The Political Satire/Meme Thread
- Thread starter Danoff
- 13,956 comments
- 817,433 views
- 3,788
- Hoboken, New Jersey
Im surprised even Henry Cuellar voted Yay.
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,756
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
You confident that's going to be repeated in the Senate?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
Conservatives fear what they aren't familiar with and don't understand. Thanks to the supreme court properly applying constitutional protections like equal protection of law, conservatives were forced, over much protest, to realize that other people's marriages don't actually affect their own. They didn't want to deal with it, they don't like progress or changin' times, but they were forced to deal with it by supreme court justices that understood better than Thomas, Alito, and Roberts, all of whom incorrectly dissented. The result is that a small number of conservatives actually grew, just a little. A small number actually progressed, just a little.
What Thomas and Alito (and presumably Roberts and more) want to do is to shield those people from having to grow, at the expense of constitutional protections like equal protection of law.
So let's put credit where credit is due, the fact that Thomas, Alito, and Roberts were correctly overruled in Obergefell.
Last edited:
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
Is that law even necessary? Or is it just virtue signaling?
I am no lawyer, but doesn't a lawsuit require that the plaintiff have standing? Who is the injured party that could even bring such a suit? Mike getting married to Jeff harms no one. Of course Mary might have had a crush on Mike, but she wouldn't be able to sue over it.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
You're definitely not a lawyer, and no it's not virtue signaling.
Texas would like to ban gay marriage (and homosexuality, and in fact does ban homosexual sex, it's just not allowed to take effect because of Lawrence). So Texas would like the supreme court to allow its discriminatory laws to take effect. Roberts, Alito, and Thomas all voted that Texas should be allowed to do this. They're all still on the court, and they have new friends.
Incidentally, Thomas voted that Texas should be allowed to criminalize gay sex in Lawrence. Just FYI.
Thomas and Alito hate gay marriage so much that when nobody asked they wrote an entire essay about how much they want to overturn Obergefell. And you think this is virtue signaling? Pull your head out of the sand.
Last edited:
McLaren
Premium
- 45,634
- Texas
Republicans want to argue the bill is unnecessary because they’ll claim nobody (ie them) is trying to ban gay marriage. Which would be acceptable if the current Republican Party wasn’t full of ****ing liars like McConnell & Graham and have already hinted through Thomas (along with the idiots MTG & Boebert constantly harping this is a Christian nation and should be dictated as such) that the rulings for gay marriage should be relooked at.
The bill is a precaution one needed just in case the Republicans do what they say they won’t instead of waiting to see when they do try to set us back 10+ years.
The bill is a precaution one needed just in case the Republicans do what they say they won’t instead of waiting to see when they do try to set us back 10+ years.
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
I agree with this. But I am all in, I am betting that the religious right won't be successful at all with this.
How many hundreds of thousand of gay married couples are there now? Think of the chaos.
Gay marriage has been legal for seven years now. Even the religious right can see that the marriage between Adam and Steve, has had no effect on their own.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
Thomas was on the bench when Lawrence went through, he voted against legalization of homosexual sex.
Thomas, Alito, and Roberts were on the bench when Obergefell went through, they all voted against it.
We have since added Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch. You need TWO of them or one of them and a change in the mind of Roberts to be right about the religious right not getting away with this. I don't know why you think those odds are good. Thomas and Alito are done. Unless 2 of Kavanaugh, Barrett, Gorsuch, and Roberts decide to uphold Obergefell (and remember, Roberts already went the other way), then it's sunk.
I don't care for those odds. I'm not sure we've got one of them.
It's more chaos with abortion.
50 years for Roe v. Wade.
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
It's basically over. You've already handed over the victory in the supreme court. The last ditch effort to get in front of this is happening right now in congress and you scoffed at it. I'd say you deserve to see gay marriage overturned - it would be justice for you - but I have people I love that will leave the country if it goes, and so it will be a great loss for me personally. They only came back to the US a few years ago because it seemed gay marriage was stable.
No one will be thrown in jail, states can worry about the financial tangles. None of it is life and death. No incarceration, no lost life, no ruined lives.
Abortion, on the otherhand, is much more serious. The are hundreds of thousands each year in the US. We've already seen women forced to carry, dangerous confusion in emergencies, a high profile 10 year old rape victim crossing state lines, investigation into criminal prosecution of that girl's doctor, livelihoods trashed, and at this point we're talking about murdering women who pursue an abortion and putting doctors in jail for life. And we know there are many more unsafe abortions being performed already, and people will die from it. Already states have been grappling with the fact that their abortion laws will kill people.
(I left out all of the interstate chaos happening between state governments as well)
No, the chaos, and damage, is far worse with the overturning of roe. Criminal prosecution for doctors and women, lives ruined, lives lost. It's far more important than financial arguments could ever be. This isn't just my take either, the courts institutionally recognize financial and contractual matters as being less important than incarceration and physical harm.
To put it bluntly, gay marriage is not as important.
Last edited:
McLaren
Premium
- 45,634
- Texas
Bold of you to assume they care about any of that.
The religious right believes "Christianity" (what they distort it to mean) should govern how laws are made & regardless of whether the religious extremists are in the minority, as long as there are people in power who share their religious beliefs, they'll think they can set the law of the land for the rest of us. They've already attacked abortion because their religion deems it wrong, & they'll more than likely attack gay rights/marriage next b/c of the same religious nonsense; I mean, again, Thomas has literally written, "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, & Obergefell,".
They do not care if your or anyone else' life affects them, they're so warped in religious belief, they think the rest of us & the country need to be "saved".
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,756
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
I notice that you've not actually answered my question.
- 5,680
- Alabamistan
Republicans LOVE chaos. It's their brand identity. Their base craves chaos.
Last edited:
- 24,016
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
- 3,788
- Hoboken, New Jersey
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
Why wasn't that girl given the morning after pill to prevent her from becoming pregnant?
Because he was required by law to report the rape, and didn't.
You don't think abortion is wrong?
When I was seven, in 1972 my aunt gave birth to my cousin. I was stuck waiting in the waiting room with the family for what seemed like eons, but then my uncle came and gave us all blue bubblegum cigars (He was very religious), and I had a new baby cousin. I was seven.
I used to watch the evening news, or anything on tv when I was a kid. I would lay on my stomach on the shag carpet, under the coffee table. It was actually my stepdad watching but I was there.
I remember the Row v. Wade thing very well. The way I understood it at the time, was that women just wanted to have control over their own bodies. And I thought well of course they should. I had no idea what an abortion was at the time, but I was happy that Roe v. Wade passed.
When I first heard what an abortion actually was, I did not believe it. My baby nephew was now a toddler, how could somebody have killed him before he was even born?
From then until now, I have always thought abortion was wrong. In the case of the 10 year old, though, I think it was necessary. A ten year old is just to small to carry a baby to term.
But, like I said before, why wasn't she given the morning after pill. All rape and incest victims should be given that medication. It is an over the counter medication that prevents pregnancy. It should be used more.
I would think you would infer by my questioning the bill, that I did not care what the Senate did, because a law was not needed. I said:
It turns out now, the Democrats in the house have passed a similar bill to protect contraceptive rights.
Watch out, the Republicans are coming for your rubbers! Jeez, Gimme a break.
- 3,788
- Hoboken, New Jersey
Similar threads
- Poll
