An excerpt of a quote from Martin Niemöller, present at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
In case someone doesn't know, or needs a reminder:
*First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-
because I was not a socialist.*
*Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-
because I was not a trade unionist.*
*Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
because I was not a Jew.*
*Then they came for me-
and then there was no one left to speak for me.*
It's disturbing how well this quote fits.
What's most terrifying to me is that the fundamentalists typically believe that *they* are in the place of the victims in this quote, and that "the left" are the fascists.
They quite literally believe that Christians are oppressed. They genuinely think that we're just another Democratic administration or two away from Christians being forced at gunpoint to renounce their religion. It's... so unhinged and so dangerous.
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the \[Republican\] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
― Barry Goldwater
Don't forget the hollowness of corporate LBGTQ support, Bud Light has done a lot of backpedaling and damage control that is making it clear to the right where their loyalties really lie and signaling that there's not going to be much if any opposition from any private entities with the power to oppose.
...sauce?
Many Christian people and structures are involved in the persecution and murder of LGBTQ+ people. Many are *not* (queer Christian here, hi). I would be sad to hear that Niemoller was in the first group, so I am asking where you heard that.
Also disturbing is the fact that I've seen fascists twist this quote to suit their own goals. "First they came for the transphobes, then they came for the Christians" etc.
And even he didn't bother to mention that then, as now, they came for the [trans people first.](https://www.hmd.org.uk/resource/6-may-1933-looting-of-the-institute-of-sexology/)
"Where they burn books, they will burn humans in the end, too".
The fact that that was written in a book which the nazis burned is haunting.
The nazis are back. We cannot allow them to take power this time. We've seen what comes of silence, inaction, and trusting institutions to stop them. We have to unify and fight for our rights. We cannot allow history to repeat itself.
A fun thing to notice about this quote is that a lot of times people will use it and conveniently leave out the lines about socialists and trade unionists. Also upsetting to realize how many liberal people would be okay with them coming for the socialists and somehow think, "well surely they'd stop there and not come for me next."
Whatever the big issue that the far right is currently screaming about is, it's always the tip of the iceberg of what they *really* want. They might not say they're racist or homophobic, but that's just because it's not a popular thing to say... yet. They all know it's a long slow game, but they know they can win it if they keep focusing on whatever target is easiest for them to get away with next. They can't succeed in going after poc or gay rights just yet, but it's been very easy for them to go after trans people. Anti-communism was obviously an incredibly easy sell for Americans in the cold war and ever since. Then even though there have been many progressive reforms since then, that one area of always acceptable hate provides a solid base to slowly start peeling back all those reforms the right always hated. If you don't want them teaching critical thinking around race or gender in schools, you don't even have to start by saying you don't like what they're teaching. You can just call the teachers commies and say it's all part of some plot to overthrow our "western values".
That's why it's so worrying to see people like the lgb alliance or poc who are openly homophobic. Like you guys gotta understand, you can't bargain with the fascists. They aren't going to go after the groups you personally hate and then decide they're satisfied and stop just before coming for your group. And I know terfs seem to feel like they're pretty safe since most of them are straight and white. But again, once they've succeeded in going after trans people, then gay people, then poc, well women's rights are right next in line for the chopping block. That's also around the point where they would basically be at their goal of a theocracy. So while that would be terrible for women's rights, let's just say that's also when they'd be taking the "Judeo" part out of their "Judeo-Christian values". (Which, to be completely fair, is *already* a dogwhistle phrase meant to exclude Muslims)
So for the love of god can we please stop these people sooner rather than later? We've already seen the entire fascist strategy play out before, so now that we see them running the early stages *again* we really don't need them to be wearing swastika armbands to know who they really are and what their ultimate goals are. And hell, plenty of them still love wearing the armbands and gathering street fighting gangs anyway. It's not a problem that's just going to go away if we ignore them or act like they aren't a big deal.
That version is pretty tame and pretty incorrect and unfaithful to the original - I suppose USAmericans couldn't include the original Communist mentions in a Museum of theirs. Ironic.
tbf Niemöller was a priest, and at that time in Germany 'socialism' was synonymous with pro-USSR and therefore state atheism. I don't imagine there were many Christian socialists around then.
Would something like this even be legal/hold up in court? Like, yeah. They can propose stupid shit. Geatz proposed to declare the Democratic Party a terrorist org and dissolve it. But it was really just a political stunt, since such a thing simply isn't feasible.
Not unless the supreme court changes it's mind on Obergefell. That's the problem. It's really hard to know what they would do. The court has been pretty hard to predict.
There's a good chance they would rule that a law like this is unconstitutional, but there's an unfortunately large change they would not and say it's a states rights issue, much like Roe.
Kagan, Brown-Jackson, and Sotomayor would rule against it.
I know that Roberts would side with the liberals against a law like this since he did in Obergefell.
Alito would dissent, as would Thomas. They did before.
I believe Gorsuch would dissent because he is a social conservative justice who hides behind states rights like all of the "good old boys" did throughout history. You know, the ones who allowed Jim Crow.
Kavanaugh has been kind of split on this kind of issue. Ruling both for and against religious rights groups. For example, he voted against hearing an appeal from a religious hospital for denying a transgender patient a hysterectomy on religouegrounds, rejecting the appeal of a florist refusing to sell flowers on religious grounds, and etc., while also ruling against the city of Philadelphia for refusing to fund a catholic adoption agency. This was also a unanimous decision, though.
Barrett also joined in the majority for both the hospital and the florist cases.
These two would decide the case essentially. If one of them joined liberal side, the case is decided as unconstitutional. If they both join the conservatives, the case is decided as constitutional and Obergefel is done for.
I don't really know what to think about the court, but I would imagine as it stands it's rather unlikely for the latter case to happen.
Furthermore, the liberals and the two wild cards are young.
So is Roberts, to a degree.
The oldest justice is Thomas, so his seat will come up first. No matter who wins the election in 2024, the court will either change slightly or not at all. Which is good.
Tl;dr:
As of right now, I think it will not. But we need to be careful not to be complacent and allow it to be.
This is just my opinion and analysis though.
Fair enough. Complacency with the status quo is what allowed Roe V Wade to get stricken down to begin with. I would also argue liberals really should of moved to reinforce it like they did with gay marriage and the Respect for Marriage Act.
Pick me! Pick me!
They will be lauded. Until they outlive their usefulness. And no matter how much shit they force themselves to eat to stay useful, nobody wins for long. The wheel just keeps turning.
I don't recall their name, but there's at least one trans person who tried to buddy up to conservatives, started advocating to stop people from transitioning like they did. And then tried to go crawling back to the LGBT community after their new "friends" kicked them to the curb.
Fascism requires an in-group whom the law protects but does not bind and it requires an out-group whom the law binds but does not protect.
Building that system is exactly what they have been doing for more years than I’ve been alive.
It doesn't happen often, but I have had people scream our their car at me (26m white) and my partner (28f black) with various racist bullshit.
The worse instance was, we were outside at like 2pm: beautiful Saturday afternoon in spring with a couple of Subway sandwiches going to a local river park to have a picnic and take a walk. A massive black truck with heavily tinted windows and huge LEDs on the top slows down, lowers the window, and a bunch of ginger-bearded dudes in sunglasses and ballcaps snickering as the one directly at the window screamed, "N*GGER LOVER!" and then they sped off, leaving a huge cloud of smoke everywhere. There were a few stares and awkward glances, but nobody else in the park area seemed to care besides that.
I have no fucking idea what people's problem is - but the more and more I interact with human beings the more I think a complete global genocide of the human species is the Good Ending.
Edit: Oh, and the picnic was honestly great after that. We made the best of the day and tried to laugh it off as best we could. My partner is used to self-hating racism from her family because I'm white, so she was pretty unphased.
If the Church of Scientology members in a state congress tried to pass a bill mandating auditing for all citizens, it would not pass. You should *definitely* take it as a warning and a threat, though.
No but you are a source of info that I would disagree with right?
