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.
I don’t care if two dudes or two dames marry each other. Just keep it out of my face. That’s the part that drives me crazy. Liberals wanna shove everything in your face. Do you wanna marry your pet rat, your kitchen sink, another man,? Have at it. I don’t need to know about it.
This is a bit dramatic. Thomas has always said the same thing on this issue and no other justice signed on to his concurrence.
Certain topics always brings out the histrionics.
Abortion is a deeply moral subject for people on both sides of the spectrum and the winner takes all approach of Roe versus Wade was never going to sit well. But how this translates into revoking gay rights is not something that has a clear precedence. Roe versus Wade was based on the argument of personal privacy but even most constitutional scholars say it was badly decided because there are many areas of personal privacy we do regulate and ban, such as private consumption of hard drugs, or prostitution between consensual adults.
The "all or nothing" scorched earth approach by ideologues on both sides of the spectrum is why both sides sees the other as the enemy of the America they claim for themselves. As it is, the "all or nothing" approach that gave victory to the pro-choice faction ignored that a sizable minority of Americans found abortion morally reprehensible, and also ignored that a sizable majority did want some restrictions on abortion, namely latter term abortions, which highlights that even a majority saw a moral dilemma with abortion in some form.
Overturning Roe and returning the matter to the states helps removes the "all or nothing" factor. There will be disparate state attitudes towards abortion, ranging from the status quo (as of yesterday) in the deepest blue states that makes them the most permissive abortion rights in the whole world, to virtual bans in the reddest states, to European style abortion restrictions to the first trimester, like the Mississippi law. In a way, this reflects a much greater diversity of approaches towards abortion that does reflection the range of opinions on abortion held by Americans. There is something to be said for this.
Abortion is restricted in all EU countries, which ironically are often upheld as role models of enlightened progressivism by the pro-choice demographics. The consensus compromised on legal abortion rights for the first trimester and bans afterward, with exceptions made for health reasons. This achieved, abortion became a non-issue across all of Europe, something that abortion rights people in the US would do well to observe instead of expending so much political capital on protecting late term abortion, something a clear majority of Americans had particular moral issues with, and is certainly a reason why, as polling goes, it isn't going to result in a tide of angry people to the ballot box.
So let me get this straight - crazy RWNJs are all about smaller govt and don't want the govt to intrude on their life, yet they also want the govt to be able to tell women what to do with their bodies and that the govt should intervene in what people do in the bedroom, or who they marry?
Buzz off with your religious trash.
Someone has to look out for the rights of the unborn. Besides, what is wrong with leaving the decision up to the voters in each state? What give you the right to force your morality on others?
As far as gay marriage, that should be left up to the states as well. I really don’t care one way or the other. Marriage is a sacrament between two people.
I don’t care if two dudes or two dames marry each other. Just keep it out of my face. That’s the part that drives me crazy. Liberals wanna shove everything in your face. Do you wanna marry your pet rat, your kitchen sink, another man,? Have at it. I don’t need to know about it.
Has anyone personally shoved anything like that in your face? Were you walking down the street or what?
Someone has to look out for the rights of the unborn. Besides, what is wrong with leaving the decision up to the voters in each state? What give you the right to force your morality on others?
Hopefully this issue will cause the people in the battleground states to change their legislatures. Maybe it will take something like this to do that.
We saw what happened with Roe V Wade, which was discussed during the Justice vetting process as "settled law".
We've seen how the far far right acts. And it's time to get ready to push back.
I know everyone is laughing about this, but come November, the obvious advantage the right had has just evaporated.
your voting will be at the state level.
Since you bring Roe into the discussion, interesting poll in Pew out recently - they asked slightly more detailed questions than before, thus providing more options.
Used to be "legal in most or all cases" or "illegal in most or all cases". Now it's:
Simple question. For this poll I am only adding yes or no as options. You either support it or you don't.
This "you either support it or you don't" sentiment neatly encapsulates many people's inability or outright refusal to understand the nature and importance of a federalist system of governance, particularly those on the left. It's possible to support or be indifferent about the principle of gay marriage while still recognizing Obergfell was a stupid decision.
Texas and Florida are by and large content to be left alone and let California and New York do whatever California and New York are gonna do. Meanwhile the political class in California and New York lie awake at night not only quaking with anger knowing Texas and Florida don't want to be California and New York, but dreaming of ways to force California and New York's values on Texas and Florida. We see it today with the entire left throwing a collective hissy fit knowing they must now persuade people to adopt their position rather than using the courts to cram their position down everyone else's throat. It's bizarre watching the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate Majority Leader caterwauling about the Court relinquishing to the country's legislative bodies an issue which should have always remained a legislative prerogative in the first place. "Oh no -- we might actually have to do our jobs instead of fobbing it off on the judicial branch!"
These "one size fits all" cram-downs of ideologically polarized values, especially using the federal judicial system like Roe/Casey or Obergfell, do far more damage to cohesive governance and ordered liberty than the Texas and Florida legislatures considering the gay marriage issue and saying "thanks but no thanks" while California and New York say "sure, we'll go for that."
If Clarence Thomas has anything to say about it, and he does, Gay marriage and Contraceptives will likely be next to go.
Contraceptives shouldn’t go. But marriage is between a man and a woman. A mental defect shouldn’t change that.
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.
