DiscussionRoe v. Wade was overturned in the US today. How do you think that will impact LGB acceptance in the country?

submitted by reluctant_commenter from (self.LGBDropTheT)

My baseless speculation about possibilities:

  • Maybe this will force true liberals to pay more attention to sexism and women's rights?? Maybe? And then lead to more widespread questioning of reality-denying language language about biological sex (e.g. "pregnant men" "feminine penis" "trans woman")?

  • Maybe Democrat elected officials will double down on trans-focused and reality-denying language, and thus stigmatize open discussion of same sex attraction even further?

I don't know. What are your thoughts?

all 48 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah 8 insightful - 9 fun8 insightful - 8 fun9 insightful - 9 fun -  (0 children)

"Roe v Wade overturned. Men and transwomen most affected."

[–]NutterButterFlutterStill waving into the void 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Still reading up more and more on it. But I think this tweet actually sums it up pretty nice so far.

https://twitter.com/EugeneDaniels2/status/1540341480274944004

SC Justice Clarence Thomas says we should also reconsider Obergefell (legalization of same sex marriage).

LGB rights coming up next. It will be even easier because far left in the US have pushed for obfuscation and rewriting of language, including sex. So there is no need for protected rights of that which does not exist.

Did the far right a lot of favors and basically handed them the W.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

SC Justice Clarence Thomas says we should also reconsider Obergefell (legalization of same sex marriage).

Wow.

How did we take such a different route than the UK...? I mean, I literally posted this video from a UK news channel the other day and I couldn't even fathom seeing something so pro-LGB and LGB-focused on US news.

If same-sex marriage becomes illegal here, I'm going to have to move to another country to get married.

[–]NutterButterFlutterStill waving into the void 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Sorry, on my phone tonight so kind of brief.

The USA is not comparable to the UK directly. We would be more like the EU as a whole (prior to Brexit).

The UK is more like a region of the US, and the countries in it are like our states. The UK could be our Southwest territories, and England or Ireland could be Texas or Arizona.

This decision of RvW would be the equivalent of the EU deciding they will not enforce abortion rights, and will leave it up to England or Germany or whatever to decide.

Our U.S. states are still able to decide, for what that's worth.

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman🇬🇧🌳🟦 8 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

and England or Ireland could be Texas or Arizona

How dare

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's helpful framing, thanks. My UK ignorance is clearly showing, haha.

Our U.S. states are still able to decide, for what that's worth.

Yes, although I still have the same opinion about moving countries if necessary; if this type of ruling happens and sticks, I would expect homophobia to start becoming more openly popular again. But anyway, that's in the realm of speculation.

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Our U.S. states are still able to decide, for what that's worth.

As a married guy, I will point out that it will become a bit of a legal clusterfuck if Obergefell is overturned. How do my husband and I file our federal taxes? What are our inheritance rights if we move to a different state? Medical power-of-attorney? All of that would need to get worked out and it will be quite messy.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't see how they can have marriage be a state by state thing...It wouldn't make sense. Only gay couples would have to get remarried if you moved.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

As a married guy, I will point out that it will become a bit of a legal clusterfuck if Obergefell is overturned. How do my husband and I file our federal taxes? What are our inheritance rights if we move to a different state? Medical power-of-attorney? All of that would need to get worked out and it will be quite messy.

Yeah, exactly! See, I don't see that it's so easy to just assume that same-sex marriage being legal in states but not nationwide will work out...

How are you and your husband feeling about the whole situation?

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

We haven't discussed deeply. I don't think we will until it becomes a more concrete reality. If it becomes a reality we will adjust by making the necessarily legal arrangements to protect ourselves; we are of course fortunate to be able to do that, not everybody is.

Regarding abortion itself, we both see it both ways. I personally understand the bodily autonomy issue, I also understand how many people find it repulsive to take a baby's life (this is how they see it, not necessarily how I see it although I am not 100% sure).

However, an interesting discussion topic came up today with some friends: could being in a same-sex marriage be construed as probable cause for a police officer to force entry into your home to check for sodomy? You could imagine a situation in which sodomy becomes illegal again in states where there are registered same-sex couples.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

However, an interesting discussion topic came up today with some friends: could being in a same-sex marriage be construed as probable cause for a police officer to force entry into your home to check for sodomy? You could imagine a situation in which sodomy becomes illegal again in states where there are registered same-sex couples.

Wow. That's a deeply disturbing question.