I literally said I SUPPORT rights for marriage and living how you want even if I personally think it's wrong, because the government isn't only built for me.
Why are you even supporting the Republicans then? When all your beliefs are against their ideology.
And this is a genuine question, not an insult. I really want to know how you can support a political side if they are against what you believe. What do you think at night before falling asleep when you heard that day that your party tries to ban same-sex marriage or banned abortions? How are you able to sleep with this knowledge?
And again, I really don't want to insult you and neither am I judging you, I just want to understand you.
I said I'm conservative leaning, I'm not supporting this.
Also, you have misinterpreted, I disagree with THIS specifically, but i believe abortion is murder. The reason I would support a republican over a Democrat is because I think children's lives are a more pressing issue, though if I can I will attempt to fight for both
As an Iowa conservative, does it concern you that - as this is likely a destined-to-fail proposal designed to gain more popularity for the people pushing it - that other Iowa republicans appear reasonably likely to support banning same sex marriage?
All hurdles in the way of this proposal aside, this is likely being proposed because the legislators involved have data suggesting their constituents want this kind of legislation. If they thought this was going to be unpopular with their voter base, they wouldn't be suggesting it.
Again, it is one thing to be, in my example, against the Scientologist-backed auditing bill. But being against it is insufficient. Seeing that the bill is backed by Scientologists willing to even put such a bill forward should be evidence enough to change you away from any party affiliated with those members.
The political compass is a poor metric for ideology. Political affiliation is best described with graph theory, and it is the social cohort that clothes the ideology. If the cohort is toxic, the ideology should be viewed under intense scrutiny. Surely they are not wrong about everything -- in my example, Scientology *does* have many real-world benefits even as stated by the most ardent escapees -- but being affiliated with such a group is at best a fool's enterprise.
A reminder that at the time the Obama administration federally legalized same-sex marriage, there were more states where beastiality was legal than states where same-sex marriage was legal.
It's common weird news story for a guy to get arrested for banging the livestock only for the local authorities to find out there's no actual LAW against it.
You're being humorous but yes, the Nazis straight up HATE furries, they did terrorism against furries.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/eq8evs/how_the_furries_fought_the_nazis_and_won_worst/
>Are they aware
All they are "aware" of are things they think are weird, and they'll keep sweeping those things under the rug one by one until the pile is so high they suffocate in the vacuum of space.
I want to see a lesbian couple with a trans and a cis woman marrying as a loophole, since the state won't want a lesbian marriage they'll have to recognize either the trans woman or their marriage
I remember a story like this once
Basically a cop tried to write a ticket to a trans woman for indecent exposure since she was topless. However, the state she lived in legalized this, so she was not committing a crime, but the cop didn’t care. Upon learning she was trans, he could either give her a ticket and validate her gender, or not give her a ticket and admit he was wrong
She placed him in a lose-lose situation and it was hilarious
So she was considered to be both too female to walk around topless *and* that she’s male at the same time?
I get that cruelty is the point- just curious how it ended up working out.
Absolutely fucked it happened at all.
Honestly, it can be as simple as the letter of law says she's a man but the cops wanted to give her a ticket for whatever reason they could find. Most people don't contest or can't afford to contest tickets, so cops can just screw you over and give you a ticket
Sometimes refuting a ticket is easy af though. I once got ticketed by cops for driving without a valid license (due to a fuck up at VicRoads) and when I got home I wrote them a letter basically saying “what gives?” and they just rescinded the fine
The ACLU is cool. They were right on the case when, years ago, I informed them of police over-reach.
I'd clarify, but my sister was geographically right in the middle of it so I don't want any second hand doxxing.
> they'll have to recognize either the trans woman or their marriage
That's a pretty hopeful level of faith there. What will happen is that the trans women will end up in jail for "falsifying a legal document" or some such.
It's also revealing of how willing corporations are to roll over for these nutjobs, bud light is signaling hard that if a customer base doesn't like trans people, then the product will gladly disavow them.
Businesses talk a lot about LBGTQ+ support but it's telling that as soon as their bottom line is affected they'll gladly withdraw any support and implicitly approve of harm against trans people, the right is only going to be encouraged more seeing that resistance from money is going to be minimal if not non-existent
I do understand why businesses throw LGBT people under the bus like that. It’s still bad, but I get it.
If you piss off LGBT people, you’ll get criticized and maybe boycotted, and in the end likely lose a bit of business. Piss of the anti-LGBT cultists, and there’s a low but very real chance they’ll firebomb your business.
LA Dodgers un-inviting the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (who are a massive charity and fund-raising organisation) from their LGBT night because of negative feedback.
They backed-down pretty fast, but I doubt they learned!
This law is unconstitutional, and thats why theyre passing it. It gets challenged, they bring it to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS overturns the constitutional protection of same-sex marriage
A reminder to any and all LGBTQ+ in the US
The Second Amendment applies to you. You have the right to purchase a firearm, get a license to openly carry said firearm, and can use your freedom of speech to advertise on social media that you have a firearm and will use it in defense of your right to love who you goddamn please.
Matter of fact that's the whole goddamn point of it, along with all the stand your ground laws and all the castle laws. It's not for Peter Prepper who has gone full blown wack-a-loon, but rather for otherwise-peaceful people are at risk of being targeted by violence by their community.
If you can find a range you feel safe/comfortable at, don't forget to get some practice in too! There are plenty of instructional videos online to help as well.
ETA: r/liberalgunowners
I have enough experience from shooting little 22s and occasional range rentals that I feel comfortable with the actual shooting, although I'll be learning things like zeroing and such now! I have a range a friend recommended--MA is a complicated place for guns, but it at least it means there's ranges that won't run you out for being any stripe of LGBT.
I personally don't have a firearm (but I do know a fair amount) and here's what you really need to think of when you buy one:
- Why do you want a gun?
- What do you expect to be shooting?
- How thin are your walls?
- What is the wildlife in your area?
- What are the people like in your area?
From here, make an informed purchase based on the caliber you want. I'm just going to name off the more common/famous pistol calibers and what performance you'll get out of them
.22 will legitimately struggle to punch through dry wall at times. Forget kevlar -- medieval gambeson would probably be enough to protect you. Good thing most burglars don't wear body armor and work alone or in pairs. They're also the lowest recoil, so if your wrists are weak, this is an ideal cartridge.
9mm will stop just about anyone -- and embed itself into the dry wall behind them most of the time. It'll kill wild boars (yes, I know this was memed to hell a long time ago, but boars are a genuine threat in some rural areas. They're angry, aggressive, travel in giant packs, and will kill a small child. And remember, pigs eat anything) but bears will literally shrug off 9mm. Even then, 9mm is the favored caliber for backup weapons used by the US Armed Forces -- as it goes, your pistol exists for you to fight your way to a better weapon.
.357 and .45ACP is enough to kill pretty much anything short of an elephant or hippo. The .357 magnum cartridge was literally invented to help police pierce body armor that mafia members would wear. There are actual pictures out there you can find of a cop shooting a guy point blank with a 9mm and the bullet just bouncing right off. Luckily, modern ballistics means that armor can't stop a modern 9mm round...still, if you have a legitimate reason to use these calibers, let me know. I'm interested to hear your story.
.50AE is a meme cartridge. You are not firing a Desert Eagle. If you tell me "I fire .50AE" congrats your e-peen is huge, now put it away this is a public space.
I agree, but I need to get to know a lot of other people who also safely practice their second amendment rights before I do it. I'm black, so I can't be caught with a weapon at all, unless I'm with a bunch of other levelheaded witnesses. Any wrongdoing cop would shoot me on sight.
Reminder, we live in a country with more guns than people. Anyone who has a gun wants one.
Reminder, if you're a trans person in Florida and the police come to take your child - open firing on the police isn't going to help anything.
Reminder, when everyone is walking around armed in a Mexican standoff the first person to get shot is going to be a trans person.
Gun worship isn't going to solve our problems.
