They overturned Roe, Is Marriage equality next?

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/la ... r-AA1zMynu
This is concerning

I'd give it a critically high chance, unfortunately. Then it lays the ground for a national ban. I hope not, though... Same-sex marriage is such an easy issue. Of course it should be legal. No opposition to it is valid, let same-sex couples be happy, too. JFC.

There is a key difference:

Obergefell (SSM) and Loving (interracial marriage) were codified with the Respect for Marriage Act, while Roe was never codified.

Also, RFMA had the support of many Republicans.

Abortion rights were also recently codified into law in red states such as Kansas, Missouri and Ohio.

Yep, there would also be constitutional issues with allowing straight couples to be married, but not same-sex couples in a way that doesn't apply to abortion. Despite what extremists would have you believe, men are not getting abortions. That's just not something that impacts men in terms of their bodies. It's after the fetus is born that things do impact on men. Which means that there isn't the same sort of a case for a 14th amendment violation if abortion is banned that restricting marriage to same sex couples.

Not quite. The media really dropped the ball with the reporting on that bill. I was really frustrated with them for it. The bill does not codify the right to get a same-sex marriage in each state, what it does do is make it so if you got married in one state and you go to another, your marriage will still be recognized regardless of the laws in that state. It is substantial, but it is NOT what the media headlines said it was.

If Obergefell gets overturned, states can still ban it, they just can't ban already married couple's marriage if they come into their state.

Also, I'm not exactly feeling good about laws like RFMA even mattering. Even whether or not they have enough in congress to pass a law to undo it, we are now in the age of Project 2025 and the expanded unitary executive branch nonsense. Trump's Christofascist cronies likely already have it on their mind to draft executive orders to mess everything up. Of course, that would cause lots of controversy and go to courts, but... Plenty of people comply in advance, AND if it gets up to the Supreme Court, they're likely to rule in favor of the Christofascists.

We can hope for the best. But... I'm scared.

Right, I get the marriage thing is more complex than Roe but I don't put anything past these loons running the show.

women's suffrage is next. hell, when they call the constitutional convention to codify trumpy being dictator for life, they will do all sorts of other things such as removing our right to vote, our freedom of speech, they'd prolly repeal the second amendment as well. they will no longer need anybody with guns to help them out, they'll own it all already.

I don't think there will be a constitutional convention. Such a thing explicitly requires a super majority of states, and they do not have that.

What I'm worried about is the line of thinking I was going into in my last post. That is, just having the executive branch enact all kinds of horrible things without any of the checks and balances to properly stop it from happening functioning. If we aren't already there, we are darn close to it.

The constitution is just paper. It's not divine decree, it's not laws of nature. The constitution only has as much power as those in power give it.

I can't lie, I'm also worried about the right to vote. It should be absurd to even have to think about but there are members of the Trump administration who think that women shouldn't be able to vote. Also, I fear we won't even have actual elections going forward.

Hopefully I'm wrong, but every time I've tried to be positive about any of this, any time I've put faith in the checks and balances and stuff like that, I've been wrong. Where we are in this country right now is truthfully absurd. Even the most simple of functioning checks and balances would have stopped all of this. We are deep into this.

California and other states have passed ballot measures protecting marriage equality in the state constitution. That said, with the recent SAVE act, they're trying to take away the right of married women who have changed their last names to be able to vote, as their ID's don't match their birth certificates. From what I understand, they won't allow a marriage license to be proof of "citizenship." The Real ID thing won't work either.

Is a legal marriage licence required in the US for legal purposes? I would just do a f*** you and just get married in Las Vegas.

Yeah I am worried, I suppose if me and my boyfriend get married, maybe I will have to keep my l last name officially just in case....but I am worried about my married sister who took her husbands last name, I mean her husband does have simular views and I like having him as a brother in law, but she should still be able to vote to, but with the act that might make it harder for married women if their married name does not match their birth cirtificate last name to vote.

The more I hear about the goings on in America, the more concerned I become.

Surely this SAVE act is unconstitutional? I am not well versed in American laws and politics but...surely? Is this not human rights 101? Why would the powers that be want to bring in a bill that is very clearly targeted at married women? Well, I know why and it's awfully corrupt. Is this not tempting future protests and riots? The public wouldn't just take this lying down.

It's so ironic. It's not saving anyone, is it? Maybe their own behinds. What a daft name.

As for potentially targeting marriage equality, that's definitely going to be contested as well if they try to tear that down.

It's certainly been a worrying sequence of events lately though. Whenever there's progress in the world, there's pushback. It's never linear. Time is a series of overlapping chaos. Still, we can't let that keep us down.

they have at least 38 states already.

As the law is currently applied, that should be sufficient at least for blue states. And, quite honestly, in the red states, I'm not sure that losing the right to vote is going to change much in terms of the outcomes of elections. It is wrong to deny law abiding adult women of the right to vote due to changing their name when they get married, but I'm not sure that it's going to have much of an impact in terms of the results of elections. And, name changes back to their maiden name would potentially get the ability to vote under this insanity back.

That being said, if enough women get angry at their husbands and refused to sleep with them, it could well shift a few votes on things.