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Indeed. Other questions: is a used condom evidence of sodomy? Certainly it is possible to use forensic techniques to determine where the condom has been and whether its wearer was, um, satisfied with the outcome. How about unused condoms? What about PrEP? Your GPS will certainly tell authorities who has been in physical proximity with you and for how long (your phone records are discoverable). Consider also the trail of conversations you had on Grindr and Scruff: those are also discoverable.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I would have to take a look but I think the Windsor decision (rather than Obergefell) is based on the Equal Protection Clause rather than substantive due process like Obergefell so I think it would still stand even if the substantive due process argument underlying the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage would be overturned based on the precedent set forth in the recent Dobbs decision. What that would mean is that the federal government still has to recognize marriages recognized by the states. So if your state recognizes your same-sex marriage, the federal government has to.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Andrew Doyle of GB News is a conservative-leaning gay man so he’s a more palatable gay figure for the general public but can talk about LGB issues from the inside.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah gotcha, I didn't realize he was gay.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

there were a few rulings based on some legal principles that roe was, that Thomas doesn't believe in, so people are assuming lgb stuff is next to fall.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The major problem with all of the rights in question here is that they were haphazardly legislated from the bench. In other words, the legislature has been so impotent that the courts have made overreaching rulings to effectively create legislation. This has the exact same problem as presidential executive orders. They can simply be overturned by the next court or president.

All of the rulings which Thomas brought up were based on a "right to privacy" interpretation which can easily be reinterpreted on a whim. However,the part which proves Thomas is a dishonest actor is that he left out a very specific ruling. The other ruling which is based on this right to privacy legalized interracial marriage and surprise, guess who is in an interracial marriage and would be personally affected.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

This has the potential to be the thing that will finally give the left some semblance of internal coherency, an unifying front to fight for.

It's pretty hard to push for pronoun shit and other first world problems when you have abortion and same-sex marriage (and even the potential overruling of other anti-gay discrimination laws) to worry about.

If TRAs start to push for their "girl dick" and "how about the FtMs that get pregnant" discourse (which they are already doing), there's a real possibility of them alienating a good portion of the people who care about these issues, which will force the liberals to make a decision: continue catering to them at the cost of their wider voter base or throw them under the bus.

That will be interesting to see...

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's pretty hard to push for pronoun shit and other first world problems when you have abortion and same-sex marriage (and even the potential overruling of other anti-gay discrimination laws) to worry about.

They don't care about same-sex marriage rights because it doesn't impact them. Remember, the most vocal ones are uWu "lesbians" which means that they can always take advantage of opposite-sex marriage rights if convenient (and remember it is always all about them). I don't have the time to dig for a link, but there are at least a couple of instances when pro-LGB legislation was all set to pass, but LGBT organizations allowed them to fail because they legislation inadequately protected the special privileges of T.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They don't care about same-sex marriage rights because it doesn't impact them.

Good point.

It's important to remember that queer theorists were against gay marriage since day one because they consider the normalization of homosexuality to be a bad thing, as said normalization minimizes its "subversive" and "revolutionary" potential.

They don't give a shit about the lives of gay and lesbian people, but only about how they can weaponize homosexuality for their own political ends.

I don't have the time to dig for a link, but there are at least a couple of instances when pro-LGB legislation was all set to pass, but LGBT organizations allowed them to fail because they legislation inadequately protected the special privileges of T.

This isn't surprising at all.

Homossexuality, Heterosexuality and Bisexuality are concepts that depend on biological sex to be described in a material way.

They're inherently incompatible with the notion of "gender identity".

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

as said normalization minimizes its "subversive" and "revolutionary" trendy accessory potential.

[–]MyLongestJourney 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This has the potential to be the thing that will finally give the left some semblance of internal coherency, an unifying front to fight for.

I disagree. The gender radicals will continue on the same path. They are a cult. The part of the American "left" who are against the gender cult and anarchy (the centrists actually) will either have to expel them from their ranks (fat chance) or work with them and suffer the damage of being associated with these lunatics.My money goes on option 2. I mean we sane LGBs tried to drop the TQ from our ranks and were ostracized.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The gender radicals will continue on the same path.

But with Roe now out of the picture the Democrats and other NGOs will redirect their attention to abortion rights, as this specific topic will be way more political valuable (and less divisive) to rally around than pronoun wars and child transing.

If gay marriage gets repealed, then that's another topic that will give the liberals even more political capital and, consequently, votes in the next elections.

[–]MyLongestJourney 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But with Roe now out of the picture the Democrats and other NGOs will redirect their attention to abortion rights, as this specific topic will be way more political valuable (and less divisive) to rally around than pronoun wars and child transing.