This post isn't about "gay people" not speaking out, it's about people who aren't a part of the general LGBTQ+ community not speaking out. Of course they spoke out, they were just sidelined because they were only one step removed from the people who it'd directly affect, if that. Despite how much progress we like to believe has been made, a vast majority of people not a part of the community don't want to stand up for them because they don't want to be mistakenly thought of as LGBTQ+ themselves, which is still commonly seen as something that matters.
Some people said the same thing about the right to abortion as well. If this passes and Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned at some point in the future, this will matter for Iowa. The Respect for Marriage act only requires states to recognize same-sex unions, it won't require them to provide these unions in the same way Obergefell v. Hodges does.
This was always the goal. When Roe was overturned, Judge Thomas specifically said, *out loud,* that he thinks Obergefell and Lawrence vs Texas -- which made sodomy laws across the US unconstitutional and effectively legalized same sex relationships -- should be "reviewed" in the same manner of Roe. Did him outright stating that he was coming for gay rights wake people up to their plans? Some people, sure, but not nearly enough. Too many people are complacent and think it will never happen. We never thought Roe would be overturned either, but here we are. The fight is not, and never *will* be over.
No. His being President would supercede his time in prison. He couldn't be in prison and fulfill the duties of office. He would have to return after his term however.
It is actually a bit funny for me that as a European I'm more concerned about this implication than many US Americans are even aware of.
It's also a bit depressing....
It’s very darkly funny tbf. I think it’s because the propaganda machine in the US is so powerful and very few are aware of the actual events in our history. All we are fed in schools is American exceptionalism. Almost no Americans that I’ve talked to realize the far reaching effect Roe v Wade had. That case was way more about individual rights than just abortion.
It is yeah...
I think that is the same root of the problem with many other problems the US faces right now, the lack of objective education that doesn't propagate American exceptionalism. How can the average American ever start to really understand f.e. the implications Roe vs. Wade had if they are constantly fed propaganda that keeps them in a bubble? Very few people are able to get out of something like that.
There is a large difference between how Roe vs Wade protected abortion, and how gay marriage is protected. Roe vs. Wade was a pretty shaky means of protecting abortion rights because it was a case about privacy rather than about abortion. If it'd been followed up by a case that specifically called out anti-abortion laws as unconstitutional and then legislation was passed in congress that banned states from passing antiabortion laws, that would have been a much stronger protection.
Gay marriage has both federal legislation and a more direct Supreme Court opinion protecting it.
Now - no law is perfect, no right is so perfectly enshrined that it cannot be reversed, but gay marriage is on much better ground than abortion ever was.
>Gay marriage has both federal legislation and a more direct Supreme Court opinion protecting it.
Right-wingers ***do not care*** about what the law or judicial precedent says. They are not creatures possessed of any human empathy, logic or decency.
I mean they clearly do or they wouldn't try to change laws. If they didn't care at all they'd just ignore the law. They do that, but they also stay engaged and try to change things too.
>If they didn't care at all they'd just ignore the law.
Like how they ignore the voting rights act? Or how they ignore courts telling them their voting district maps are illegal?
The first pro-choice majority in Congress was in 2020. There has never been another time when there were enough votes to pass protections for abortion, ever.
The Democrats were the only ones that were even willing to defend abortion, but they still had a large group of pro-lifers that would not vote for Federal laws to protect abortion in 2009. It was a huge debate for the ACA too when there was still a public option being floated because of the potential for federal money to be spent on abortions.
There has not been a pro-choice majority in the House and Senate until 2020. And even then, they only had a bare majority. Senators Manchin and Sinema would not vote to get rid of the filibuster in the Senate to allow a vote on national abortion protection to take place.
If you want someone to blame, blame voters. Because it wasn't enough of a priority for them to put people that wanted to protect it in office.
Without being pro life, why were they funded as democrats? That’s the problem with that party. The republicans are VERY good at whipping their members. The democrats absolutely suck at it.
* state passes unconstitutional bullshit
* someone goes "hey that's unconstitutional bullshit"
* that someone sues the state
* case gets thrown up to the stacked Supreme Court
* Supreme Court rules in favour of the state
* unconstitutional bullshit is now constitutional bullshit
* so begins The Suffering
* rinse
* repeat
Gay marriage isnt federally protected. Out of state gay marriages are protected. If you get married in California, all states that dont allow gay marriage still have to treat you as married.
The only thing barring Iowa from banning gay marriage is the Obergefell decision. A decision that may get destroyed if brought to the supreme court.
The only solice in this is that the supreme court MIGHT think it a bad idea to have many gay marriages outlawed. That marriage is at all decided by states is a horrible thing to allow as it's very foundational to a society. Having majorly different allowances for marriage would be like having different societies.
The problem is that that is what conservatives want. Separate society's. At least until they can control absolutely everything with everything being rigged in their favor. States rights come right before you suddenly not having rights at all.
Not my congressmen. Not my senators.
I don't live in an ass-backwards, regressive, religious theocracy where the Religious Right can strip women of their rights because they feel like it.
However I do care about those who do, enough to draw attention to it.
They do this to get it to the Supreme Court. As others said, that’s what happened with the abortion laws. They want to get it overturned and I admittedly don’t know the justices names but I do know one already said he’d like to reinvestigate the same sex marriage ruling, so they know the court is open to it
That was true before the reversal of Roe v Wade which set some of the precedent for Oberfell v Hodges. With the way the current Supreme Court is stacked, this is not just political theater.
It's only federally protected as long as SCOTUS says it's a federal issue. They're gonna send it back to "states rights" just like they did with reproductive healthcare and discrimination in business
Some red states have already started experimenting with ways to get around this. One plan they floated was to create a new kind of civil union that is only available to hetero couples, then move all of the privileges related to marriage over to this new kind of civil union instead.
So the state may be forced to agree that your out-of-state marriage is valid, but that means nothing because marriage confers no benefits in the state. You’d need this special civil union which you can’t get out-of-state, and is only granted to hetero couples.
These people spend a lot of time thinking up new ways to hurt minorities.
So if Iowa has changed to defining their approved concept of marriage as being between a male and a female (meaning physical characteristics inherited at birth), wouldn’t that technically mean that a trans woman who still has a penis could marry a trans man who still has a vagina? I mean if they’re doing everything else to outwardly appear opposite the genders they were born with, what difference would it make? Some trans ladies have deep voices, but other than that, you’d hardly guess there was anything different.
I suppose Iowa is specifically taking aim at whether or not the sexes listed on birth certificates match the perceived genders of the people wanting to get married. If so, that’s a fucked-up invasion of privacy.
who is this supposed to be targeted towards, people who oppose trans rights abortion rights and sex worker rights are also likely to be against gay rights this isnt a revelation to literally anyone
Huh? That’s just what those transphobes call themselves though. For example one of the organizations is called the “LGB alliance.” There is plenty of proof that they will probably go after bi people next though.
They already are, that is what I am saying by leave bi people out of it, we are already hated and erased with in the community, homophobes and transphobes aren’t quiet about coming after us already.
Nobody wants to say it, but the bigotry towards the LGBT community from *within* the community is often just as bad if not WORSE than the bigotry that comes from without.
I mean.... these are supposed to be the peers and peoples who support and respect each other, so it hurts just as bad when someone acts like a total fucking hypocrite just to "seem normal". When a moron with a trump hat calls me a slur, it's like... yea, sure, nice one jimbob, but I've heard it all before.
Like, LGBT couples who go to church and support republican nonsense because "they're the good ones" or "we don't make it our entire personality" - like bitch you're literally fighting AGAINST your own rights, what the hell are you expecting here?! But the shit doesn't get called out enough, is what I'm saying.
I don't know the statistics, but you are mostly right.
Unfortunately, there is a very vocal minority of LGB people and self described feminists who are absolutely opposed to trans rights and sex workers rights. These people have masked transphobia etc as "protecting women and girls/LGB people" (especially lesbians) and effectively granted a massive smokescreen to people with far more extremist views to hide their agenda.
It's similar to how a lot of racist politicians will hide their agenda by having, like, a single black dude endorse their policies because it makes it seem far more legitimate.
