Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Abortion is by far the biggest issue for the Right and has been for decades. But even with a historically conservative court, they are still barely getting the 5 justices needed to overturn it. And even that isn't guaranteed.

I don’t think overturning gay marriage or contraception is out of the question with this court, but I'd be surprised if all 5 rule to overturn it.

Oh they will restore anti-miscegenation with 6.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Abortion is by far the biggest issue for the Right and has been for decades. But even with a historically conservative court, they are still barely getting the 5 justices needed to overturn it. And even that isn't guaranteed.

I don’t think overturning gay marriage or contraception is out of the question with this court, but I'd be surprised if all 5 rule to overturn it.

Oh they will restore anti-miscegenation with 6.

If you really believe this, you live in a bubble. These days, the people most opposed to interracial marriages aren’t white.

[Anonymous]

Real question here. I understand this is probably a situation that's really rare but here goes...

I married a bi cis woman when I was still presenting myself as a man to the world (so a regular heterosexual marriage). I transitioned from male to female. Many marriages don't survive this but our marriage is stronger than ever. So now I'm a transgender woman married to a cisgender woman but we got married as a heterosexual couple.

I have not changed my gender market on my birth certificate or other legal paperwork yet. If I change my gender marker and Obergefell is reversed, would my marriage now be invalid in some states or would it always be valid because I was considered male when we were married. What about if I don't change my gender marker despite the fact that I look sound, dress, present myself as a woman. I've also changed my name.

I've been wanting to change my gender marker but it's actually fairly difficult to do and I haven't got around to doing it. Is it better to just leave it as "M" now?

[Anonymous]

Don’t forget stem cell research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Abortion is by far the biggest issue for the Right and has been for decades. But even with a historically conservative court, they are still barely getting the 5 justices needed to overturn it. And even that isn't guaranteed.

I don’t think overturning gay marriage or contraception is out of the question with this court, but I'd be surprised if all 5 rule to overturn it.

Oh they will restore anti-miscegenation with 6.

If you really believe this, you live in a bubble. These days, the people most opposed to interracial marriages aren’t white.

In blue states you are correct. In red states you are not. Alabama didnt get rid of their anti-miscegination rule until 2000. Louisiana had clerks refusing to allow it in 2009. In 2019 wedding venues in Mississippi refused it as well.

If the current ultra reactionary SCOTUS follows it's own new activist precedent then that right, like many others, is gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it's concerning. I thought Roe v Wade was settled law. Don't want to see the amazing advances for gay rights during my lifetime unwound.

The Supreme Court does not make laws. They interpret them. That was exactly the issue with this case - there’s nothing in the constitution to say that you should always have the right to kill a baby growing inside you no matter what age it is. If you want laws, that needs to be done through congress. And that would involve agreeing on term limits etc, which democrats have generally refused to even discuss.

If we could discuss limits then I think there would be more than enough votes to support it. Most republicans support first term abortion.

Gay marriage or interracial marriage is different because it doesn’t involve a third party. Something like gay adoption might be different since that does involve a third party.

There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that corporations are citizens and should have unfettered free speech rights. Corporations barely existed as a concept at the time of the founding. And yet the right wing found that “right”. There’s nothing that says an individual may own a million guns outside the context of a regulated militia, and yet the court found that right. There’s no language about homeschooling at all, yet the court found that right too. In fact, the entire concept of judicial review was invented out of whole cloth by Marshall. So what now?

Also, the constitution bans involuntary servitude, which forced birth is.

Only for the duration of the pregnancy to preserve the life of the baby. Then you can give it up for adoption to a good home like Amy Coney Barrett’s.

So what I hear you saying is involuntary servitude of limited duration is ok. What about limited duration torture, which L&D is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That would only play into the delusions of the liberals at this point.

The chicken littles of this world don't need to be validated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would only play into the delusions of the liberals at this point.

The chicken littles of this world don't need to be validated.

You honestly don't think that red state Republicans aren't going to try to ban gay marriage in their states and get Obergefell reversed? Why do I think that you're going to be the first person on the "states rights" train later this year when this starts to happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Real question here. I understand this is probably a situation that's really rare but here goes...

