Some states are still trying to overturn gay marriage

None of those bills will pass their Republican controlled chambers, the individuals proposing them are seen as cranks, even by their party colleagues, so I'm not going to get worked up over this.

r1, no, they aren't seen as cranks by Republicans. Stop lying. During his campaign Trump promised to overturn gay marriage.

While it is terrible that some Republicans won't give up this fight, r1 is correct in that these bills are not actually going to be passed by the full chamber. They get introduced, and they end up dying

[quote]During his campaign Trump promised to overturn gay marriage.

But, but.......

Stop sterilizing gay youth, you monsters!

The GOP is not the one waging war on biological sex and by proxy homosexuality.

I wish someone would draft legislation to make gay marriage mandatory and all other forms of marriage illegal.

I know you girls despise Republicans, but you need to choose your battles. Gay marriage does not mean much to me or probably most of us. I would rather have secure borders and keep the m ban than have gay marriage. Besides, gay marriage is still available lots of places. And a GAY COUPLE is divorcing in our condo and boy is that a mess

R8 you speak for no one but yourself.

Fuck off R8

Its amazing how the god squad, who profess that we should love one another, hates us.

How’s your pocket square collection, R8.

Say hi to everybody at the next Log Cabin meeting.

It won’t pass. Besides there are a lot of elderly Democrats, especially black that are opposed to gay marriage.

There is a bit of intellectual dishonesty running through this thread. First off, SCOTUS ruled on this and, as of right now, Same-Sex Marriage is firm law nationally. Any efforts on the part of any state to get around Constitutional Law are not going to be legit. Of course there is a possibility that this issue could revisit the SCOTUS, or an effort to amend the Constitution on a federal level to prohibit SSM. However, the process to go about something of that magnitude isn't an easy path, and would take years to accomplish. And even assuming it went that far, there isn't any real reason (as of right now) to believe there would be votes to overturn what's been laid down as law. So while I appreciate articles on the topic (the issue is interesting), the simple truth is that they're wildly stirring the pot.

Won't pass their legislative bodies. The SC will treat gay marriage as settled law. Trump will not support such bills. The real threat is now from the extreme left.

Abortion was thought to be settled in the 1970s after Roe v. Wade. It wasn't.

Complacency is what allows your rights to be eroded.

Who cares about gay marriage/ Marriage means divorce 50 percent of the time. Better to stay single and not be bound by a legal contract.

Exactly R16

Thanks fucktard at R8 Also thanks for the idiot who sent our website to the reporter on the Mussy case- just what we need a bunch of infiltration to cause disruptions between us. Yes, Repugs don't want to give us marriage rights-- duh!!! VOTE DEM!

If you look at the unholy dozen of upcoming candidates not even ONE of them is qualified. Be careful R9 R10 R12. You do not know the personal business of anyone on here. Look at some of the NEW Congress women--THIS is what you want in power?

Voting Dem is voting for child mutilation.

WTF happened to this site??? R21 blocked!!

R22 blocked, F&F'd, and booked on a one-way ticket to the nearest grease fire.

Wtf r23?

R16, Roe is a rough comparison. I'm not a Roe scholar (unlike a lot of Jurists who have studied the case extensively) but, generally, Roe has always been viewed as a poorly reasoned opinion, even from those on the pro-choice side. It's part of why it's been subjected to subsequent revisions and criticism. There are few people in the legal world who really see (or ever saw) Roe as a good decision. And not just simply because of the controversial nature of the right involved, but because the reasoning was horribly unsound. The SSM decision(s), albeit not without controversy, are much more sound in their reasoning.

I didn't see R23, cuz I blocked R21 (the same person). THANK GOD!

You're not missing anything r26.

Thanks R27, I picked that up on R21!!! :))

"The GOP is not the one waging war on biological sex and by proxy homosexuality."

Yeah, they just want to ban you from having legal rights

"Besides there are a lot of elderly Democrats, especially black that are opposed to gay marriage."

Most of the black members of Congress are pro-gay, and vote that way

"Trump will not support such bills. The real threat is now from the extreme left."

Just keep telling yourself that, Mr. Log Cabinette

R25, that's just not true. Especially the ridiculousness that there are few people in the legal world who see the decision as legit. That is just straight up nonsense. Roe is squarely in line with its predecessor Griswold v. Connecticut. If Roe is poorly reasoned, Griswold is even more so, yet you don't hear anyone insisting states can outlaw contraception because Griswold is weak. The same line of cases (substantive due process) protect parental decisionmaking and the right to both interracial and gay marriage (HINT HINT). The notion that Roe is uniquely on shaky ground is just more pro-birth propaganda.

Now, that's not to say there aren't legit criticisms of it or that there aren't at least theoretically stronger legal arguments that could be made. But there are such criticisms for Loving v. Virginia and even Brown v. Board of Education, and, yet again, no one is talking about how "weak" those cases are.

No idea what R30 is saying, but you realize it's in jeopardy correct?