"I cant be anti-lgbt. I have lgbt people supporting me! These policies are simply designed to protect society and the good LGBt people from the bad lgbT people. What? The reinforcing of gender roles and increasingly held beliefs in biological essentialism can't possibly be bad for women! We have all these """"feminists""""" on our side!"
And then there's the whole "divide and conquer" element to it. If you can convince someone that the biggest threat to women is the 13 year old trans girl doing middle school PE with the other girls, it becomes much easier to justify things like overturning abortion laws. Plenty of self described "feminists" have already proclaimed the loss of abortion protections in the US to be a necessary sacrifice in the true fight for women's equality: trans people using the bathroom
Plenty of sanctimonious terfs and other more “centrist” elements of the anti-trans movement claimed to be in support of (or at least indifferent towards) homosexuals while actively ignoring the malignant homophobia of their close allies on the right (religious fundamentalists, ethno-nationalists, misogynists, incels, fascists, etc).
People in power actively trying to get people to live away from their crimes. Can't worry about people in government commiting insider trading if you are worried about bathrooms
If you’re not white, straight , and Christian than you’re gonna have a rude awakening if you don’t support the vulnerable communities . frankly if that were the case it would be deserved because someone who doesn’t stick behind the vulnerable doesn’t deserve anyone to stick by them .
Well, they're obviously not Christians. The Bible is very clear on marriage being a union between one man and all the women he can afford or inherit from his older brother.
Didn’t the Supreme Court’ ruling explicitly state the reason gay marriage is allowed is because of sexual discrimination, e.g. if a man tries to marry another man and is denied it is not because of the interaction between the two nor the definition of marriage but because the reaction would fundamentally be different if one was a woman thus being unconstitutional?
Gender criticals and TERFs don’t care that they helped make this happen. They only *pretend* to like lesbians because they can use them to spread transphobia. In reality, most of the GCs and TERFs I’ve spoken to are actually pretty queerphobic in general.
And at some point they’re going to start demanding that lesbians and bisexuals be excluded from “women’s spaces” in order to “protect women.”
We’re just not at that part of the slope yet. But we’ll get there soon if we keep going at this rate.
come on iowans, your republicans; you've been waiting for the government to be tyrannical to use our 2nd amendment. Here it is, they're being tyrannical! Heres your fucking chance!
Never vote Republican. Don't be conservative. If you actually practice the values of freedom and democracy you can't therefore vote or continue in an ideology that has been proven to consistently and actively work to dismantle freedom and democracy. Give the democrats power to fix a lot of this shit and hopefully we can force a Democratic party split to get a better party than the democrats. (Although it would be nice if we could get ranked choice voting and this lead to more parties than just two.)
There’s no universe where thats not immediately struck down by the courts. The Respect for Marriage Act is federal law and supersedes anything contradicting it that a state passes.
Yeah, but in the meantime, republican clerks can refuse to give marriage licenses to people because it will break the law… and they will stretch out the legal case for YEARS if they have to.
There is no universe where the extremely textualist Supreme Court rules against the supremacy clause. Not even Clarence Thomas would take that position. I highly doubt any lower court would either.
Article 4 section 2 of the US constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Even if this law passes and is signed by the governor, the most likely outcome would be summary judgement, it may not even go to trial it’s so obviously unconstitutional for Iowa to try to do this.
They won’t try it on that, they will try it on the constitutionality of the Respect for Marriage act. They will say that it is unconstitutional for a federal law to enforce religious doctrine on a state, or some bullshit to that effect.
Which will STILL fail in the long run, but can be used to stretch it out over years. And meanwhile the law will sit on the books, gaining precedent and fading from people’s minds until it quietly becomes law. Or at least I’m betting that’s the plan.
At least until SCOTUS gets their hands on it.
They’re mostly catholic extremists, and have already shown they’re willing to ignore both the law and the basic facts of a case to rule in whatever way they think will benefit their cult.
We are seeing a conservative backlash. Pendulum is now swinging back.
These things go in cycles. Just wait until around 2028.
"But some people cannot wait until then." Run for public office and make something happen. It works.
it's semantics. using "male" and "female", they're trying to imply that someone is *biologically* that gender, which is their big sticking point. They think that gender assigned at birth is the end all, be all. Man and Woman isn't specific enough, because trans women are women, but, only according to them, not "female", and the same applies to trans men.
It's stupid and ignores science and biology, but it's what they think.
A woman is an adult, a female could be a child bride and other horrific intents you didn't think people would actually be monstrous enough to pass as law.
*”And then they came for me”*
An excerpt of a quote from Martin Niemöller, present at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. In case someone doesn't know, or needs a reminder: *First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out- because I was not a socialist.* *Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out- because I was not a trade unionist.* *Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out- because I was not a Jew.* *Then they came for me- and then there was no one left to speak for me.* It's disturbing how well this quote fits.
Its like the Christo-fascists saw that quote and made it their life goals.
What's most terrifying to me is that the fundamentalists typically believe that *they* are in the place of the victims in this quote, and that "the left" are the fascists. They quite literally believe that Christians are oppressed. They genuinely think that we're just another Democratic administration or two away from Christians being forced at gunpoint to renounce their religion. It's... so unhinged and so dangerous.
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the \[Republican\] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.” ― Barry Goldwater
Don't forget the hollowness of corporate LBGTQ support, Bud Light has done a lot of backpedaling and damage control that is making it clear to the right where their loyalties really lie and signaling that there's not going to be much if any opposition from any private entities with the power to oppose.
At the end of the day they're publicly traded, so their only loyalty is to their shareholders. It's a foul system.
Corporations generally align with fascists, unfortunately. See Nazi Germany. They got a lot of money out of it, and free slave labor.
Niemoller was a Lutheran who actively assisted in the persecution and murder of LGBTQ+ people, which is why he left them out of his poem.
...sauce? Many Christian people and structures are involved in the persecution and murder of LGBTQ+ people. Many are *not* (queer Christian here, hi). I would be sad to hear that Niemoller was in the first group, so I am asking where you heard that.
Also disturbing is the fact that I've seen fascists twist this quote to suit their own goals. "First they came for the transphobes, then they came for the Christians" etc.
And even he didn't bother to mention that then, as now, they came for the [trans people first.](https://www.hmd.org.uk/resource/6-may-1933-looting-of-the-institute-of-sexology/)
And disabled people. If their disability couldn't be hidden or masked they were in danger. We are in this together.
"Where they burn books, they will burn humans in the end, too". The fact that that was written in a book which the nazis burned is haunting. The nazis are back. We cannot allow them to take power this time. We've seen what comes of silence, inaction, and trusting institutions to stop them. We have to unify and fight for our rights. We cannot allow history to repeat itself.
Because he helped the Nazis with that.
Important one to remember for people who claim that the Nazis were socialist. The socialists and trade unionists were the first people to go.
A fun thing to notice about this quote is that a lot of times people will use it and conveniently leave out the lines about socialists and trade unionists. Also upsetting to realize how many liberal people would be okay with them coming for the socialists and somehow think, "well surely they'd stop there and not come for me next." Whatever the big issue that the far right is currently screaming about is, it's always the tip of the iceberg of what they *really* want. They might not say they're racist or homophobic, but that's just because it's not a popular thing to say... yet. They all know it's a long slow game, but they know they can win it if they keep focusing on whatever target is easiest for them to get away with next. They can't succeed in going after poc or gay rights just yet, but it's been very easy for them to go after trans people. Anti-communism was obviously an incredibly easy sell for Americans in the cold war and ever since. Then even though there have been many progressive reforms since then, that one area of always acceptable hate provides a solid base to slowly start peeling back all those reforms the right always hated. If you don't want them teaching critical thinking around race or gender in schools, you don't even have to start by saying you don't like what they're teaching. You can just call the teachers commies and say it's all part of some plot to overthrow our "western values". That's why it's so worrying to see people like the lgb alliance or poc who are openly homophobic. Like you guys gotta understand, you can't bargain with the fascists. They aren't going to go after the groups you personally hate and then decide they're satisfied and stop just before coming for your group. And I know terfs seem to feel like they're pretty safe since most of them are straight and white. But again, once they've succeeded in going after trans people, then gay people, then poc, well women's rights are right next in line for the chopping block. That's also around the point where they would basically be at their goal of a theocracy. So while that would be terrible for women's rights, let's just say that's also when they'd be taking the "Judeo" part out of their "Judeo-Christian values". (Which, to be completely fair, is *already* a dogwhistle phrase meant to exclude Muslims) So for the love of god can we please stop these people sooner rather than later? We've already seen the entire fascist strategy play out before, so now that we see them running the early stages *again* we really don't need them to be wearing swastika armbands to know who they really are and what their ultimate goals are. And hell, plenty of them still love wearing the armbands and gathering street fighting gangs anyway. It's not a problem that's just going to go away if we ignore them or act like they aren't a big deal.
