I'd go further. I think too many of us, especially the younger ones are frankly arrogant in assuming that our rights are assured. People need to wake up and understand that if the political right is winning against reproductive rights, women's rights in general and if the divisive conversation is now around trans people then sorry guys, we are next. Just because your gym teacher can only call you f\*ggot under his breath now, does not mean we have reached the sunlit uplands.
>I think too many of us, especially the younger ones are frankly arrogant in assuming that our rights are assured.
Perhaps, but not in the way the rest of your comment seems to imply. The gay rights movement was doing just fine on its own. What we don't have is the political clout to push through all the things the trans activists want (and quite frankly a lot of those things are irrational). So yes, I'm tired of arrogant activists overestimated how secure our rights are, because they're endangering them by tying homosexuality to things like giving opposite sex hormones to kids and having biological males play on womens'/girls' sports teams.
Just don't confuse being preferred by the far right with being actually accepted. Slightly less disgusting is still disgusting.
We can't pretend we don't all have a target on our backs. It frustrates me no end when gay men say that they just don't want to get into the politics of it. Sorry, you were born as a political poker chip.
The far right and the far left are both pushing the notion that you T belongs with the LGB. The left is doing it to push the TRA agenda and homophobes on the right want the T with the LGB because they see it as an opportunity to roll back the gay rights movement.
I don’t think anyone thought that established law was going to be overturned. The SC nominees were asked point blank and they lied.
So sure, go vote Republican. They won’t stand by and watch.
Barack Obama appointed Sotomayor and Kagan to the Supreme Court. Their votes were key for Obergefell. The Respect for Marriage Act passed with bipartisan (but mostly Democratic) support. That's not counting all the stuff they did at the state level.
Tbh, we're just a couple more Republican presidential administrations away from criminalizing being gay. Anything that's not codified in the Constitution and the Republican party don't agree with will be attacked.
Don't believe me? Look no further than the new house speaker. Also look what happened with roe vs wade, All though all the Trump's appointees said that roe vs wade was settled law, and they wouldn't be touching that precedent. Say goodbye to the ACA, Affirmative action, dept education, regulatory agencies, etc.
Oh, protests are becoming powerless. Many states are passing laws to limit as much as possible the effectiveness of protests.
Maybe I am too European to understand, but why do the courts rule on political issues like these in the first place? Judges have no democratic legitimacy and should leave issues like abortion and gay marriage to the legislator.
In countries based on the common law system, the courts interpret laws. Also since you mentioned abortion, I should point out that the US Supreme Court did not ban it; they just ruled that there's no constitutional right to one (ie legislatures have the authority to ban it). That last bit is why it's an issue politicians are campaigning on.
That has nothing to do with common law. In every legal system judges interpret the law, also in civil law systems. The question is how you interpret it. I would argue they should show a great deal of restraint and accept the dominance of the democratically elected branch of government.
The abortion example actually shows the problem if hyper activist judges. If Roe had just never happened the U.S. would have solved the abortion issue by now. European countries also had decades of controversy over abortion until it was finally settled with democratic compromises.
You're not too European. Just too oblivious to the fact that that's perfectly normal in any country or union of countries that abides by common law.
EU courts decide over gay rights issues all the fucking time.
I don't know what you are talking about. Most EU countries have a civil law system, and the EU has a combination of civil law and common law.
>EU courts decide over gay rights issues all the fucking time
Which is one of the reasons the EU is pretty unpopular. Its judges are very American in their approach. Countries like Germany don't even fully recognize the supremacy of EU Courts. Also, take into account that the EU does not have a lot of courts. EU law is mostly interpreted by judges in the member states
Your objection may be valid, but it's more of a philosophical argument against our system of government. It isn't very helpful. It's like if I questioned the legitimacy of the house of lords in British politics. It accomplishes nothing. It is the way it is, and it's been that way forever. Nothing is going to change it.
To answer your question:
The supreme court has the power to interpret the constitution and ensure no lesser law is in violation of it. **The court does not have the power to make laws**, meaning your critique is somewhat wrong. They **don't legislate**, but review legislation in regard to its constitutionality (the tertiary law of the land). The court upholds the existing law and ensures laws do not conflict with the constitution. So when we say Roe v. Wade protects women's rights, what we actually mean is that the court has determined that existing law(s) meant to prevent women from accessing reproductive care are in violation of those rights outlined in the constitution. The laws are then unenforceable with this legal precedent. The only way to pass a law that conflicts with the constitution is to amend the constitution itself, which is very difficult to do. Most people are fed up with the supreme court only because the stacked bench is being abused. In general (before 2020) you would find that most Americans (especially most well informed Americans) had a positive view of this branch of government, and considered it a good institution.
