Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, they won't go after Obergefell, at least not seriously. Gay men are well funded and have significant institutional power.

Pay attention to the activities that have gained traction since the Roe draft was announced. Legislation to ban birth control, Plan B, and to prosecute miscarriages. It's really about controlling and punishing women. I say this as someone who is sympathetic to those with pro-life beliefs, but as others already mentioned, it's clearly not about saving unborn babies.

The history of SCOTUS cases suggests you may be slightly wrong. In addition to the “life begins at conception issue,” I think this SCOTUS is willing to radically expand religious freedom protections. So, while the court may or may not overturn freedom of marriage, it will, in the guise of religious freedom and deference to democratic legislating, allow states to permit people to refuse to engage with or support gay marriage. So, you might be able to legally get married but private businesses wouldn’t be obligated to serve you as a couple, i.e. refusal of service at restaurants, hotels, etc. and crazy FL laws that essentially muzzle any discussion of homosexuality or trans treatment prior to age 18 would be allowed to stand. And we may go back to the complicated days when a gay marriage was legal in Vermont but not in Tx.

[Anonymous]

Religious freedom can't just mean white evangelical Christians though. What about the Jewish community whose religion says that abortion is okay? Are they able to just get them as they please under the guise of religious freedom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i think some are you are really unhinged. I don't see them overturning these issues.

They have states ON THE RECORD that they plan to do so. They are teeing up legislation in states to do it. Stop being an uninformed dummy. It’s one thing to say you know and don’t care, it doesn’t affect you or anyone you know, or even that you agree, but it’s a completely different thing to say people are unhinged for understanding what has clearly been articulated.

[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?

If you don’t change your gender marker, it would be harder for them to say your marriage is illegal. However, if they go after gay marriage and succeed, it will be open season again on harassing you for being trans and out. They’ll want you to hide all of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Religious freedom can't just mean white evangelical Christians though. What about the Jewish community whose religion says that abortion is okay? Are they able to just get them as they please under the guise of religious freedom?

Yes, step up please - educate in the Jewish community about abortion laws, set up free legal clinic advice and you will, I’m sure, soon be able to find Jewish women in sates with abortion restrictions who are willing to be plaintiffs to challenge this. I’d especially like to see a challenge in TX which would test both the restriction on abortion and the bounty-hunting aspect which threatens the helper. Get the Jewish theological leaders lined up to support. The process will take years, so let’s get started ASAP!

[Anonymous]

Abortion
Contraceptives
Gay adoption
Gay marriage
Trans anything
Healthcare for “illegals”
Public healthcare for anyone
Public schools
Education for special needs
Disability benefits
Medicare and “entitlements”


Basically, anything they have cheered about at GOP rallies. Once Obama folded on Gorsuch and Trump was elected, I made the call that we aren’t going back without a bloody revolution by the left. And frankly, I think the young left are too broken to really fight. A lot of them seem out of touch. The permissiveness toward the right wingers for Capitol Insurrection proved it.

[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?

If you don’t change your gender marker, it would be harder for them to say your marriage is illegal. However, if they go after gay marriage and succeed, it will be open season again on harassing you for being trans and out. They’ll want you to hide all of that.

That's what I was thinking. Leaving the M would mean that they couldn't try to invalidate our marriage. Also, spousal benefits with social security and health insurance at work etc.

For hiding it, I'm really not sure what could even be done. I have visible breasts so even if I present as a man, I'll be visibly trans. There's really no way for me to pass as a cis man at this point (kind of the point of transitioning really).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If you don’t change your gender marker, it would be harder for them to say your marriage is illegal. However, if they go after gay marriage and succeed, it will be open season again on harassing you for being trans and out. They’ll want you to hide all of that.

That's what I was thinking. Leaving the M would mean that they couldn't try to invalidate our marriage. Also, spousal benefits with social security and health insurance at work etc.

For hiding it, I'm really not sure what could even be done. I have visible breasts so even if I present as a man, I'll be visibly trans. There's really no way for me to pass as a cis man at this point (kind of the point of transitioning really).