But now they will be fighting for all pregnant people's rights! You just can't win man.Not even a heavy defeat at the elections will make them snap out of it. I mean look at UKs Labour party attitude : They have clear indications their devotion to the gender cult at the expense of women's rights to political representation,dignity,fairness and above all safety,cost them politically,but they still won't badge.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If LGB people in America act like adults in response to this ruling, then they can minimise the chances of Lawrence and Obergefell being overturned. In the mean time, at the very least, priority should be given by gay rights activists to getting unenforceable state level sodomy repeals legislatively repealed in every state where they are still on the books. Be proactive and don’t mess this up. You might lose the right to marry in some US states if Obergefell gets overturned, but prioritise removing the sodomy laws at a state level. Then move onto removing state laws and state constitutional bans against gay marriage.

I will point out that abortion remains a controversial issue in America today. Whereas gay marriage is becoming less controversial, and many opponents of it realise that there are bigger issues at stake than gay marriage, which is not an issue. So gay marriage has less of a chance of being devolved to the states once again. But hey, hope for the best, prepare for the worst, as my dad often tells me. Get the sodomy laws repealed, get laws passed at a state level offering rights and protections to unmarried couples so that marriage isn’t as needed, then get the gay marriage bans repealed on state at a time. In 2020, the state of Nevada removed the gay marriage ban from their constitution. More states can follow.

Another advice I have for gay Americans is to try to work with the Republicans. Yes, a slight majority of Republicans still oppose gay marriage, and a large proportion of those who do support it still feel that states should have the final say on the issue. But if you build up good will with Republican voters, politicians and pundits, you can minimise backlash and even ensure that gay marriage stays legal in all US states, even if Obergefell gets overturned. Oppose drag queens in front of children, oppose sex education for primary and middle schools, oppose sex changes for minors, oppose efforts to force bakeries to cater to gay weddings, and oppose pronoun laws. There you have it. Why I suggest doing that? Because Republicans can still win the midterms, or even the White House in 2024. Again, abortion is still a divided topic in America. Furthermore, there are other issues. Fuel costs, food shortages, baby formulae shortages, transgender children, drag queen story houses and Covid overreach are pushing moderate and undecided voters into the arms of Republicans. On top of that, the population of Hispanics in America are growing, and most of them oppose abortion. A growing number of them are backing Republicans.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

priority should be given by gay rights activists to getting unenforceable state level sodomy repeals legislatively repealed in every state where they are still on the books.

imagine if we had been fighting to get these laws removed, instead of pronouns and bathroom bills.

As for republicans, the Texas GOP just put "gays are abnormal" into their new platform. I think they are more indifferent to gay marriage and would nt care if it went away. I doubt they will be much help.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The Texas GOP are pathetic. They always pick the wrong hill to die on. They did nothing about the case in Dallas about the woman forcing her stepson to be trans. The case arose in 2019, and the GOP, who controlled the state legislature, did not pass any legislation to protect children from being transed until this year. Weak and pathetic. I guess the GOP in Texas are trying to pander to old boomer conservatives, who are a dying generation and are starting to wake up to what has become of the country their grandchildren are inheriting. The party makes no effort to appeal to zoomers and millennials who are conservative, because those conservatives are concerned about transgenderism and foreign aid.

[–]JulienMayfair 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

A few points: There is no real political will in the US to overturn Lawrence except on behalf of lawmakers in a few very conservative states, so the SCOTUS justices will have to consider how willing they are to rule against public opinion on that issue. Then, there is the 71% approval rating for gay marriage, so overturning that would also go largely against public opinion. To anticipate the response of, "but they also went against public opinion in overturning Roe," yes, they did, but there is also passionate opposition to abortion among conservatives. Even if they don't like gay sex or gay marriage, it's not "killing babies," which is how conservative parents of a gay friend of mine talk about it. I don't see a passionate movement to make gay sex illegal again.

Then there is the question of how the three judges appointed by Trump would rule on LGB issues. They were hand-picked to vote against abortion, but do they care enough about LGB issues to further antagonize the American public and make themselves look out of touch? Thomas and Alito would, but I'm not sure about the others. And reversing a decision like Obergefell that's just 7 years old makes the court look more brazenly political and unprincipled than they like to try to appear.

I see the anti-Roe decision in and of itself as raising the alarm about conservative overreach, so there will be a backlash (already underway) against this decision that will probably include renewed support for defending Lawrence and Obergefell. And the more this decision is shown to affect the lives of real women, the more anger there will be. What if states start prosecuting women for obtaining abortions in other states? That will look like government tyranny. No one likes the idea that the government can interfere in your private life.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They didn't overturn roe because of public sentiment, it seems Thomas was "cleaning house" on bad decisions starting with roe. He knew he had enough votes this time. we are going to have to fight again to protect the right not to be arrested for sex, only this time instead of adults as spokespeople we have blue haired sjw's.

