• solsangraal@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    how’s this going to work when the supreme court criminalizes being gay?

      • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        2 months ago

        works.

        *worked

        everyone needs to stop assuming that anything regarding individual freedom is going to “work” the same way that they’ve grown accustomed to, moving forward

        • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          The East/West Coast should hold an emergency election and just fucking annex themselves from the red states. Trump can rule the USoChristianTalibanistan. Offer asylum to all the immigrants so they have no-one to work the farms and the locals have to work in forced labor camps. I give Talibanistan 6 months before they collapse.

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            The problem is that the division isn’t east/west or north/south, or really geographical… it’s rural/urban. Look at electoral maps of states broken down by district to understand what I mean.

            There’s no way to divide it without there being a significant movement in populations and demographics so that it is more geographically divided. Which seems literally impossible.

            • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              This is it exactly. Land versus population. The Republican strategy has fully paid off. I’m in a blue island in an extremely red state.

              Arm yourselves.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Thank you. I think it’s just going to be an infuriating two months just hearing people talk about shit as if things are going to continue as they have been.

          I don’t think they grasp what authoritarianism means.

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        Except local refusal to enforce doesn’t really work with gay marriage. If feds refuse to accept gay marriage, they won’t be able to file jointly on federal taxes, and the protections to Rights for spouses like medical visitation / decisions would have to be repeated locally, which could (would) get challenged and ultimately overruled by SCOTUS

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      SCOTUS doesn’t write legislation, they interpret the Constitution to rule on existing cases. They couldn’t criminalize being gay on their own. If a new case on gay marriage were brought to SCOTUS, the most they could do is overturn US v. Windsor, removing federally recognized gay marriage and federally protected gay marriage benefits.

      Congress, however, could potentially criminalize being gay with legislation, unless vetoed by the President or challenged during SCOTUS’s judicial review.

      • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        interpret the Constitution

        you’re thinking in the past now. please stop assuming that the constitution is a thing anymore. the country chose fascism. they got everything they want, and if what they want is “illegal,” then it will soon be legal.

        if you are not a billionaire, then i’m sorry–you have no protections. legal or otherwise. i would say buy all the guns you can, while you can, but honestly that might not even make a difference

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          It absolutely still is, they just have the full trifecta now, so there’s no accountability. If SCOTUS makes an unjust ruling, it’s Congress’s job to challenge it. If Congress writes and votes for unjust legislation, it’s the President or SCOTUS’s job to challenge it.

          The Constitution can’t be discarded by any branch, and requires 2/3 majority to amend through Congress. However, infringement could be outright ignored by those charged with checking the power of the other branches.

          • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Liberals, man. Straight delusional, not far behind MAGA.

            “This piece of paper says you can’t do this, fascist executioner”

            • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              2 months ago

              I think people either just don’t understand the magnitude of this, or are in denial. But it will become pretty hard to deny in a year or so, I’m afraid.

    • GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      If the Supreme Court strikes down Lawrence v TX (the ruling that struck down anti-spdomy laws) homosexual acts will only be illegal in states with anti-sodomy laws on the books. California is not one of those states. California has a law against sex acts with a minor, but not sex acts between consenting adults.

      Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas all have statutes criminalizing consensual sodomy on the books and, if scotus reveals Lawrence, homosexual acts will be criminal once again.

      • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        …what about lesbians?

        No seriously, if they’re defaulting to anti-sodomy laws, what about the other spectrum of the LGBTQ+ that are married and don’t (presumably) practice sodomy?

        • GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          This is from the TX sodomy law. Oral sex, anal sex, women touch another woman’ breast in a sexual manner, and sex toys are outlawed. The law is pretty comprehensive and seems to cover everyone in the community.

          "Sec. 21.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

          (1) “Deviate sexual intercourse” means:

          (A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or

          (B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object.

          (2) “Sexual contact” means, except as provided by Section 21.11 or 21.12, any touching of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. … Sec. 21.06. HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.

          (b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor."

          https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/pe/htm/pe.21.htm

          • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 months ago

            Thanks for the receipts.

            Man…these legislators think about gay sex in more depth, variety, and detail than any gay person I have ever known.

            • GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              2 months ago

              You’re welcome. It’s important to know our rights and what’s at stake if we lose them. We need to be prepared for what may come.

              They wrote it broadly and I’m sure did some research to ensnare more people. When these people say they liked the 50s, they were also talking about the Lavender Scare with McCarthty and I’m sure would love to see a revival of the purge.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      They’ll be put on the chain gang, based on the rejection of the proposition to ban slavery in prison.