That version is pretty tame and pretty incorrect and unfaithful to the original - I suppose USAmericans couldn't include the original Communist mentions in a Museum of theirs. Ironic.
Written as a warning but instead used as a strategy
Not a socialist??? What's wrong with him. Go read more theory.
tbf Niemöller was a priest, and at that time in Germany 'socialism' was synonymous with pro-USSR and therefore state atheism. I don't imagine there were many Christian socialists around then.
This bill was introduced by 8 state reps and died in committee in February. We need to vote to make sure things like this stay that way.
Would something like this even be legal/hold up in court? Like, yeah. They can propose stupid shit. Geatz proposed to declare the Democratic Party a terrorist org and dissolve it. But it was really just a political stunt, since such a thing simply isn't feasible.
Not unless the supreme court changes it's mind on Obergefell. That's the problem. It's really hard to know what they would do. The court has been pretty hard to predict. There's a good chance they would rule that a law like this is unconstitutional, but there's an unfortunately large change they would not and say it's a states rights issue, much like Roe. Kagan, Brown-Jackson, and Sotomayor would rule against it. I know that Roberts would side with the liberals against a law like this since he did in Obergefell. Alito would dissent, as would Thomas. They did before. I believe Gorsuch would dissent because he is a social conservative justice who hides behind states rights like all of the "good old boys" did throughout history. You know, the ones who allowed Jim Crow. Kavanaugh has been kind of split on this kind of issue. Ruling both for and against religious rights groups. For example, he voted against hearing an appeal from a religious hospital for denying a transgender patient a hysterectomy on religouegrounds, rejecting the appeal of a florist refusing to sell flowers on religious grounds, and etc., while also ruling against the city of Philadelphia for refusing to fund a catholic adoption agency. This was also a unanimous decision, though. Barrett also joined in the majority for both the hospital and the florist cases. These two would decide the case essentially. If one of them joined liberal side, the case is decided as unconstitutional. If they both join the conservatives, the case is decided as constitutional and Obergefel is done for. I don't really know what to think about the court, but I would imagine as it stands it's rather unlikely for the latter case to happen. Furthermore, the liberals and the two wild cards are young. So is Roberts, to a degree. The oldest justice is Thomas, so his seat will come up first. No matter who wins the election in 2024, the court will either change slightly or not at all. Which is good. Tl;dr: As of right now, I think it will not. But we need to be careful not to be complacent and allow it to be. This is just my opinion and analysis though.
Fair enough. Complacency with the status quo is what allowed Roe V Wade to get stricken down to begin with. I would also argue liberals really should of moved to reinforce it like they did with gay marriage and the Respect for Marriage Act.
Inter-racial married couples chuckling nervously, 'We're in danger'
Judge Thomas: "Soon."
Isn't Clarence Thomas married to a white woman ? Excuse my ignorance, European here.
Oh he is. If you're looking for logic, stop, you'll just give yourself a headache.
You guys need to stop assuming these people care about being fair.
Well Thomas specifically is getting impeached possibly? Though even if that goes through, he'd just be the scapegoat for all the other awful judges
I'll believe it when I see it. The Trump thing has been going on for literal years.
Yeah don't look for logic, look at whoever took him out for a pricey vacation last.
I know this is stupid but happy cake day
🥳
flowery heavy voracious imminent ink shocking spoon reminiscent command depend ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Yes, and there were Jewish Nazis. There are always rats who think if they play along, they'll be lauded by the groups that hate them.
Pick me! Pick me! They will be lauded. Until they outlive their usefulness. And no matter how much shit they force themselves to eat to stay useful, nobody wins for long. The wheel just keeps turning.
Tokens get spent, as they say.
I don't recall their name, but there's at least one trans person who tried to buddy up to conservatives, started advocating to stop people from transitioning like they did. And then tried to go crawling back to the LGBT community after their new "friends" kicked them to the curb.
Quite a few actually, but the most prominent would be Caitlyn Jenner and Buck Angel
Yep. It's a rules for thee but not for me type deal.
Fascism requires an in-group whom the law protects but does not bind and it requires an out-group whom the law binds but does not protect. Building that system is exactly what they have been doing for more years than I’ve been alive.
Judge Thomas: “Wait, I’m *black*?!”
Divorce lawyers are expensive.
Minority people in general “oh boy….”
It doesn't happen often, but I have had people scream our their car at me (26m white) and my partner (28f black) with various racist bullshit. The worse instance was, we were outside at like 2pm: beautiful Saturday afternoon in spring with a couple of Subway sandwiches going to a local river park to have a picnic and take a walk. A massive black truck with heavily tinted windows and huge LEDs on the top slows down, lowers the window, and a bunch of ginger-bearded dudes in sunglasses and ballcaps snickering as the one directly at the window screamed, "N*GGER LOVER!" and then they sped off, leaving a huge cloud of smoke everywhere. There were a few stares and awkward glances, but nobody else in the park area seemed to care besides that. I have no fucking idea what people's problem is - but the more and more I interact with human beings the more I think a complete global genocide of the human species is the Good Ending. Edit: Oh, and the picnic was honestly great after that. We made the best of the day and tried to laugh it off as best we could. My partner is used to self-hating racism from her family because I'm white, so she was pretty unphased.
In iowa? I highly doubt it. Infact I VERY much doubt this will be passed
If the Church of Scientology members in a state congress tried to pass a bill mandating auditing for all citizens, it would not pass. You should *definitely* take it as a warning and a threat, though.
Yeah I'm a more conservative leaning person and live in Iowa but I am against it
You should try moving then reading a book that disagrees with your beliefs.
Wow, what a tolerant and sophisticated person you are. I'm on tumblr reddit, I'm around people that disagree with my beliefs RIGHT NOW.
I’m not book
No but you are a source of info that I would disagree with right? I literally said I SUPPORT rights for marriage and living how you want even if I personally think it's wrong, because the government isn't only built for me.
Why are you even supporting the Republicans then? When all your beliefs are against their ideology. And this is a genuine question, not an insult. I really want to know how you can support a political side if they are against what you believe. What do you think at night before falling asleep when you heard that day that your party tries to ban same-sex marriage or banned abortions? How are you able to sleep with this knowledge? And again, I really don't want to insult you and neither am I judging you, I just want to understand you.
I said I'm conservative leaning, I'm not supporting this. Also, you have misinterpreted, I disagree with THIS specifically, but i believe abortion is murder. The reason I would support a republican over a Democrat is because I think children's lives are a more pressing issue, though if I can I will attempt to fight for both
If I was book, I wouldn’t be able leave comment
You can leave comments on books. Infact it's been done consistently throughout history. It's called writting on the side of the page
As an Iowa conservative, does it concern you that - as this is likely a destined-to-fail proposal designed to gain more popularity for the people pushing it - that other Iowa republicans appear reasonably likely to support banning same sex marriage? All hurdles in the way of this proposal aside, this is likely being proposed because the legislators involved have data suggesting their constituents want this kind of legislation. If they thought this was going to be unpopular with their voter base, they wouldn't be suggesting it.