[–]PatsyStoneMaverique 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Obergefell is doomed. Accept it and start preparing. Live by court cases, die by court cases.

I thought at the time that the majority opinion was intentionally poorly written in order to make it easily overturned - so Dems could campaign on it forever like they did with Roe V. Wade.

[–]TransspeciesUnicornI sexually identify as a mythical sparkly equine 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

From what I've seen on Tumblr so far, I wouldn't hold your breath on the Dems actually waking up. Even in the face of Roe v Wade being overturned, the Tumblrinas are still talking about the rights of "people with uteruses" instead of, you know, women. Women in this country are so fucked. Worse is that Griswold v. Connecticut seems likes it's also quite possibly going to be next on the chopping block. Clarence Thomas has already brought up the possibility of revisiting Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

And maybe I'm going to sound all "conspiracy theorist" right now but I don't really care. I think a lot of the Dems wanted this. This wasn't just the Republican's doing, this was a joint effort. Trans issues have been incredibly divisive for the left. This just seems like a classic case of "divide and conquer" to me. The left has been using the trans shit to divide and weaken feminism/liberalism with the libfems vs radfems/ gender critical fems and classic liberals vs woke liberals, while the right has been loading the Supreme Court. Seems like a two-pronged attack to me. The right loads the Supreme Court while the left makes it difficult for left-wing women to organize if they aren't inclusive of males in drag.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Clarence Thomas has already brought up the possibility of revisiting Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

Yup, I saw that. Was talking about it with NBF in this thread.

The left has been using the trans shit to divide and weaken feminism/liberalism with the libfems vs radfems/ gender critical fems and classic liberals vs woke liberals, while the right has been loading the Supreme Court. Seems like a two-pronged attack to me. The right loads the Supreme Court while the left makes it difficult for left-wing women to organize if they aren't inclusive of males in drag.

That's an interesting theory... I mean, I'm not convinced that this was consciously done. But it does seem clear that a lot of transwomen really believe in conservative, authoritarian ideologies at heart; on their own subreddits, they regularly talk about how many of them used to be "ex-Nazis," even. Having those people be put in positions of power within the Democratic party puts a massive damper on liberal discussion.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This wasn't just the Republican's doing, this was a joint effort.

You're into something here: if abortion and gay rights are pushed back, then the Democrats can use such subjects as electorial leverage.

"If you don't vote for us, then you'll lose your right to marry/have an abortion"

...or something like that.

[–]hufflepuff-poet 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Jokes on them, I still won't vote for Dems. I just won't vote or will spoil my ballot, I refuse to support a party who only pretends to support me and actively supports predators who want to harm me and my community. Dems continue to use our struggles as a leash keeping us chained to them as they drag us further out to sea. LGB shouldn't drown with the TQ+ and their Dem allies, they've stolen our ship, let them drown alone.

Politically homeless lesbian :( Can we start a women and LGB rights political party?

[–]MyLongestJourney 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And maybe I'm going to sound all "conspiracy theorist" right now but I don't really care. I think a lot of the Dems wanted this. This wasn't just the Republican's doing, this was a joint effort. Trans issues have been incredibly divisive for the left. This just seems like a classic case of "divide and conquer" to me. The left has been using the trans shit to divide and weaken feminism/liberalism with the libfems vs radfems/ gender critical fems and classic liberals vs woke liberals, while the right has been loading the Supreme Court. Seems like a two-pronged attack to me. The right loads the Supreme Court while the left makes it difficult for left-wing women to organize if they aren't inclusive of males in drag.

"Why look for conspiracy when stupidity can explain so much”

― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I think it's going to make some on the left do a double-take. But probably they'll jam their heads even farther up their asses to avoid the cognitive dissonance.

I don't know. It depends on how many GC people decide to speak more openly.

Now is a great time for more sport organizations to become rational and science-based. That's an easy unfairness to demonstrate. It might open some eyes.

Meanwhile all my women friends who hand over our rights to TRAs are sounding the "women's rights under attack" alarm and I can't even. But I'm not saying so at the moment.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Meanwhile all my women friends who hand over our rights to TRAs are sounding the "women's rights under attack" alarm and I can't even. But I'm not saying so at the moment.