Black voters in general do not treat gay rights as single issue priorities the way a significant chunk of white voters treat abortion and civil rights. They are the most reliable Democratic voting bloc even when the party platform and individual candidates are pro-gay rights, DESPITE personal opinions about gays. There is no huge coalition of Black voters who would vote for a candidate just because they were anti-gay the way so many racist white voters still support Trump because they are racist.

The best example of this is 2004. Bush and the GOP put a SLEW of anti-gay measures out the to tip the scales against Kerry. They brought out more white evangelicals as a result. Black voter turnout overall also increased--but NOT to Bush's benefit. He held only 10-11% of Black voters just as he had in 2000, which is well within the range of typical % of Blacks voting GOP.

R31, if you don't understand, maybe you should hush. Roe is in jeopardy not because it's a uniquely weak decision, but for political reasons. Roe was also decided on a similar basis as Obergefell, so if Roe is "weak" so is the case for gay marriage being constitutionally protected.

Oh really Mary at R33, thank you for your fucking profound and uptight words!

R8 prefers hysteria, fear-mongering and scapegoating to reality. What a garbage person you are. I really do hope that in your case, the racists and bigots you drool over, are the ones who decide your fate. Fucking asshole gets to benefit from what Dems fight for and joins in on hating people with the reichwing. You selfish, racist turd. Don't ever think that people who peddle hate think you're "normal."

R35, full support your thoughts on R8!

Sorry ^fully!

While those trying to end gay marriage may be seen as cranks in their own party, those trying to limit the spousal rights accorded to gay spouses are mainstream republicans.

In conservative states, the GOP is more interested in legislating that gay marriage does not equal straight marriage when it comes to rights accorded to the spouses. They don’t want gay spouses getting pension and SS benefits and such

I wish more hetero allies would make a group effort

to shame these bigots back under a rock.

We simply can't do it ourselves.

r39, amen

They just never quit do they?

Black Democrats are part of el-jibbity, not pro-gay. They will gladly vote to mutilate gay youth and call it progress.

Fuck Roe v. Wade. That ruling sent 11 million black babies to another Holocaust and at least as many gay ones along with it.

Voting Dem is voting for child mutilation.

Wait - I thought Dump was our gay savior...

I'll worry about fetuses when this country actually takes care of existing children R43

"Voting Dem is voting for child mutilation."

Only in your tiny brain. It's the GOP who supports "ex-gay" therapy for children, why don't you try being concerned about that.

R8 has a point , If you are single between 45 and death unlikely you find the proverbial love of your life and get married. As part of that demographic, I feel forgotten and frankly disrespected much of the time by "mainstream" gays . Fuck it and Fuck them

R43, always interesting when people complain about black fetuses being aborted yet constantly blame black people for the world’s problems

[quote]I wish more hetero allies would make a group effort to bash these bigots with a rock. We simply can't do it ourselves.

Fixed.

The Slaveocrat Party stabbed gays and Jews in the back time after time. Continue to vote for them, and they'll keep stabbing us in the back until there's no place left to stab.

Yes R51 they keep us all on the Democratic plantation, they have us right Where they want us.

They still support slavery, just in a different form.

R30 I never said the decision isn't legitimate/good law. Indeed, it is. It's a decision based on Constitutional reasoning from the nation's highest court; regardless of whether the reasoning is well-received or not, or even if it's correct, it's legitimate law. The reasoning (and therefore the ability of the holding to withstand further scrutinization upon subsequent revisitations) is definitely not well-regarded universally. I think you interpreted my comment as meaning no one likes Roe's holding, or even just the vast majority of people don't; that wasn't what I was trying to convey (oops, I just looked back at my comment and I did basically say that, sloppy writing). Of course there are many people who view it as great. But arguing that Roe is only considered badly-reasoned law by a small percentage of the legal community is very inaccurate. Many in the legal community, including well-known scholars and jurists, on both sides of the issue, including a few of the justices who came onto the court after the case was decided, have issues with the opinion. I can accept that the cases you reference are linked by their Constitutional framework used in their decisions (e.g. the use of the 9th amendment and "right to privacy), but that's really where they end. With Roe, there is an arguably legitimate, well-defined state interest in the product of heterosexual procreation, mainly the need to protect its citizens (unborn or living) and further the population generally. Before that happens (which Griswold dealt with), state interest is questionable due to the fact that what happens to create the baby is a private matter between adults (done in private). The same goes for what happens between members of a same-sex couple behind closed doors. There is a belief (whether wrongly or rightly held) that Roe could be undone due to that distinction, without unraveling a long line of cases (there are other theories as well). Obviously, any challenge to Roe would need to avoid a chain-reaction of undoing the holdings of other settled cases, which the Court would likely never do anyhow. But ultimately, Roe's demise isn't much interest for this thread. My whole point was that I don't think one can really use the attack on Roe as evidence that the same will happen to marriage decisions.