Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Despite all the deflections about how Republicans are begrudgingly OK with same-sex marriage now. Repealing it through the judiciary with appointments in support of that is explicitly part of the platform. How hard would you fight for your marriage?
Quote:
Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere in this platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states.
So, they successfully stack the courts as they have been. Then they could roll it back. Then they can just point to their platform openly telling us they were going to do it all along and people went along with it so it must be a mandate. But don't worry because you don't care?
Congress can address this anytime they like, and they are the ones who should. They, after all, are accountable to the People.
Is there a federal law that defines marriage for the entire nation? Well, there was - the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. How did it pass you ask?
In the House, 224 Republicans and 118 Democrats voted yea (Yeas: 342; Nays: 67).
In the Senate, 52 Republicans and 33 Democrats voted yea (Yeas: 85; Nays: 14).
White House (President William J Clinton) signed into law.
So the last time the issue was taken up by the federal government, they passed a bill in a pretty solid bipartisan fashion, that defined marriage as being one man and one woman. Lots of posturing on both sides, lots of "well, I did it but reluctantly" tap dancing, and in the end, when the votes were held, it passed huge across the board.
And then challenges came, and went to SCOTUS, and it was de facto repealed.
So to have that SCOTUS precedent "overturned" a state would need to make a new law that outlaws/does not legally recognize any marriage other than one man and one woman, then have someone challenge that law, then take that challenge all the way to the SCOTUS, and then have the SCOTUS with an originalist majority decide to overrule their own precedents and the 14th Amendment by deciding that you know what, equal protection under the law isn't really "the point" of the "living 14th Amendment" and blah blah. If I were a liberal, I'd be more worried about a Supreme Court that decided to analyze affirmative action under the originalist view of the 14th Amendment, like in the travesty of the Michigan Law School case with O'Connor's reprehensible majority opinion. But I digress...
Something tells me that replacing Ginsburg with Barrett/Lagoa doesn't accomplish everything required to "end same sex marriage/rights", even with the Republican platform of 2016 (lol) having their righteous moral authority.
2020 and beyond is wholly different than 1996 where same sex marriage is concerned. Puritans lost, for good. The current cultural landscape would destroy a Republican caucus that decided to make upending Windsor and Obergfell the hill they want to die on. Republican voters willing to cheer them on for that cause have dwindled in number. In short, the culture has defeated the moral authority the Republican platform of 2016 tried to claim.
In short, being concerned about this because of Ginsburg (which is laughable given how Roberts is dying to go full liberal) being replaced is utterly, comically absurd.
So, they successfully stack the courts as they have been. Then they could roll it back. Then they can just point to their platform openly telling us they were going to do it all along and people went along with it so it must be a mandate. But don't worry because you don't care?
One of Trump's nominees wrote the decision ruling employment discrimination bases on sexual orientation is unconstitutional. Bad stacking job on Trump's part. Good fear mongering on your part.
I don't know what Biden's said about nominees to the SC. I know Hillary said she'd stack the court with judges who'd see things her way, such as reversing Citizens United.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
