If you’re going to pretend that a party platform does not constitute a “serious” position, I’m afraid we will need you to give us some kind of definitive definition of what does constitute a serious position before this argument can go anywhere.
Sure I can. I already have. In fact, I’m doing it right now!
And I don’t even need to say what I’m taking away from it, because it’s obvious. The Heritage Foundation – who disagreed with Roe, orchestrated the appointment of anti-Roe judges, and brought an anti-Roe case that proved to be the end of Roe – says that the judges didn’t lie about Roe, and wants to point out to its audience that, hell, these judges said Obergefell is “precedent,” too. What Obergefell has to do with Roe, well, no one knows!
If you think they will not overturn it, all things considered, that’s a fine opinion to have. If you claim to think there’s not a lot of people who want to, I do not believe you, and no one should. It’s a very silly thing to say.
Incidentally, did anything change with respect to the Heritage Foundation, which disagrees with Obergefell, and the 4 dissenting judges at the time Obergefell was decided? I haven’t been paying much attention. Any developments there, numbers wise?
After they overturn decision then we can take their threats seriously!
How is that Balanced Budget Amendment coming along? In fact, where is there even a balanced budget at all proposed when the GOP has both house of Congress? But, it’s in the platform so surely they are dead set serious about that amendment getting passed as quickly as possible, no? I guess that comes after the School Prayer Amendment gets passed.
A “serious” political issue is one that is out there and being talked about by major to moderate candidates (not some guy who paid a $30 filing fee to run for the state legislature and gets 10% of the vote), ones that people are engaged in debate about as the issue today. Abortion was always that in every single election of my lifetime that I can recall, and I am 46 years old. I was born 3 years after Roe and 8 years after Loving.
Likewise, I never heard about how we need a constitutional amendment to overturn Loving or that we need to appoint “strict constructionists” to the Court to overrule Loving. Never.Not.Once. That is why advocacy for repeal of that is not a serious issue. Likewise, after Obergefell there are crickets on that issue. Nobody is pushing it and as time goes on even more people will support it.
This is how I view whether an issue is serious or not. Not whether there is a throwaway line in a party platform, but whether it is out there.
Which anti-homosexual sex laws even exist in 2022?
There are anti-sodomy laws still on the books in some states. A few explicitly apply only to gay people; more apply neutrally on paper, but historically are only used to criminalize being gay – as was the case in Bowers where the Supreme Court said that was fine.
Still others had laws on the books up until Lawrence and then either repealed them or had their state courts strike them down to conform with the ruling. If Lawrence were to be overturned or modified, I see no reason to believe at least some of those legislatures would not revert their laws to the previous status quo.
Were they even seriously enforced then? That was a secondary argument in Lawrence that states were not serious about enforcing those laws and they only became traps for the unwary who the police were harassing for other reasons but just couldn’t get them on those other things. The facts of Bowers and Lawrence were just that.
In any gay rights debate in the 90s, the point would come up that these were criminal acts and the Supreme Court had upheld the laws. Most people who didn’t study the issue had no idea that was the law and were surprised that such laws existed.
I am opposed to laws like that and could have sided with the Petitioners in Lawrence for that reason which is much more legally sound than the opinion the Court wrote.
Twenty years later and not being an issue of life or death, I would never agree that Lawrence should be overruled regardless of any academic debate on the issue. I think the vast, enormous majority of people would not want Lawrence overruled and thus it is unlikely in the extreme to happen.
I agree that the Balanced Budget amendment is pure bullshit that will never happen, because they know that actually passing such an ammendment would basically destroy the country. I also agree that Loving is under no serious threat, despite a surging minority who express otherwise, obvious blatant racism is not generally admired… But Gay marriage is definitely in play. Less than a decade ago practically every Republican state passed such a ban. This isn’t some unworkable fantasy its a real thing that happened.
Also note that in order for it to fall it isn’t going to require any new legislation. No Republican politician is going to have to push a new anti-gay marriage bill through the legislature. All that has to happen is to have one attorney general attempt to enforce the law on the books, and work its way up. If the Supreme’s hear it and decide that Stare decisis and decide that they don’t like it, then bang it suddenly becomes illegal in 35 states and on a federal level without anyone having to take a controversial vote against it.
I guess we are just talking past each other. Those are headlines because the position is such a minority one. In your first cite, the candidate is “under fire” for the position. In the 90s or 00s such positions were so common, even by Democratic politicians, that nobody thought to make a big deal about it.
It goes to more than just making sodomy illegal:
How the Laws Were Used Against Gay People
These laws were used against gay people in three ways. First, they were used to limit the ability of gay people to raise children.
< snip >
Second, the laws have been used to justify firing gay people, or denying gay people jobs. The idea was explained by the F.B.I. in a case which it won in the late 1980’s. In 1986, in Bowers v. Hardwick, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the U.S. constitution allowed Georgia to make sodomy a crime.
< snip >
Third, the laws have been used in public debate, to justify denying gay people equal treatment and to discredit LGBT voices. In Utah, the sodomy law was used to justify not protecting gay people from hate crimes.
Yes, I conceded that point above. It would be easy for a court challenge and we haven’t seen it. Now, people are saying “not yet” but what votes are there on the Court to hear the case? Thomas. That’s it. Maybe Gorsuch. 2/9 won’t win.
Up until four months ago the concept of settled law still had sway, so there was no point, and since that time we were in a general election and so politicians were trying to appear moderate.
These things take time, but I have no doubt that a challenge is in the works.
That is one way to put it . . . other ways will get me a warning.
So you agree with me that sometimes politicians espouse views that they do not want to seriously enact simply because they believe that the position will help them with voters?
Some states still have laws against tying horses to lampposts on Main St. No one is going to make sodomy illegal, nor would it ever be enforced. This isn’t 1930 or 1950.
Sorry, I misread your post. I thought you wanted to know what laws against homosexual sex existed in 2022.
And you haven’t provided any evidence of such.
2/3 of Americans do not believe Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. You would have to be credulous in the extreme to believe in the current political environment that something like that matters in the slightest.
Again, this boils down to you thinking it just won’t happen. That’s fine. Simply say that! When you keep saying your opinion is based on specific external factors, people will keep pointing out that the external factors are fictitious.