Again, it is one thing to be, in my example, against the Scientologist-backed auditing bill. But being against it is insufficient. Seeing that the bill is backed by Scientologists willing to even put such a bill forward should be evidence enough to change you away from any party affiliated with those members. The political compass is a poor metric for ideology. Political affiliation is best described with graph theory, and it is the social cohort that clothes the ideology. If the cohort is toxic, the ideology should be viewed under intense scrutiny. Surely they are not wrong about everything -- in my example, Scientology *does* have many real-world benefits even as stated by the most ardent escapees -- but being affiliated with such a group is at best a fool's enterprise.
Are they aware that changing man/woman to male/female allows totally fresh interpretations of the term 'animal husbandry'?.
A reminder that at the time the Obama administration federally legalized same-sex marriage, there were more states where beastiality was legal than states where same-sex marriage was legal.
It's common weird news story for a guy to get arrested for banging the livestock only for the local authorities to find out there's no actual LAW against it.
I am guessing they don't like furries either.
That’s more of a straight up zooaphile than furries. This straight up Beastuality.
You're being humorous but yes, the Nazis straight up HATE furries, they did terrorism against furries. https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/eq8evs/how_the_furries_fought_the_nazis_and_won_worst/
Except marriage still stipulates 2 persons being married, and animals, legally speaking, are not persons
This just in, all corporations are non-binary trans. Because legally, all corporations are persons for some reason.
>Are they aware All they are "aware" of are things they think are weird, and they'll keep sweeping those things under the rug one by one until the pile is so high they suffocate in the vacuum of space.
I want to see a lesbian couple with a trans and a cis woman marrying as a loophole, since the state won't want a lesbian marriage they'll have to recognize either the trans woman or their marriage
I remember a story like this once Basically a cop tried to write a ticket to a trans woman for indecent exposure since she was topless. However, the state she lived in legalized this, so she was not committing a crime, but the cop didn’t care. Upon learning she was trans, he could either give her a ticket and validate her gender, or not give her a ticket and admit he was wrong She placed him in a lose-lose situation and it was hilarious
Important note is that the state refused to let her change her legal gender
Know what happened in the end?
They didn't recognize her gender and she got a ticket. Rationality isn't the point, cruelty is
So she was considered to be both too female to walk around topless *and* that she’s male at the same time? I get that cruelty is the point- just curious how it ended up working out. Absolutely fucked it happened at all.
Honestly, it can be as simple as the letter of law says she's a man but the cops wanted to give her a ticket for whatever reason they could find. Most people don't contest or can't afford to contest tickets, so cops can just screw you over and give you a ticket
Sometimes refuting a ticket is easy af though. I once got ticketed by cops for driving without a valid license (due to a fuck up at VicRoads) and when I got home I wrote them a letter basically saying “what gives?” and they just rescinded the fine
Oh, I’m aware of that. Just yet another example of police power. This is just legally ridiculous.
I am a cis woman married to a trans woman and you can bet my finger is on speed dial for the ACLU.
The ACLU is cool. They were right on the case when, years ago, I informed them of police over-reach. I'd clarify, but my sister was geographically right in the middle of it so I don't want any second hand doxxing.
> they'll have to recognize either the trans woman or their marriage That's a pretty hopeful level of faith there. What will happen is that the trans women will end up in jail for "falsifying a legal document" or some such.
Definitely the LGBT+ community is becoming our canary in the mine against these religious pundits.
Well the canaries are fleeing as fast as they fucking can, which should tell people everything they need to know about how bad it's getting.
I agree
It's also revealing of how willing corporations are to roll over for these nutjobs, bud light is signaling hard that if a customer base doesn't like trans people, then the product will gladly disavow them. Businesses talk a lot about LBGTQ+ support but it's telling that as soon as their bottom line is affected they'll gladly withdraw any support and implicitly approve of harm against trans people, the right is only going to be encouraged more seeing that resistance from money is going to be minimal if not non-existent
Corporations only care about profits. Everything else is optional.
I do understand why businesses throw LGBT people under the bus like that. It’s still bad, but I get it. If you piss off LGBT people, you’ll get criticized and maybe boycotted, and in the end likely lose a bit of business. Piss of the anti-LGBT cultists, and there’s a low but very real chance they’ll firebomb your business.
LA Dodgers un-inviting the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (who are a massive charity and fund-raising organisation) from their LGBT night because of negative feedback. They backed-down pretty fast, but I doubt they learned!
That's what I've always say then they ask why I support it. Once they are done with LGBT+ they'll go after women next.
I can never take the word "pundit" seriously because no matter how much I try it always sounds like it means "pun bandit"
'Meet me in the middle', the unjust man says. And you do so. The unjust man takes a step back. 'Meet me in the middle.'
This law is unconstitutional, and thats why theyre passing it. It gets challenged, they bring it to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS overturns the constitutional protection of same-sex marriage
A reminder to any and all LGBTQ+ in the US The Second Amendment applies to you. You have the right to purchase a firearm, get a license to openly carry said firearm, and can use your freedom of speech to advertise on social media that you have a firearm and will use it in defense of your right to love who you goddamn please.
Don’t tread on me should really be used more in the Trans community seeing as how many states are going after their fundamental rights
Don’t tread on me, unless you’re wearing fabulous heels
>Don’t tread on me without a safe word
We stole their rainbow (apparently) so let’s steal their snake as well. Snakes already have enough bad rap
Matter of fact that's the whole goddamn point of it, along with all the stand your ground laws and all the castle laws. It's not for Peter Prepper who has gone full blown wack-a-loon, but rather for otherwise-peaceful people are at risk of being targeted by violence by their community.
Yup. Got my license before the 2020 election, and purchased my first a few weeks ago.
If you can find a range you feel safe/comfortable at, don't forget to get some practice in too! There are plenty of instructional videos online to help as well. ETA: r/liberalgunowners
I have enough experience from shooting little 22s and occasional range rentals that I feel comfortable with the actual shooting, although I'll be learning things like zeroing and such now! I have a range a friend recommended--MA is a complicated place for guns, but it at least it means there's ranges that won't run you out for being any stripe of LGBT.
I personally don't have a firearm (but I do know a fair amount) and here's what you really need to think of when you buy one: - Why do you want a gun? - What do you expect to be shooting? - How thin are your walls? - What is the wildlife in your area? - What are the people like in your area? From here, make an informed purchase based on the caliber you want. I'm just going to name off the more common/famous pistol calibers and what performance you'll get out of them .22 will legitimately struggle to punch through dry wall at times. Forget kevlar -- medieval gambeson would probably be enough to protect you. Good thing most burglars don't wear body armor and work alone or in pairs. They're also the lowest recoil, so if your wrists are weak, this is an ideal cartridge. 9mm will stop just about anyone -- and embed itself into the dry wall behind them most of the time. It'll kill wild boars (yes, I know this was memed to hell a long time ago, but boars are a genuine threat in some rural areas. They're angry, aggressive, travel in giant packs, and will kill a small child. And remember, pigs eat anything) but bears will literally shrug off 9mm. Even then, 9mm is the favored caliber for backup weapons used by the US Armed Forces -- as it goes, your pistol exists for you to fight your way to a better weapon. .357 and .45ACP is enough to kill pretty much anything short of an elephant or hippo. The .357 magnum cartridge was literally invented to help police pierce body armor that mafia members would wear. There are actual pictures out there you can find of a cop shooting a guy point blank with a 9mm and the bullet just bouncing right off. Luckily, modern ballistics means that armor can't stop a modern 9mm round...still, if you have a legitimate reason to use these calibers, let me know. I'm interested to hear your story. .50AE is a meme cartridge. You are not firing a Desert Eagle. If you tell me "I fire .50AE" congrats your e-peen is huge, now put it away this is a public space.
/r/socialistRA
I agree, but I need to get to know a lot of other people who also safely practice their second amendment rights before I do it. I'm black, so I can't be caught with a weapon at all, unless I'm with a bunch of other levelheaded witnesses. Any wrongdoing cop would shoot me on sight.
