I can’t see how clear rules could help, here. How could a wager could be practical, given that I said only “a lot of calls for”?–the Internet should still be up and running for a couple of months at least, and there are already plenty of people posting on it that as homosexual conduct was unlawful throughout the entire USA in the 1950s, there would be good precedent for going back to that situation. You might as well just mail me the money.
If your issue is that in my post I said “homosexuality” instead of “homosexual conduct”–sure, I’ll concede that any proposed constitutional amendment–designed to bring the USA back to 1950s status as a whole rather than piecemeal–is more likely to include the word ‘conduct’ than not. But then again, Pence et al are scarcely mental giants. They may not see the distinction between conduct and status.
But as far as constitutional amendments are concerned, Pence and his allies might want to do something along the lines of Colorado’s “Amendment 2”:
That one didn’t fare well. But we are now living in a nation in which the Presidency, House, Senate, and soon (after Trump’s first appointment) the Supreme Court are all held by right-wingers. A new amendment should have fairly clear sailing.
It’s interesting that voters just voted in a rightward President and now there’s a conservative President with a mostly conservative Congress, yet the country has been moving leftward on social issues, especially for gays, for a few years now. Perhaps not a lot will happen that will hurt LGBTQ rights. It’s hard to say, though it’s likely the battle over transgender rights will have progress stalled because gender fluidity seems to be a real issue of contention among conservative types
if I object to this kind of thing, am I a “bigot?” I’ve been attacked by people like you, and particularly iiandyiiii, for expressing my fear that someday, saying that I would never date a transgender woman would be considered bigoted and evil.
Should judges be at the forefront of changing substantive policy?
This post more or less acknowledges that judges are not simply interpreting existing law: they are creating substantive new law.
You understandably want the progress, but do you care how you get it?
Or from another angle: you’ve handed judges all this power, and now Trump gets to appoint judges for four or eight years. Does that change your idea of how much power we should hand to unelected judges with lifetime tenure?
It looks like he is predicting that Trump will nominate and seat one or two very socially conservative judges to the court who he know will uphold the constitutionality of an Amendment 2-like, uh, amendment before the process actually starts.
Not that I agree with him that “the states will” necessarily “be happy to ratify”, but I think that’s what he’s saying above.
I think (not sure) he’s talking about a Constitutional amendment, with the expectation that Trump and his allies will control all branches of federal government and pretty much be able to overcome any opposition up to and including the Supreme Court?
Could we NOT rehash this here? I know your views on this subject. My question is what if any LGBTQ rights might be rolled back with a Republican Congress?
Whatever your issues with that photo is could you please take it elsewhere?
Thank You.
No rights of any sort will be rolled back, especially not for gay Americans. However, forward progress will be stalled. Basically, the issue is going to be on the backburner.
Trump will do business with the Pence side (which prioritizes getting The Gays and The Females back under proper control) because he needs their cooperation to accomplish what he wants to do. So he will accommodate their wishes to sell to the American public a rolling back of LGBTQ rights.
Yes, the upcoming Supreme Court (after Trump’s replacement of Scalia and especially after his subsequent replacement of whoever leaves the Court next) will be glad to uphold any state-constitutional amendments, restricting LGBTQ rights, that may arise and be contested. And, yes, calls for a rights-restricting amendment to the federal Constitution will be heeded, and such an amendment will be proposed and put into the ratification pipeline.
And a further ‘yes’: enough states will ratify to make it law.
I’d like to say “unless,” but I’m not sure exactly what form the “unless” could take. Hearts and minds need to be changed. Appealing to the Trump voters is probably next to useless; they just know that Teh Gays are Ruining Amurica and such. I’d like to see beloved celebrities put in some effort to counteract this–Trump voters do listen to celebrities. I mean, if every top NASCAR driver made it a personal mission to speak out in defense of the rights of LGBTQ people, that would have an impact.
Might not be likely to happen, but it would make a difference if it did. Certainly, reliance on the existing power structure to maintain rights is purely wishful thinking, now, given that the power structure has been thoroughly taken over by the right–from local up to national.
I didn’t get seriously scared until I saw the names “Huckabee” and “Blackwell” on Trump’s hypothetical team. If this is any indication of things to come, we may be in for some truly bad times.
I’m old enough to remember what it was like being gay in the '50s and '60s. If we’re going to return to that, it may be time to leave the country.
I’m a transwoman and I’d date him. That may seem confusing, but there’s a common misconception that we’re humans and date for love, happiness, and mutual respect. In fact, we’re all secretly terrifying praying mantis creatures in disguise that devour our mates from the inside, and thus our primary purpose in dating is sustenance.