DP. I am so sorry that you have to worry about these things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If you don’t change your gender marker, it would be harder for them to say your marriage is illegal. However, if they go after gay marriage and succeed, it will be open season again on harassing you for being trans and out. They’ll want you to hide all of that.

That's what I was thinking. Leaving the M would mean that they couldn't try to invalidate our marriage. Also, spousal benefits with social security and health insurance at work etc.

For hiding it, I'm really not sure what could even be done. I have visible breasts so even if I present as a man, I'll be visibly trans. There's really no way for me to pass as a cis man at this point (kind of the point of transitioning really).

DP. I am so sorry that you have to worry about these things.

Thank you. I may actually go out and join some protests. I've never been to one before. I'm also strongly in favor of women's right to choose. Most trans people are (probably almost all) because bodily autonomy is very important to us. Now that we are a wedge issue, I wouldn't be surprised if some red states try banning gender affirming care for everyone in the state.

[Anonymous]

Of course they are. Any right that relies on a right to privacy found in the Constitution is fair game under Alito. Abortion, contraception, same sex marriage, interracial marriage.

[Anonymous]

If they were so worried about it being overturned, they should have used better reasoning in the court ruling. I read the text and the argument was basically "it would be mean to not allow gay marriage and we want to be nice." I don't think it should be overturned, obviously, but it was embarrassingly badly written.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Abortion
Contraceptives
Gay adoption
Gay marriage
Trans anything
Healthcare for “illegals”
Public healthcare for anyone
Public schools
Education for special needs
Disability benefits
Medicare and “entitlements”


Basically, anything they have cheered about at GOP rallies. Once Obama folded on Gorsuch and Trump was elected, I made the call that we aren’t going back without a bloody revolution by the left. And frankly, I think the young left are too broken to really fight. A lot of them seem out of touch. The permissiveness toward the right wingers for Capitol Insurrection proved it.

Huh? What exactly should a former POTUS have done about a SCOTUS appointment made by the sitting POTUS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they were so worried about it being overturned, they should have used better reasoning in the court ruling. I read the text and the argument was basically "it would be mean to not allow gay marriage and we want to be nice." I don't think it should be overturned, obviously, but it was embarrassingly badly written.

Well, given this well-argued criticism, it's astonishing that you haven't been appointed to SCOTUS...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same sex marriage is definitely next but interracial marriage will be allowed because it is so popular among voters.

In this order:
Birth control
IVF
Interracial marriage
gay marriage

SCOTUS can’t overturn any of these unless there is a challenge. I can see a GOP governor challenging Obergfell to try to get that to SCOTUS. I don’t see a lot of political will to challenge birth control. GOP may hate abortion, but its a small minority of the base who don’t use birth control. Same with interracial marriage. Maybe there are a lot of bigots among the RWNJ, but I just don’t see any state trying to reverse that anytime soon.

I think you are underestimating the GOP. It wouldn’t be a direct challenge to the right to access birth control, it would be very onerous restrictions on hormonal birth control on the grounds that it is an abortifacient and therefore prohibited under the state’s abortion ban. Someone will challenge these restrictions to try to get them lifted, it will eventually make its way to SCOTUS, and then if the current majority (or a similar one) is in place, SCOTUS would go beyond ruling simply on the issue presented to hold that Griswold was wrongly decided and therefore is being overturned (just like they are presently doing with Roe). Republicans will make the same noises they are now about how the ruling doesn’t actually ban anything, people will get complacent again if it doesn’t personally affect them, and red states will move forward with more bans on hormonal birth control, age restrictions on over-the-counter birth control, expand the ability of not just pharmacists but also store clerks to sell birth control products prop,e who can’t prove they are married if they are morally opposed to sex outside of marriage, etc.

Yss, this is the play. Louisiana, Missouri and Idaho right now are attempting to ban contraceptives such as Plan B, IUDs, and emergency contraceptives. There will likely be lawsuits, a case will be brought to the Supreme Court, the court will overturn Griswold, and with that goes all of the cases based on Griswold, namely Lawrence and Obergefell. Loving might be collateral damage.

[Anonymous]