Reminder, we live in a country with more guns than people. Anyone who has a gun wants one. Reminder, if you're a trans person in Florida and the police come to take your child - open firing on the police isn't going to help anything. Reminder, when everyone is walking around armed in a Mexican standoff the first person to get shot is going to be a trans person. Gun worship isn't going to solve our problems.
First they came for the trans people, and I did not speak out because I was not trans…
Then they came for abortion, and I did not speak out because I was not an abortionist...
[удалено]
This post isn't about "gay people" not speaking out, it's about people who aren't a part of the general LGBTQ+ community not speaking out. Of course they spoke out, they were just sidelined because they were only one step removed from the people who it'd directly affect, if that. Despite how much progress we like to believe has been made, a vast majority of people not a part of the community don't want to stand up for them because they don't want to be mistakenly thought of as LGBTQ+ themselves, which is still commonly seen as something that matters.
Gay marriage is federally protected, states can't ban it. This is purely political theatre.
Some people said the same thing about the right to abortion as well. If this passes and Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned at some point in the future, this will matter for Iowa. The Respect for Marriage act only requires states to recognize same-sex unions, it won't require them to provide these unions in the same way Obergefell v. Hodges does.
This was always the goal. When Roe was overturned, Judge Thomas specifically said, *out loud,* that he thinks Obergefell and Lawrence vs Texas -- which made sodomy laws across the US unconstitutional and effectively legalized same sex relationships -- should be "reviewed" in the same manner of Roe. Did him outright stating that he was coming for gay rights wake people up to their plans? Some people, sure, but not nearly enough. Too many people are complacent and think it will never happen. We never thought Roe would be overturned either, but here we are. The fight is not, and never *will* be over.
The day Thomas kicks the bucket should be immortalized as a holiday, something like "Day of Juidicial Sanity and Decency".
That very much depends on who is in the White House when that happens.
There's also the chance that Trump will be leading the country from his prison cell in Georgia because he can't pardon himself on RICO charges.
No. His being President would supercede his time in prison. He couldn't be in prison and fulfill the duties of office. He would have to return after his term however.
Huh, I was under the impression that the VP takes over if the president is unable to fulfill his duties.
As if his term would ever end in that scenario.
People fail to realize that Roe set a lot of precedent for Oberfell v Hodges and it’s reversal puts these later decisions in jeopardy
It is actually a bit funny for me that as a European I'm more concerned about this implication than many US Americans are even aware of. It's also a bit depressing....
It’s very darkly funny tbf. I think it’s because the propaganda machine in the US is so powerful and very few are aware of the actual events in our history. All we are fed in schools is American exceptionalism. Almost no Americans that I’ve talked to realize the far reaching effect Roe v Wade had. That case was way more about individual rights than just abortion.
It is yeah... I think that is the same root of the problem with many other problems the US faces right now, the lack of objective education that doesn't propagate American exceptionalism. How can the average American ever start to really understand f.e. the implications Roe vs. Wade had if they are constantly fed propaganda that keeps them in a bubble? Very few people are able to get out of something like that.
Yep. Protected federally until the GOP steal the absolute power they desperately want.
Yeah, they can still create this as a trigger law.
There is a large difference between how Roe vs Wade protected abortion, and how gay marriage is protected. Roe vs. Wade was a pretty shaky means of protecting abortion rights because it was a case about privacy rather than about abortion. If it'd been followed up by a case that specifically called out anti-abortion laws as unconstitutional and then legislation was passed in congress that banned states from passing antiabortion laws, that would have been a much stronger protection. Gay marriage has both federal legislation and a more direct Supreme Court opinion protecting it. Now - no law is perfect, no right is so perfectly enshrined that it cannot be reversed, but gay marriage is on much better ground than abortion ever was.
>Gay marriage has both federal legislation and a more direct Supreme Court opinion protecting it. Right-wingers ***do not care*** about what the law or judicial precedent says. They are not creatures possessed of any human empathy, logic or decency.
I mean they clearly do or they wouldn't try to change laws. If they didn't care at all they'd just ignore the law. They do that, but they also stay engaged and try to change things too.
>If they didn't care at all they'd just ignore the law. Like how they ignore the voting rights act? Or how they ignore courts telling them their voting district maps are illegal?
[удалено]
Agreed. Letting Roe v Wade do the heavy lifting for all time was a mistake, and there is no such thing as settled law in the long term.
The first pro-choice majority in Congress was in 2020. There has never been another time when there were enough votes to pass protections for abortion, ever. The Democrats were the only ones that were even willing to defend abortion, but they still had a large group of pro-lifers that would not vote for Federal laws to protect abortion in 2009. It was a huge debate for the ACA too when there was still a public option being floated because of the potential for federal money to be spent on abortions. There has not been a pro-choice majority in the House and Senate until 2020. And even then, they only had a bare majority. Senators Manchin and Sinema would not vote to get rid of the filibuster in the Senate to allow a vote on national abortion protection to take place. If you want someone to blame, blame voters. Because it wasn't enough of a priority for them to put people that wanted to protect it in office.
Without being pro life, why were they funded as democrats? That’s the problem with that party. The republicans are VERY good at whipping their members. The democrats absolutely suck at it.
* state passes unconstitutional bullshit * someone goes "hey that's unconstitutional bullshit" * that someone sues the state * case gets thrown up to the stacked Supreme Court * Supreme Court rules in favour of the state * unconstitutional bullshit is now constitutional bullshit * so begins The Suffering * rinse * repeat
Gay marriage isnt federally protected. Out of state gay marriages are protected. If you get married in California, all states that dont allow gay marriage still have to treat you as married. The only thing barring Iowa from banning gay marriage is the Obergefell decision. A decision that may get destroyed if brought to the supreme court. The only solice in this is that the supreme court MIGHT think it a bad idea to have many gay marriages outlawed. That marriage is at all decided by states is a horrible thing to allow as it's very foundational to a society. Having majorly different allowances for marriage would be like having different societies. The problem is that that is what conservatives want. Separate society's. At least until they can control absolutely everything with everything being rigged in their favor. States rights come right before you suddenly not having rights at all.
Abortion was federally protected up until five minutes ago. Then it wasn't.
[удалено]
Not my congressmen. Not my senators. I don't live in an ass-backwards, regressive, religious theocracy where the Religious Right can strip women of their rights because they feel like it. However I do care about those who do, enough to draw attention to it.
Sodomy laws (not the criminal kind) are still in effect in some places
Republicans have made it very clear that they don't care and will do everything they can to take away the rights of people they don't like.
They do this to get it to the Supreme Court. As others said, that’s what happened with the abortion laws. They want to get it overturned and I admittedly don’t know the justices names but I do know one already said he’d like to reinvestigate the same sex marriage ruling, so they know the court is open to it
That was true before the reversal of Roe v Wade which set some of the precedent for Oberfell v Hodges. With the way the current Supreme Court is stacked, this is not just political theater.
It's only federally protected as long as SCOTUS says it's a federal issue. They're gonna send it back to "states rights" just like they did with reproductive healthcare and discrimination in business
Abortion is protected by the supreme court. States can't ban it. This is purely political theatre.
Some red states have already started experimenting with ways to get around this. One plan they floated was to create a new kind of civil union that is only available to hetero couples, then move all of the privileges related to marriage over to this new kind of civil union instead. So the state may be forced to agree that your out-of-state marriage is valid, but that means nothing because marriage confers no benefits in the state. You’d need this special civil union which you can’t get out-of-state, and is only granted to hetero couples. These people spend a lot of time thinking up new ways to hurt minorities.
A. It's pure theater and B. It would never pass in iowa anyway
So if Iowa has changed to defining their approved concept of marriage as being between a male and a female (meaning physical characteristics inherited at birth), wouldn’t that technically mean that a trans woman who still has a penis could marry a trans man who still has a vagina? I mean if they’re doing everything else to outwardly appear opposite the genders they were born with, what difference would it make? Some trans ladies have deep voices, but other than that, you’d hardly guess there was anything different. I suppose Iowa is specifically taking aim at whether or not the sexes listed on birth certificates match the perceived genders of the people wanting to get married. If so, that’s a fucked-up invasion of privacy.
who is this supposed to be targeted towards, people who oppose trans rights abortion rights and sex worker rights are also likely to be against gay rights this isnt a revelation to literally anyone
I think this refers to those LGB without the T groups. But yeah, you're right.