I married a bi cis woman when I was still presenting myself as a man to the world (so a regular heterosexual marriage). I transitioned from male to female. Many marriages don't survive this but our marriage is stronger than ever. So now I'm a transgender woman married to a cisgender woman but we got married as a heterosexual couple.

I have not changed my gender market on my birth certificate or other legal paperwork yet. If I change my gender marker and Obergefell is reversed, would my marriage now be invalid in some states or would it always be valid because I was considered male when we were married. What about if I don't change my gender marker despite the fact that I look sound, dress, present myself as a woman. I've also changed my name.

I've been wanting to change my gender marker but it's actually fairly difficult to do and I haven't got around to doing it. Is it better to just leave it as "M" now?

You should consult with an LGBTQ legal advocacy org. If you want to share your state, I might be able to give you some recs. I'm in New England and GLAD is the primary org here. They do a great job and on their website they have a lawyers referral page: https://www.glad.org/know-your-rights/lawyer-referral/ I would think most orgs, even if they don't have capacity to discuss your situation could refer you to someone with expertise. Good luck with it, I know many people are getting there paperwork in order this week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would only play into the delusions of the liberals at this point.

The chicken littles of this world don't need to be validated.

So party before country.

If country means we assure people their rights are protected, we don’t do it. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Abortion is by far the biggest issue for the Right and has been for decades. But even with a historically conservative court, they are still barely getting the 5 justices needed to overturn it. And even that isn't guaranteed.

I don’t think overturning gay marriage or contraception is out of the question with this court, but I'd be surprised if all 5 rule to overturn it.

Oh they will restore anti-miscegenation with 6.

If you really believe this, you live in a bubble. These days, the people most opposed to interracial marriages aren’t white.

It is you who lives in a bubble. These days, the people most opposed to interracial marriages aren’t white. your white supremacy is showing. You do not disagree with the premise only that White people(republicans) are out numbered by POC who hate whites. Yep this will not happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Real question here. I understand this is probably a situation that's really rare but here goes...

I married a bi cis woman when I was still presenting myself as a man to the world (so a regular heterosexual marriage). I transitioned from male to female. Many marriages don't survive this but our marriage is stronger than ever. So now I'm a transgender woman married to a cisgender woman but we got married as a heterosexual couple.

I have not changed my gender market on my birth certificate or other legal paperwork yet. If I change my gender marker and Obergefell is reversed, would my marriage now be invalid in some states or would it always be valid because I was considered male when we were married. What about if I don't change my gender marker despite the fact that I look sound, dress, present myself as a woman. I've also changed my name.

I've been wanting to change my gender marker but it's actually fairly difficult to do and I haven't got around to doing it. Is it better to just leave it as "M" now?

You should consult with an LGBTQ legal advocacy org. If you want to share your state, I might be able to give you some recs. I'm in New England and GLAD is the primary org here. They do a great job and on their website they have a lawyers referral page: https://www.glad.org/know-your-rights/lawyer-referral/ I would think most orgs, even if they don't have capacity to discuss your situation could refer you to someone with expertise. Good luck with it, I know many people are getting there paperwork in order this week.

We live in NoVA but thinking about moving to MoCo. It's more than just the state we reside in recognizing the marriage though, it's everything else such as spousal benefits with Social Security, being covered by my spouse's health insurance at her job, etc. I worry that all of that could be taken from us. My assumption is that if I stay legally a male even though no one would ever think I'm a man by just looking at me, we will be fine. It would be nice for some kind of confirmation of that though. The other thing is that I really don't want to keep my gender marker as "M". I really hate that it still shows it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Insurance companies will be pressured to drop abortifacients from their plans and women will have to pay out-of-pocket for them.

And the same people who want to ban abortion consider many of the most effective contraceptives to be abortifacients.

[Anonymous]

I may be naive but I think gay marriage is not at risk under the current makeup of the court. This is because Gorsuch wrote, and Roberts joined, in the 2020 opinion saying you can't fire someone for being LGBT because it is sex discrimination. Gorsuch could easily have swung the other way and did not.

Even if Gorsuch and Roberts did so using different reasoning -- say, "banning gay marriage = discrimination on the basis of sex" than the 2015 marriage case did, which is a legal theory Roberts himself floated during oral arguments that year -- I think they'd uphold it.