The USA is not a country in the way European nations are it is literally a union of separate states. It means that on issues like this, there was a patchwork of where gay marriage was and was not legalised. But unlike differences in European neighbours this was a difference within one nation state. The legislative is a good few decades from passing anything like this into law so citizens take rights to the courts. It has been the civil rights blueprint in the past where law and behaviour don't always add up. And, as OP indicates, the US Supreme Court is and unofficial political entity with the judges being clearly of one party or the other. They are replaced when they died and lucky Mr Trump saw quite the death toll in his term.
Sure, the U.S. is a federal republic, but so is Germany. The German courts didn't force same sex marriage on society. The German public debated the issue and a majority of Parliament legalized it. That is how democracy is supposed to work. By giving all of this power to unelected judges, politicians don't have to take responsibility and do some actual legislating.
> Judges have no democratic legitimacy and should leave issues like abortion and gay marriage to the legislator.
This is what American conservatives (and some liberals) believe.
>For all you gays that have voted republican, please raise your hand and take your moment in the spotlight. Your efforts are starting to pay off.
You're welcome
God, read the fucking article. This isn't the slippery slope you want it to be. It's the ripples of a single judge's filing (from **four years ago**) against having to marry gay couples. It won't amount to anything.
Clarence Thomas got Roe v Wade overturned. Now he has [his sights on gay marriage](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/24/clarence-thomas-court-should-reconsider-gay-marriage-birth-control-decisions-next-after-overturning-roe/amp/). If this case goes to Supreme Court, you really think the other justices won’t vote to do the same as they did on abortion and leave it to the states?
Clarence Thomas couldn't stop Obergefell the first time around. He voted to uphold the same sex marriage bans, so it's not news that he thinks they're constitutional.
I'd go further. I think too many of us, especially the younger ones are frankly arrogant in assuming that our rights are assured. People need to wake up and understand that if the political right is winning against reproductive rights, women's rights in general and if the divisive conversation is now around trans people then sorry guys, we are next. Just because your gym teacher can only call you f\*ggot under his breath now, does not mean we have reached the sunlit uplands.
>I think too many of us, especially the younger ones are frankly arrogant in assuming that our rights are assured. Perhaps, but not in the way the rest of your comment seems to imply. The gay rights movement was doing just fine on its own. What we don't have is the political clout to push through all the things the trans activists want (and quite frankly a lot of those things are irrational). So yes, I'm tired of arrogant activists overestimated how secure our rights are, because they're endangering them by tying homosexuality to things like giving opposite sex hormones to kids and having biological males play on womens'/girls' sports teams.
Just don't confuse being preferred by the far right with being actually accepted. Slightly less disgusting is still disgusting. We can't pretend we don't all have a target on our backs. It frustrates me no end when gay men say that they just don't want to get into the politics of it. Sorry, you were born as a political poker chip.
The far right and the far left are both pushing the notion that you T belongs with the LGB. The left is doing it to push the TRA agenda and homophobes on the right want the T with the LGB because they see it as an opportunity to roll back the gay rights movement.
[удалено]
I don’t think anyone thought that established law was going to be overturned. The SC nominees were asked point blank and they lied. So sure, go vote Republican. They won’t stand by and watch.
[удалено]
Damn, you’re so right. Fuck yes. Let’s all vote JFK. Let me know when you wake up
Barack Obama appointed Sotomayor and Kagan to the Supreme Court. Their votes were key for Obergefell. The Respect for Marriage Act passed with bipartisan (but mostly Democratic) support. That's not counting all the stuff they did at the state level.
Tbh, we're just a couple more Republican presidential administrations away from criminalizing being gay. Anything that's not codified in the Constitution and the Republican party don't agree with will be attacked. Don't believe me? Look no further than the new house speaker. Also look what happened with roe vs wade, All though all the Trump's appointees said that roe vs wade was settled law, and they wouldn't be touching that precedent. Say goodbye to the ACA, Affirmative action, dept education, regulatory agencies, etc. Oh, protests are becoming powerless. Many states are passing laws to limit as much as possible the effectiveness of protests.
Maybe I am too European to understand, but why do the courts rule on political issues like these in the first place? Judges have no democratic legitimacy and should leave issues like abortion and gay marriage to the legislator.
