fight about this a long time ago?” you’d be right. Except that news apparently hasn’t hit Arkansas just yet. One of its esteemed legislators just filed a Senate Joint Resolution requesting the United States Congress to start working on a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the “union of one man and one woman.” How positively late-90s of him.

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.??
there were gays on his transition team.

Gays have the same rights to marry and to not be discriminated the same as other minorities.

Trump is about all americans, not special interest groups. Contact your state instead.
Gays have the right to marry but they still face discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations in many states and sexual orientation/gender identity is not protected at the federal level. We are not there yet. While Trump himself might not push to roll back LGBT rights, he is not going to move it forward either.
 

aris2chat

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Messages
18,678
Reaction score
4,677
Points
280
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:

Tennessee Bill Would Undo Marriage Equality
A bill making its way through the Tennessee state legislature aims to roll back marriage equality in the Volunteer State. But LGBT advocates say the legislation is an unconstitutional attempt to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court.
Tennessee Republican Rep. Mark Pody, who claims God has called him to stop same-sex marriages, introduced House Bill 1412, the Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act, last September. At the same time, Sen. Mae Beavers, also a Republican, introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

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??

As written, the bill seeks to declare it "the policy of Tennessee to defend natural marriage between one man and one woman regardless of any court decision to the contrary." It requires state officials, including the attorney general, to "defend any state or local government official from any lawsuit" arising from an official's refusal to marry a same-sex couple. The bill also seeks to prevent state and local agencies from implementing any punishment for those violating the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling that mandated legal marriage equality nationwide.
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:

Amid GOP Pressure, Texas High Court to Hear Challenge to Spousal Benefits

The Texas Supreme Court Friday agreed to hear a case challenging some of the rights gained with marriage equality.
The case involves whether the city of Houston is obligated to provide benefits to same-sex spouses of city employees, The Dallas Morning News reports. In September the high court had declined to hear the case, but justices reversed that decision amid pressure from top Republican state officials, including Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Then we have this out of Arkansas.
Seriously, Arkansas? Even Trump Knows Same-Sex Marriage Is Done Deal
Guys, you aren’t actually going to even believe this. There are still people trying to get rid of same-sex marriage. If you’re all, “didn’t we already fight about this a long time ago?” you’d be right. Except that news apparently hasn’t hit Arkansas just yet. One of its esteemed legislators just filed a Senate Joint Resolution requesting the United States Congress to start working on a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the “union of one man and one woman.” How positively late-90s of him.

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.??
there were gays on his transition team.

Gays have the same rights to marry and to not be discriminated the same as other minorities.

Trump is about all americans, not special interest groups. Contact your state instead.
Gays have the right to marry but they still face discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations in many states and sexual orientation/gender identity is not protected at the federal level. We are not there yet. While Trump himself might not push to roll back LGBT rights, he is not going to move it forward either.
He has been busy in the last two weeks

Jobs, economy and medical reform take priority

LGBT rights will have to dealt with on a state level for the time being
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top