America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 38,707 comments
- 1,595,844 views
- 86,115
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
No, not my gay son's marriage, just your gay son's marriage:
www.independent.co.uk
GOP lawmaker attended son’s same-sex wedding days after voting against them - report
Thompsons were ‘thrilled to attend and celebrate their son’s marriage’
www.independent.co.uk
- 86,115
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
This is apparently a mildly left-leaning outlet, so will be rejected out of hand as communist propaganda, but it includes a number of interesting quotes about and from the Republican Party in Texas (including from the most recent convention) and an LGBTQ+ group within the party in Texas called "Log Cabin Republicans":
www.texastribune.org
“We failed”: Gay Republicans who fought for acceptance in Texas GOP see little progress
Gay Republicans who have fought for acceptance within the Texas GOP over the past three decades told The Texas Tribune progress has been excruciatingly slow. Many of them have left the party, even as the number of Log Cabin Republicans in Texas continues to grow.
www.texastribune.org
- 3,868
- Null Island
Is the return window on Texas still open by any chance?
Joey D
Premium
- 47,167
- Boyne Falls, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
We could just let them have independence, which would be funny because I have to imagine it would quickly become poor due to the high start up costs of a country.
ROAD_DOGG33J
Premium
- 14,117
- IL, USA
- holyc0w1
- holyc0w
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,154
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
How cool, @Chrunch Houston has his own trigger law...
- 29,459
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
If memory serves, the only other states that still have statutory language prohibiting same-sex intercourse are Kansas and Kentucky. It's unenforceable due to the holding in Lawrence and by virtue of none of the states' governors wanting to be George Wallace,* but that laws prohibiting the act remain on the books reflects the states' attitudes about it.This is apparently a mildly left-leaning outlet, so will be rejected out of hand as communist propaganda, but it includes a number of interesting quotes about and from the Republican Party in Texas (including from the most recent convention) and an LGBTQ+ group within the party in Texas called "Log Cabin Republicans":
“We failed”: Gay Republicans who fought for acceptance in Texas GOP see little progress
Gay Republicans who have fought for acceptance within the Texas GOP over the past three decades told The Texas Tribune progress has been excruciatingly slow. Many of them have left the party, even as the number of Log Cabin Republicans in Texas continues to grow.
I know that, in Texas anyway, bills to strike the language from the penal code have been introduced repeatedly since 2003, exclusively by Democrats in the state legislature, but I'm not aware that a single one has even left committee with assignments handed down either by Speaker of the House (in the House) or by Lieutenant Governor (Senate) in the Republican majority state.
Several years back, a gay couple was threatened with arrest for kissing in public, with law enforcement citing the unenforceable law. There was a civil suit filed over the action but I don't know how far it went.
*This honestly kind of blows my mind, though. With Republicans' penchant for performativity, even an unsuccessful standoff with the National Guard seems like it'd be...[cough]...right up their alley.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,626
- Mile High City
It looks like it's worse than that:
Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia
"Eleven states' statutes purport to ban all forms of sodomy, some including oral intercourse, regardless of the participants' genders: Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma and South Carolina. Three states specifically target their statutes at same-sex relations only: Kansas,[29][30] Kentucky, and Texas."
The ones banning all forms of sodomy also encompass same-sex intercourse, at least for gay men. That being said, if Lawrence were invalidated (I'm not sure that will happen), I think quite a number of those states would strike those laws from the books immediately. Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and even potentially Florida and Georgia come to mind. Maybe North Carolina too. Probably not Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Mississippi.
Last edited:
- 5,234
- Alabamistan
But according to @Chrunch HoustonIt looks like it's worse than that:
Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"Eleven states' statutes purport to ban all forms of sodomy, some including oral intercourse, regardless of the participants' genders: Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma and South Carolina. Three states specifically target their statutes at same-sex relations only: Kansas,[29][30] Kentucky, and Texas."
The ones banning all forms of sodomy also encompass same-sex intercourse, at least for gay men. That being said, if Lawrence were invalidated (I'm not sure that will happen), I think quite a number of those states would strike those laws from the books immediately. Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and even potentially Florida and Georgia come to mind. Maybe North Carolina too. Probably not Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Mississippi.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,626
- Mile High City
I lived in Texas prior to Lawrence, there were plenty of gay men there. I imagine @Chrunch Houston also lived in Texas at that time. The laws did not stop people from doing the things they wanted to do, especially when it is so difficult to police what happens behind closed doors. These laws were not often enforced, and it was generally accepted that they were from an outdated time. It was treated kindof like the law in Texas that says you can't shoot a buffalo from the second story of a hotel - some crazy relic that was not likely to affect anyone.
But there are people in the Texas government today that would like to enforce those laws in a way that they were not immediately prior to Lawrence. The fact that these laws are still on the books in various states does not speak to their rampant incarceration of gay people prior to Lawrence. But I'm sure their presence did have a chilling effect on speech, and they could be very selectively enforced if someone had a vendetta or particular aim in mind. Basically they were ignored by heterosexual people, but offered an opportunity for corruption, and squashed speech.