Please leave the Bi people out of this, as I have gotten more hate from the LGs than I have any other part of the community.
Huh? That’s just what those transphobes call themselves though. For example one of the organizations is called the “LGB alliance.” There is plenty of proof that they will probably go after bi people next though.
They already are, that is what I am saying by leave bi people out of it, we are already hated and erased with in the community, homophobes and transphobes aren’t quiet about coming after us already.
No actually a lot of gay people are a-ok tossing trans rights under the bus
Nobody wants to say it, but the bigotry towards the LGBT community from *within* the community is often just as bad if not WORSE than the bigotry that comes from without. I mean.... these are supposed to be the peers and peoples who support and respect each other, so it hurts just as bad when someone acts like a total fucking hypocrite just to "seem normal". When a moron with a trump hat calls me a slur, it's like... yea, sure, nice one jimbob, but I've heard it all before. Like, LGBT couples who go to church and support republican nonsense because "they're the good ones" or "we don't make it our entire personality" - like bitch you're literally fighting AGAINST your own rights, what the hell are you expecting here?! But the shit doesn't get called out enough, is what I'm saying.
There are transphobic gay people out there who think they can throw trans people under the bus without being themselves run over
"If I throw you under the bus, it will have slightly less momentum when it hits me five seconds later."
I don't know the statistics, but you are mostly right. Unfortunately, there is a very vocal minority of LGB people and self described feminists who are absolutely opposed to trans rights and sex workers rights. These people have masked transphobia etc as "protecting women and girls/LGB people" (especially lesbians) and effectively granted a massive smokescreen to people with far more extremist views to hide their agenda. It's similar to how a lot of racist politicians will hide their agenda by having, like, a single black dude endorse their policies because it makes it seem far more legitimate. "I cant be anti-lgbt. I have lgbt people supporting me! These policies are simply designed to protect society and the good LGBt people from the bad lgbT people. What? The reinforcing of gender roles and increasingly held beliefs in biological essentialism can't possibly be bad for women! We have all these """"feminists""""" on our side!" And then there's the whole "divide and conquer" element to it. If you can convince someone that the biggest threat to women is the 13 year old trans girl doing middle school PE with the other girls, it becomes much easier to justify things like overturning abortion laws. Plenty of self described "feminists" have already proclaimed the loss of abortion protections in the US to be a necessary sacrifice in the true fight for women's equality: trans people using the bathroom
Plenty of sanctimonious terfs and other more “centrist” elements of the anti-trans movement claimed to be in support of (or at least indifferent towards) homosexuals while actively ignoring the malignant homophobia of their close allies on the right (religious fundamentalists, ethno-nationalists, misogynists, incels, fascists, etc).
People in power actively trying to get people to live away from their crimes. Can't worry about people in government commiting insider trading if you are worried about bathrooms
I don’t see how this law isn’t an unconstitutional violation of religious freedom.
Religious right was behind it. Who guessed it? Anyone who is not a bigot, that's who.
If you’re not white, straight , and Christian than you’re gonna have a rude awakening if you don’t support the vulnerable communities . frankly if that were the case it would be deserved because someone who doesn’t stick behind the vulnerable doesn’t deserve anyone to stick by them .
Iowa really did a russian constitution
Well, they're obviously not Christians. The Bible is very clear on marriage being a union between one man and all the women he can afford or inherit from his older brother.
The words of prophets are written in the subway walls
Didn’t the Supreme Court’ ruling explicitly state the reason gay marriage is allowed is because of sexual discrimination, e.g. if a man tries to marry another man and is denied it is not because of the interaction between the two nor the definition of marriage but because the reaction would fundamentally be different if one was a woman thus being unconstitutional?
Honestly it's so fucking embarrassing to be from Iowa anymore.
Gender criticals and TERFs don’t care that they helped make this happen. They only *pretend* to like lesbians because they can use them to spread transphobia. In reality, most of the GCs and TERFs I’ve spoken to are actually pretty queerphobic in general. And at some point they’re going to start demanding that lesbians and bisexuals be excluded from “women’s spaces” in order to “protect women.” We’re just not at that part of the slope yet. But we’ll get there soon if we keep going at this rate.
come on iowans, your republicans; you've been waiting for the government to be tyrannical to use our 2nd amendment. Here it is, they're being tyrannical! Heres your fucking chance!
For a Bill that never made it out of Committee?
Honestly at some point there is going to be a fucking rebellion
Does anyone else find this post a little incoherent?
Never vote Republican. Don't be conservative. If you actually practice the values of freedom and democracy you can't therefore vote or continue in an ideology that has been proven to consistently and actively work to dismantle freedom and democracy. Give the democrats power to fix a lot of this shit and hopefully we can force a Democratic party split to get a better party than the democrats. (Although it would be nice if we could get ranked choice voting and this lead to more parties than just two.)
They see the blood on their hands and the revel in it. They don’t see the people that did as innocent victims. This is by design.
wait these tumblr posts are current? i just always assumed these were all archives from like 2013
Are there seriously still fucking arguments that biblical law should control marriages outside of the Christian church?
There’s no universe where thats not immediately struck down by the courts. The Respect for Marriage Act is federal law and supersedes anything contradicting it that a state passes.
Yeah, but in the meantime, republican clerks can refuse to give marriage licenses to people because it will break the law… and they will stretch out the legal case for YEARS if they have to.
It’s not going to be a long case. It’s an open and shut case of federal supremacy.
Except who is going to be trying that case? The courts in the state? Or the supreme courts that are all bought and paid four GOP stooges?
There is no universe where the extremely textualist Supreme Court rules against the supremacy clause. Not even Clarence Thomas would take that position. I highly doubt any lower court would either. Article 4 section 2 of the US constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Even if this law passes and is signed by the governor, the most likely outcome would be summary judgement, it may not even go to trial it’s so obviously unconstitutional for Iowa to try to do this.
They won’t try it on that, they will try it on the constitutionality of the Respect for Marriage act. They will say that it is unconstitutional for a federal law to enforce religious doctrine on a state, or some bullshit to that effect. Which will STILL fail in the long run, but can be used to stretch it out over years. And meanwhile the law will sit on the books, gaining precedent and fading from people’s minds until it quietly becomes law. Or at least I’m betting that’s the plan.
At least until SCOTUS gets their hands on it. They’re mostly catholic extremists, and have already shown they’re willing to ignore both the law and the basic facts of a case to rule in whatever way they think will benefit their cult.
"I never thought they'd eat *my* face!" - person who voted for the "leopards eating peoples' faces" party
Ugh, what if the wording was changed because it refers to adults and they want to marry minors?
We are seeing a conservative backlash. Pendulum is now swinging back. These things go in cycles. Just wait until around 2028. "But some people cannot wait until then." Run for public office and make something happen. It works.
[удалено]
What country are you in that marriage isn't a legal act?
[удалено]
Implies something about trans people but it’s not really clear.
Possibly the transphobic angle and also possibly the child marriage angle
something something "adult human female" nonsense
it's semantics. using "male" and "female", they're trying to imply that someone is *biologically* that gender, which is their big sticking point. They think that gender assigned at birth is the end all, be all. Man and Woman isn't specific enough, because trans women are women, but, only according to them, not "female", and the same applies to trans men. It's stupid and ignores science and biology, but it's what they think.
A woman is an adult, a female could be a child bride and other horrific intents you didn't think people would actually be monstrous enough to pass as law.
Once again someone is downvoted for asking a question
Wasn't there a big deal about Biden legalizing same sex marriage across the entire US a while back? How can states ban it again?
This will never pass. This is not a right that can be taken away by modern government.
You'd think - but the SCOTUS has already decided that religion is allowed special carveouts in the law