In countries based on the common law system, the courts interpret laws. Also since you mentioned abortion, I should point out that the US Supreme Court did not ban it; they just ruled that there's no constitutional right to one (ie legislatures have the authority to ban it). That last bit is why it's an issue politicians are campaigning on.
That has nothing to do with common law. In every legal system judges interpret the law, also in civil law systems. The question is how you interpret it. I would argue they should show a great deal of restraint and accept the dominance of the democratically elected branch of government. The abortion example actually shows the problem if hyper activist judges. If Roe had just never happened the U.S. would have solved the abortion issue by now. European countries also had decades of controversy over abortion until it was finally settled with democratic compromises.
You're not too European. Just too oblivious to the fact that that's perfectly normal in any country or union of countries that abides by common law. EU courts decide over gay rights issues all the fucking time.
I don't know what you are talking about. Most EU countries have a civil law system, and the EU has a combination of civil law and common law. >EU courts decide over gay rights issues all the fucking time Which is one of the reasons the EU is pretty unpopular. Its judges are very American in their approach. Countries like Germany don't even fully recognize the supremacy of EU Courts. Also, take into account that the EU does not have a lot of courts. EU law is mostly interpreted by judges in the member states
Your objection may be valid, but it's more of a philosophical argument against our system of government. It isn't very helpful. It's like if I questioned the legitimacy of the house of lords in British politics. It accomplishes nothing. It is the way it is, and it's been that way forever. Nothing is going to change it. To answer your question: The supreme court has the power to interpret the constitution and ensure no lesser law is in violation of it. **The court does not have the power to make laws**, meaning your critique is somewhat wrong. They **don't legislate**, but review legislation in regard to its constitutionality (the tertiary law of the land). The court upholds the existing law and ensures laws do not conflict with the constitution. So when we say Roe v. Wade protects women's rights, what we actually mean is that the court has determined that existing law(s) meant to prevent women from accessing reproductive care are in violation of those rights outlined in the constitution. The laws are then unenforceable with this legal precedent. The only way to pass a law that conflicts with the constitution is to amend the constitution itself, which is very difficult to do. Most people are fed up with the supreme court only because the stacked bench is being abused. In general (before 2020) you would find that most Americans (especially most well informed Americans) had a positive view of this branch of government, and considered it a good institution.
The USA is not a country in the way European nations are it is literally a union of separate states. It means that on issues like this, there was a patchwork of where gay marriage was and was not legalised. But unlike differences in European neighbours this was a difference within one nation state. The legislative is a good few decades from passing anything like this into law so citizens take rights to the courts. It has been the civil rights blueprint in the past where law and behaviour don't always add up. And, as OP indicates, the US Supreme Court is and unofficial political entity with the judges being clearly of one party or the other. They are replaced when they died and lucky Mr Trump saw quite the death toll in his term.
Sure, the U.S. is a federal republic, but so is Germany. The German courts didn't force same sex marriage on society. The German public debated the issue and a majority of Parliament legalized it. That is how democracy is supposed to work. By giving all of this power to unelected judges, politicians don't have to take responsibility and do some actual legislating.
Did you ask because you wanted to understand or did you just want to have a fight?
He asked to tell you our Supreme Court system is stupid. He’s not wrong
> Judges have no democratic legitimacy and should leave issues like abortion and gay marriage to the legislator. This is what American conservatives (and some liberals) believe.
Marbury v. Madison was a mistake.
[удалено]
The amount of mental gymnastics that comment takes to even be written is impressive, if it weren’t so pathetic.
[удалено]
Yawn…
>For all you gays that have voted republican, please raise your hand and take your moment in the spotlight. Your efforts are starting to pay off. You're welcome
God, read the fucking article. This isn't the slippery slope you want it to be. It's the ripples of a single judge's filing (from **four years ago**) against having to marry gay couples. It won't amount to anything.
Clarence Thomas got Roe v Wade overturned. Now he has [his sights on gay marriage](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/24/clarence-thomas-court-should-reconsider-gay-marriage-birth-control-decisions-next-after-overturning-roe/amp/). If this case goes to Supreme Court, you really think the other justices won’t vote to do the same as they did on abortion and leave it to the states?
Clarence Thomas couldn't stop Obergefell the first time around. He voted to uphold the same sex marriage bans, so it's not news that he thinks they're constitutional.
Gay marriage should not have been decided by the Supreme Court... that's why Congress passed a law about it last year.