I. know. Drives me absolutely crazy.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

In better news one of my unwitting TRA women friends made some very feminist swag of the female symbol and a uterus, neither of which applies to anyone who isn't female. I wonder how much hate mail she'll get from TRAs for that or if anyone will even notice. Seems pretty clear that by making that stuff she can still tell what a woman is. So the TRA angle is probably based on ignorance.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

See, when I see something like that I feel both incredibly annoyed and relieved, lol. Like I'm glad that those people still care about female people, apparently, but I wish they had enough critical thinking skills to recognize that their own beliefs are conflicting!

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This one is pretty smart and no-nonsense. I think she just doesn't know what is going on yet and that a distinction must be made between the just-trying-to-live-their-lives trans people we are used to supporting and the nutjobs who have taken over and turned the whole place into their asylum at everyone else's expense.

So I have some hope, there.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

on a side note all the gay bro subs are freaking out, making plans to move, grabbing torches to head for the streets etc lol

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

gay bro subs

Actual gay bro subs or the Aiden hugboxes?

[–]CancelPowerSuper Bi Male 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

My thoughts are that I don't care if you want to oppose transgenders, I don't care if you hate transgenderism, if you are a gay republican, you are a giant idiot. That's it, you're just the biggest idiot. That party would never love us and they would try to take away our rights all at once whenever they get the chance, this is what I have been saying here for weeks and it seems that it finally happened.

Liberals are not perfect but they are better than right-wing nutjobs.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Liberals are not perfect but they are better than right-wing nutjobs.

I don't think they're better for LGB people; the Democrats are trying to chemically castrate loads of LGB children.

That said, LGB issues aside, I support far more left policies than right, so I get what you mean.

[–]MyLongestJourney 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

if you are a gay republican, you are a giant idiot

Democrats have been taken over by queer critical theory ideologists,who want to force lesbians to suck dick ,so Democrats are not exactly a better option.

[–]hufflepuff-poet 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Clarence Thomas opens the door wide open for cases to br brought to SCOTUS that could strip our right to be married AND criminalize same-sex intimacy.

His ruling:

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents including Griswold Lawrence and Obergfell because any substantive due process decision is demonstrably erroneous... we have a duty to "correct the error" established in those precedents.

Lawrence (2003?!?! Gay sex hasn't been legal for more than 20 years and look how far we've fallen...) is the case that established the right for consenting adults to engage in same-sex intimacy. Obergefell was a 2015 Supreme Court decision to establish the right for same-sex couples to be married.

If a group with standing brings either of these cases to the current SCOTUS, we are at risk of being forcibly shoved back in the closet. Clarence not only opens the door, he has set the table for how to dismantle these precedents for any group who comes before the Court.

I want to pretend this won't happen but I also wanted to do that w Roe and now reality is hitting me in the face hard. We only just got the right to marry less than a decade ago and it is already at risk :( I feel so hopeless rn, what are others doing to feel more optimistic about the future of LGB rights in the US??

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lawrence (2003?!?! Gay sex hasn't been legal for more than 20 years and look how far we've fallen...) is the case that established the right for consenting adults to engage in same-sex intimacy.

...Wow. I missed that piece. That's absolutely insane.

I don't think the general public would support that, though... I mean, I guess they don't need public approval to strike it down but that seems like going way over the line trespassing into individual freedoms.

I want to pretend this won't happen but I also wanted to do that w Roe and now reality is hitting me in the face hard. We only just got the right to marry less than a decade ago and it is already at risk :( I feel so hopeless rn, what are others doing to feel more optimistic about the future of LGB rights in the US??

Honestly... I've been watching a bunch of LGB-positive videos in the UK, lol. Which is not super helpful for feeling better about America's situation, but does make me feel better about a potential move to the UK if shit really hits the fan... like this video and also this lovely one. And LGB Alliance UK just won a grant to start a support hotline for LGB people! I keep forgetting to make a post about that.

I try to slowly educate my friends about LGB issues but it's hard and slow-going, and... it feels like drops in an ocean in terms of impact. I'm hopeful our sub may be able to move offsite and so I'm looking forward to channeling my energy into that if it happens, but-- again, that doesn't solve the situation with the US.

Not US-specific, but Billboard Chris is a straight male ally in Canada who brings awareness about child transitioning to the streets, literally, and he's awesome.

About the only bright spot in the US that I can think of is this court case ruling from April where they ruled that a professor couldn't be compelled to use the wrong pronouns for a trans student, and he won $400k from it. At least we've got freedom of speech, I guess... although that means little when people are insanely aggressive about doxxing and harassment... ugh, our country is so backwards. Sorry, I'm probably not helping, lol.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There are some states where I think a same-sex marriage law on its own could pass but now I worry that we will be extorted over the inclusion of far more controversial and ambiguating gender identity provisions.