I think that what UltraVires is saying is Gay Marriage legalized isn’t killing people so conservatives relaxed about it over time. As opposed to their stand on Abortion, which whatever your personal stance, you must admit involves killing living tissue.
Bingo. You can take a loss on the SSM debate because at the end of the day nobody is getting hurt because of legal SSM. If you take a loss on abortion, but you believe that what is happening at the clinic down the road is murder, it is impossible to just let that go.
Of course, this presumes that conservatives actually care about the “killing living tissue” aspect of abortion.
They let it go for 50 years. 50 years with a million murdered babies a year, and their big win is letting the States decide if murdering babies is OK.
I’m left to wonder what sort of evil act Republicans are waiting for to justify their 2nd Amendment solution to tyranny. I guess it has to be bigger than 50 million state sanctioned baby murders.
Why should I take as true the statements of a group that has already demonstrated that it isn’t trustworthy when it assures me of its stance? It’s a bit like your sibling saying, “No, but for realsies I wouldn’t punch you in the head again. When I did it before, it was because I rally cared who won the Monopoly game, but this is just Life, and I don’t care about that one.”
But we fought it for at least 40. Is the fact that there was not more lawlessness evidence that we really didn’t mean it?
I’m not sure what you mean by this. The GOP, since at least 1980, has said that its mission was to overrule Roe. It has played a part in every presidential election and SCOTUS confirmation hearing since.
However, since Dobbs have you seen one state pass an anti-SSM bill or anti-miscegenation bill? Has there been one debated on the floor of one House of any state legislature?
And if it did pass, a federal district court and the appeals court would enjoin it. Do you see 4 votes for granting cert to hear these cases? Who is it? Not Alito, not Kavanaugh, not Roberts. Nobody except Thomas. But Thomas has always been rather unique in his constitutional interpretation. For example he doesn’t believe that the Establishment Clause applies to the states. Do you fear an established church in your state?
I guess if the counterpoint is “I have no evidence, but just don’t trust Republicans” then it is a rather uninteresting debate. Show me where and how these outlandish fears are playing out on the ground.
Will you at least agree there were duplicitous answers from the last 3 Justices reguarding Roe confirmation questions.
I don’t wait for a second punch, I take steps to keep it from happening. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
Black Americans fought harder to get a better seat on the bus. No dead babies, no state sanctioned openly available murder for hire, just the right to sit where they wanted.
The evidence is the stated policy positions of the Republican national party, and dozens and dozens of their elected representatives. I do trust Republicans on this subject: I trust them to do exactly what they say they’re going to do, which is to roll back gay rights across the board, and not just SSM. They’ve already started doing it.
I appreciate the point you’re trying to make, but both of those things featured pretty heavily in the Civil Rights movement.
So what? So does chemotherapy. Same with cancer surgery and Compound W,
See, you got me to admit that abortion involves killing “living tissue”. Happy?
My position is that that the contention that “life is sacred and special” is essentially a religious position and that the state has no business making laws based on religion. Yes, I do believe murder should be illegal, but I believe that because it’s good public policy for a multitude of reasons, none which involve the sanctity of life.
Your cite is a non-sequitur. I think that is a prohibited debate point, so I will not address it, however, that issue is still in flux and will be debated and fleshed out in the years to come.
The objection was that Dobbs will cause a rollback of legal SSM (which has nothing to do with what you posted) and even go further and outlaw contraception and interracial marriage. There is no evidence out there anywhere on the ground that these issues are in play in 2022 in any state in the nation.
That’s your position but you don’t just get to decree it like I don’t get to decree anything. There are an awful lot of laws that would have to be struck down if we are just classifying personal preferences as laws based on religion. I’m sure many athiests would believe that murder should be against the law for other than utilitarian reasons.
I think that John Hart Ely really captured the issue for anyone who wants a reasonable debate on abortion. At first blush it looks too much like birth control to oppose it. Yet at the same time it looks too much like infanticide to allow it. When someone takes a hard core position one way or the other, it invites a hard core push back because of this dissonance.
Except, again, all the elected Republicans explicitly stating that they want to and plan to do this.
And my cite is not a non-sequitor, it’s exactly the sort of vicious, anti-queer agenda that the Republican party has pushed for literally my entire life. The current crop is, if anything, even more vicious, in the extent to which they’re actively and deliberately conflating homosexuality with pedophilia.
If you are saying that there will not be an “Obergefell II,” for lack of a better word, with regards to the issues you cited, I would concede the point. There will certainly not be a grand pronouncement of any more substantive due process rights that do not fit within Alito’s criteria. If you disagree with that type of jurisprudence, which I am sure you do, then you certainly have a valid point.
But Dobbs explicitly said, and there is no reason for Alito to lie as he has life tenure, and for the same reason Thomas caused this shitstorm because he has life tenure, and it basically screamed to future litigants not to bring challenges to these other cases because they are going to stay. But no more of it.
To follow up, it wouldn’t even take new legislative action in many states to challenge Obergefell. My state, and many others still have laws and/or constitutional provisions which were passed in the early 2000s to define marriage as an opposite sex only union. Since Dobbs, has one single clerk anywhere (and think WV, MS, AL—where they would get a lot of old lady checks by doing it) decided to point to state law and the Dobbs decision to say that it does what your side says it does?
Near as I can see the “abolish welfare/food stamps/medicaid” crowd might get all lathered about a fetus but once you have a living, breathing, eating, pooping baby they couldn’t give a further **** about the human being.
^ This.
Yes, Kim Davis from Kentucky did it, right after Obergefell was decided.
Here’s another one: A NY clerk rejected a same-sex marriage license. This is what happened
Saying a Republican has no reason to lie is like saying a snake has no reason to bite people. They’ll do it because it’s what they do, it’s their nature. The gaslighting of the opposition is key to their broad political strategy, and it involves lots of lying, about everything.
When republicans oppose sex education (which provably lowers the abortion rate) and oppose easy access to contraception (which provably lowers the abortion rate) and will not provide comprehensive child support services for mothers (which lowers the abortion rate) and support the death penalty (which is definitely killing someone) as well as opposing medically necessary abortions where not having one will kill the mother even when the fetus will be stillborn or die shortly after birth. It is hard to take them seriously that saving a life is why they oppose abortion.
They’re passing anti-LGBT bills RIGHT NOW. Do you think “Aha, but they haven’t specifically targeted SSM!” is a meaningful argument?