Yes--I am afraid. If the logic of Roe no longer applies, I don't see how other similar rights are guaranteed under the constitution. This is opening Pandora's box.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More fear mongering.

It is the only way the Dems think they can hold their majority in the midterms.

But, it will not work. The American people can see through their tactics.

It’s not fear mongering!! Brynn told them what’s what!!!

Say the same people who said Roe wasn’t going anywhere. Miss me with it.

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.

Obergefell v. Hodges, yes

Please add to your list
Plyer v. Doe (already happening)
US v. Wong Kim Ark (natural born citizenship, this has been discussed for several years by Republicans

The answer is yes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In modern times, most white conservatives are not opposed to interracial marriage if the non-white person is rich. “Dating out” or “swirling” is far more controversial among African Americans and Asians these days.

I fixed that first sentence for you.

I promise you it won't be Black or Asian Americans passing anti-miscegnation laws.

Anonymous wrote:More fear mongering.

It is the only way the Dems think they can hold their majority in the midterms.

But, it will not work. The American people can see through their tactics.

It’s not fear mongering!! Brynn told them what’s what!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Well if Brynn says so

Anonymous wrote:My DD uses hormonal birth control to regulate her cycle. Guess we’d better stock up.

Also advise stocking up ASAP on Plan B and mide/miso abortion medication. If she wants an IUD get it now if you live in VA or if you want insurance to pay for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I think you're mis-interpreting the urgency. There are no gay justices and the 5 ones on the court see gay marriage as an aberration that should never have been put in statute less than 7 years ago.

Abortion
Gay marriage
Birth control
Gay adoption
IVF
Interracial adoption

IVF right after abortion. Then the rest.

IVF provides more in-utero fetuses and babies born for them to cry over. You think they're against that more than gay marriage which by definition does not provide a fertile union? Or you think IVF goes against christian values more than gay marriage? Just trying to see the reasoning for IVF being #2.

A lot of embryos destroyed. Makes no sense to allow it if abortion isn’t allowed for the same reason. Then again, nothing has to make sense anymore. Maybe the idea is to create a jobs program for poor woman to carry all of the unwanted embryos and adopt them out.

I think pro-life states will permit IVF but not allow the destruction of embryos, but rather allow the donation/adoption of embryos by others. This may mean no examination of embryos prior to implantation, which would be a problem for certain families who are trying to avoid genetically carried diseases.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In modern times, most white conservatives are not opposed to interracial marriage if the non-white person is rich. “Dating out” or “swirling” is far more controversial among African Americans and Asians these days.

I fixed that first sentence for you.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In modern times, most white conservatives are not opposed to interracial marriage. “Dating out” or “swirling” is far more controversial among African Americans and Asians these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Here's what a news article says about it. Does this same logic apply to gay marriage though?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/15/supreme-court-rules-workers-cant-be-fired-for-being-gay-or-transgender.html

The cases were brought by three workers who said they were fired from their jobs because they were gay or transgender. They argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which says that employers may not discriminate based on “sex,” also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity.

It could. Here's an article from 2015 about what Roberts said at the oral arguments. He wound up dissenting, but:


https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/gender-bias-could-tip-chief-justice-roberts-into-ruling-for-gay-marriage.html

In a telling moment at Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments over same-sex marriage, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that he may have found a way to cast a vote in favor of the gay and lesbian couples in the case.

“I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve this case,” he said. “I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

Anonymous wrote: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.

Here's what a news article says about it. Does this same logic apply to gay marriage though?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/15/supreme-court-rules-workers-cant-be-fired-for-being-gay-or-transgender.html

The cases were brought by three workers who said they were fired from their jobs because they were gay or transgender. They argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which says that employers may not discriminate based on “sex,” also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Under this theory, how is banning same sex marriage discrimination on the basis of sex, but banning abortion isn’t? Wouldn’t it be discrimination against women by limiting their reproductive rights?