But there are people in the Texas government today that would like to enforce those laws in a way that they were not immediately prior to Lawrence. The fact that these laws are still on the books in various states does not speak to their rampant incarceration of gay people prior to Lawrence. But I'm sure their presence did have a chilling effect on speech, and they could be very selectively enforced if someone had a vendetta or particular aim in mind. Basically they were ignored by heterosexual people, but offered an opportunity for corruption, and squashed speech.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,626
- Mile High City
In some ways, it can be impressive how little it takes to threaten people into the closet. My sister's ex-spouse was effectively in the closet due to fear of discrimination at her job. Without disclosing what her job was, I'll tell you that it was an environment where this fear was warranted. The two of them were effectively married, owned a house together, etc., but they couldn't actually get legally married because of this fear that one of them had. My sister is not just out of the closet, she's waaay out and a bit of an activist. Meanwhile her spouse was trying hard to keep a low profile. Eventually this issue destroyed the relationship.
That's a fear of losing your career, imagine what happens to people when they fear incarceration. Sure, not everyone will be silenced or even slowed, but a lot of them will.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,209
- Texas
- 2,384
- The failed experiment entitled “California”.
Not that it would ever work (partially because every state in the US depends on emergency federal funds in event of disasters- some more than others of course ).
But the 3 states that would have the best chance at pulling it off would be California, Texas and probably Alaska. Mainly because they have the natural resources, ports and potential tax revenue to do it. There was some non-serious hyperbolic talk from some California politicians about succeeding from the union during the trump era. Of course it would never actually work... or happen. Then again, there's been extremely small efforts over the past 30 years to split California into a few different states; mainly because some believe its too diverse both politically, fiscally and geographically to govern efficiently. While that may be true, it would never happen for the sake of one simple essential commodity. Water
But the 3 states that would have the best chance at pulling it off would be California, Texas and probably Alaska. Mainly because they have the natural resources, ports and potential tax revenue to do it. There was some non-serious hyperbolic talk from some California politicians about succeeding from the union during the trump era. Of course it would never actually work... or happen. Then again, there's been extremely small efforts over the past 30 years to split California into a few different states; mainly because some believe its too diverse both politically, fiscally and geographically to govern efficiently. While that may be true, it would never happen for the sake of one simple essential commodity. Water
- 5,234
- Alabamistan
My niece has been living in Portland, OR for close to 25 years. She's a nurse practitioner. She married her high school boyfriend and they had a kid. They divorced two or three years after the child was born and in a few years my niece came out as gay. She met another woman in her professional field and they got married almost 20 years ago I think. They have two children through surrogates.
My sister is about the only one I talk to regularly in our family and you can just tell she doesn't believe what my niece has is a real marriage or that they should be bringing up kids.
I was absolutely sure that my niece would never consider moving back here to Alabama because of the current political climate here and in the country in general. But last Friday I was shocked to hear in a text message exchange with my sister that my niece and her wife had indeed moved back here at the end of June and they have opened up a practice in our hometown. I told my sister that I was shocked to hear that given the current political climate. The last thing I told her was "I really hope the state of Alabama doesn't invalidate their marriage" and my sister hasn't responded since. So I don't know if I pissed her off with that comment but I really don't care.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,626
- Mile High City
I just heard from an old lady distant relative in nowhere Kansas, a long-time republican and a deeply religious person, that she will not support the republican party until she knows Trump is not running. I know this is just one person, but there are a loooooooooooooot of Americans in between me and her on the political spectrum.
Last edited:
- 2,384
- The failed experiment entitled “California”.
From a spectating perspective, it’ll be interesting to watch how the mid terms unfold. My cousin and his wife, whom are both definitely on the left of things….told me about a month ago that they’re all in on Trump if he runs again. And these were two people who absolutely detested him. In their views, they feel that the democrats have gone waaaay too far left on a lot of issues.
The battle these days always revolves around voter turnout in the inner cities and suburbs as well as middle class moderates. But I have a feeling that the dems are gonna get scholacked in the mid terms strictly over the economy. And if they can’t put someone good on the ticket for 2024, they’re gonna lose their too. Newsome isn’t ready for prime time yet, nor is even really liked in California. Buttidge (spelling) is going to be a casualty of Biden’s energy policy, and thus…. No real political accomplishments. Kamala, yea…. No way.
As much as people might disagree with this next statement, considering the political climate…. A Joe Manchin type is their best bet. Or for Trump to decide to run again. Either/or
- 2,384
- The failed experiment entitled “California”.
Don’t know much about this guy, I’ll have to do research. In my estimation, the democrats only chance at 2024 is going to be with a true moderate. Someone that a right leaning moderate like me would vote for. Preferably a businessman, like this Jared Polis guy.
I keep hearing as of late, the dems trying to explain away inflation, high taxes and rising energy costs as necessary expenses in order to transition to clean energy. What I haven’t heard is a realistic viable way to transition to clean energy, or a valid reason on why we had to undercut our own domestic fossil fuel industries to do it.
Going to a hybrid model of fossil-fuels/renewables is fine and dandy, but we don’t have to sell ourselves down the river in order to accomplish it 🤷🏼♂️
