Being primaried.
I say again
“Kamala Harris wants the government to pay for sex change operations for prisoners!”
“Kamala Harris is for they/them. Trump is for us!”
“I am Donald J Trump, and I endorse this message.”
McCormick ran ads againts Casey that included lines like
“Casey wants to make our girls compete against biological men!”
Which, even if you believe tran girls are ‘biologically male’ makes no sense. At that age, nobody is a ‘biological man’. They would at worst be ‘biological boys’. But men sounds more threatening and this is not an argument based on logic anyway,.
A lot of politicians ran on hate. It got them elected. Either because those politicians really are hate-filed bigots, or because they want to be re-elected- they will carry out their prejudiced promises.
If some of them do that, how few need to not bother to kowtow for nothing to come of it? (And I’m mildly curious: how do you think the folks you figure for kowtowers will react to Trump nominating a homosexual to run the Treasury Department?)
I can not get over folks denying who these people are after they’ve told us, in no uncertain terms, exactly who they are.
Hate sells.
The same way the electorate does, by pretending that it didn’t actually happen.
You “say again” a lot of stuff that zeroes in n the T in LGBTQ — which I think sold pretty well. I didn’t see then, and still don’t, an argument that it translates into him going hard against LGB, which doesn’t seem to sell as well.
The same way they ignore voting for somebody who is basically an embodiment of the Seven Deadly Sins; by rationalizing it with some handwave about “God works in mysterious ways”.
Well, then: they can likewise not roll things back to pre-Stonewall levels for homosexuals, while rationalizing not bothering to do so with, y’know, some handwave about mysterious ways.
If you’re so willing to readily grant that they’ll handwave when they actually vote for stuff, you’d think you could grant that they can handwave when they’re not even voting for stuff.
But why, when that’s what they want?
But what if they don’t?
If they don’t wind up doing that, then I’ll be asking you: why didn’t they do that, if that’s what they want? Because that’d prompt me to say: gosh, it could be that they didn’t, in fact, want that.
What will you say if it plays out that way?
I wonder if it is a case of wanting to be at war, rather than actually wanting to win the war. You can keep fighting the “enemy” without having to find a new one to rally against.
Hey! Who else remembers the ~50 years that Republicans said they’d get rid of Roe?
Thank the gods they never succeeded!
Trump currently has 49.83 percent of the popular vote, with little left to count. Plurality, yes, majority, no.
In general, trans rights helps the Democrats:
There are wedge issues, affecting few trans people, that would not poll so well, explaining why Trump ran those hideous ads. On that, see this Atlantic article:
Presumably because somebody stopped them. It’s unlikely they’d change their minds, the reactionaries have wanted to kill all homosexuals for centuries.
If they “rolled gay rights back to pre-Stonewall levels”, their reaction would be "good, now lets push even harder." Not “mission accomplished”.
Democrats are going to get primaried for voting to protect gay rights?
Why not? I trust the Democratic Party and Democrats [cough]Joe Manchin[cough] as much as I trust a fart.
Not a Democrat, and not a senator anymore, either.
I seem to recall Clarence Thomas saying something about reviewing other precedents like Roe. I seem to recall gay marriage being one of those.
Doesn’t anybody else remember that? Someone made a quip about Loving, except Thomas has a white wife.
It’s possible the backlash will stop with sending trans people back to the closets. It’s possible the reactionaries that are freaking the fuck out of the de-christianizing of America and are pushing bibles and prayer and bible lessons back into public schools won’t look at the other social changes of the past 50 years and go after them. I mean, abortion? That’s safe, right?
They have already started on the LGB part of LGBT. The whole book- banning movement was triggered by the trans issue, but Desantis has his “Don’t Say Gay” law, and legislation to stop teachers from mentioning same sex marriage. Books exploring gay teen sexuality are on that ban list, too.
Anything they deem as the loss of morality from our society because of the removal of prayer in schools will be targets for legislative attention.
Now maybe Peter Theil will whisper in Vance’s ear and get a little wiggle room for gay men. Or maybe just himself.
I just don’t get this denial that the same christo fascists that have been trying to pull the Republican strings since Reagan are finally getting the Party leadership to actually enact their will, and somehow they will stop with bathrooms and sports.
This is part and parcel of the long game they’ve been playing with the courts. Build a large base of conservative judges with their views, then they can piecemeal attack the legal foundation of the social advancements. Legislation that previously was judged unconstitutional will now be reevaluated and given the green light.
Dobbs will be attacked in the courts, preventing the Senate from having to worry about passing new laws. But when Dobbs falls - it’s a certainty that the SC cabal will kill it when it is put in front of them again - then it will move the goal posts on what is acceptable. No gay marriage. Now start chasing protections added to include sexual orientation as a protected class. Then make it okay to descriminate again. Then the Overton window moves again.
There are more states in which the legality of same-sex marriage is codified in law than there are in which its legality is dependent on the Supreme Court.