Roe Vs Wade Overturned

[*Nately120*]

(08-10-2023, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think the appetite for overturning same sex marriage is far less then many believe.

I agree with most of what you're saying here, but I don't think it really matter what most people want.  Wouldn't blow my mind if gay marriage is sent "back to the states" like abortion has been and people have to fight to be allowed to even vote to have it restored.  Has any red state that has been given the chance to vote on abortion access voted to keep things the way the SC voted?  I'm not sure, but I don't think so and that there shows that there is a want and an ability to rule on things in a manner that doesn't want to give due regard to what people want.

Just my 2 cents.  I could be a bit off base on this.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-10-2023, 12:32 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I genuinely appreciate the optimism, but I just want to emphasize that the ruling that essentially legalized gay marriage nationwide is only 8 years old. And it was only a 5-4 decision.

The 4 dissenting judges were Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and Scalia. 3 of those justices are still on the Supreme Court today. And, since that ruling, the court has become more conservative, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg being replaced by Amy Coney Barrett, a Roman Catholic from a particularly...unusual sect, the "People of Praise" who are on record saying they'd expel any members of their church that have engaged in gay sex of any kind.

And Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion on the Roe V Wade overturn, said he'd like the SCOTUS to reconsider decisions on gay marriage and contraception. 

If it somehow reached the Supreme Court again in the near future, I could definitely see a 5-4 opinion banning gay marriage being a possibility. Hopefully, Gorsuch would not follow Scalia's ruling, but you never know. And the one conservative judge that ruled in favor of gay marriage legalization, Anthony Kennedy, has since been replaced by Kavanaugh. I'm not certain he'd maintain Kennedy's vote either. His record on LGBT rights isn't exactly sterling, dissenting on Bostock v Clayton County (in which it was determined gay and transgender were protected identities in the workplace), along with Alito and Thomas.
Thankfully, Gorsuch was on the majority side of that opinion.

You make sense here, I suppose it could go that way.  But for it to even happen a case on this issue would have to reach the court.  Maybe a case in which a person refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple?  As 6you say, Gorsuch is a likely no vote, and is Roberts.  I think it'd would end up 5-4 in favor again

Quote:Ultimately, I think you're right that there is, at the moment, no real appetite to go after gay marriage and contraception. The right wing has focused their full force on Transgender people for the last few years. But, if they are successful in that arena (as they were with abortion), where do you think they are likely to cast their next focus?

I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth, but I see legitimate concerns in the transgender battle.  I don't think it's analogous to same sex marriage at all.  I have zero tolerance for anyone who wants to prevent same sex marriage.  I absolutely understand some of the concerns people have with the current transgender movement.

Quote:Yea, it's kind of crazy how far we've come in a relatively short period of time. I am not saying racism is dead. It's clearly still out there. I'm just saying now there are social consequences for being outwardly racist, whereas in the 60s and earlier (and for several decades later for a lot of people), racism was basically the mainstream stance.

It is interesting, and you really didn't see any pushback of note.  It's why I generally think most people are good deep down and there isn't automatic opposition to social change.

(08-10-2023, 12:59 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I agree with most of what you're saying here, but I don't think it really matter what most people want.  Wouldn't blow my mind if gay marriage is sent "back to the states" like abortion has been and people have to fight to be allowed to even vote to have it restored.  Has any red state that has been given the chance to vote on abortion access voted to keep things the way the SC voted?  I'm not sure, but I don't think so and that there shows that there is a want and an ability to rule on things in a manner that doesn't want to give due regard to what people want.

Just my 2 cents.  I could be a bit off base on this.

Indeed, SCOTUS is not beholden to popular opinion, for both good an ill.

[*Nately120*]

(08-10-2023, 01:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You make sense here, I suppose it could go that way.  But for it to even happen a case on this issue would have to reach the court.  Maybe a case in which a person refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple?  As 6you say, Gorsuch is a likely no vote, and is Roberts.  I think it'd would end up 5-4 in favor again

Didn't that already happen?  If the SC had been aligned as it is now, I'd wager they'd have sent it "back to the states" and then tried to make sure the states have as hard a time voting against it as possible.

[CJD]

(08-10-2023, 01:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You make sense here, I suppose it could go that way.  But for it to even happen a case on this issue would have to reach the court.  Maybe a case in which a person refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple?  As 6you say, Gorsuch is a likely no vote, and is Roberts.  I think it'd would end up 5-4 in favor again

Thank you for reading what I wrote and evaluating it dispassionately. I appreciate the conversation. Maybe Roberts would vote in favor of gay rights if a second chance came around - he is generally seen as the moderating force of the SC - but it's important to remember that he did vote against gay marriage the first time in 2015. I could see him doing it again. I assume that's what you mean with "likely no vote," as yes vs no would depend on how the case was phrased (in this case, yes would be to ban gay marriage rather than yes, protect gay marriage?)

Quote:I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth, but I see legitimate concerns in the transgender battle.  I don't think it's analogous to same sex marriage at all.  I have zero tolerance for anyone who wants to prevent same sex marriage.  I absolutely understand some of the concerns people have with the current transgender movement.

In my post, I made no judgment or value statement on the transgender topic. At this point, you know my stances fairly well, but that is immaterial to the purpose of my post. I was just pointing out that it is the all-consuming topic and singular focus of conservative activists now that Roe v Wade is over. If the conservatives got a similar ruling as the RvW overturn for transgender rights (perhaps a nation wide ban on HRT? I'm not sure what that ruling would look like, specifically), they will have succeeded on their two most recent focuses. I don't think it's reasonable to think that conservative activists would just dust their hands, call it a job well done and disappear forever. They'd find something else to focus on. And, with trans rights and abortion rights effectively managed (in this hypothetical), I believe the most likely new target would revert back to gay marriage. They'd likely view it as "unfinished business" much like they viewed Roe V Wade.

And if gay marriage were reverted, who knows what they'd target next haha. 

[Mickeypoo]

(08-10-2023, 01:52 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Thank you for reading what I wrote and evaluating it dispassionately. I appreciate the conversation. Maybe Roberts would vote in favor of gay rights if a second chance came around - he is generally seen as the moderating force of the SC - but it's important to remember that he did vote against gay marriage the first time in 2015. I could see him doing it again. I assume that's what you mean with "likely no vote," as yes vs no would depend on how the case was phrased (in this case, yes would be to ban gay marriage rather than yes, protect gay marriage?)


In my post, I made no judgment or value statement on the transgender topic. At this point, you know my stances fairly well, but that is immaterial to the purpose of my post. I was just pointing out that it is the all-consuming topic and singular focus of conservative activists now that Roe v Wade is over. If the conservatives got a similar ruling as the RvW overturn for transgender rights (perhaps a nation wide ban on HRT? I'm not sure what that ruling would look like, specifically), they will have succeeded on their two most recent focuses. I don't think it's reasonable to think that conservative activists would just dust their hands, call it a job well done and disappear forever. They'd find something else to focus on. And, with trans rights and abortion rights effectively managed (in this hypothetical), I believe the most likely new target would revert back to gay marriage. They'd likely view it as "unfinished business" much like they viewed Roe V Wade.

And if gay marriage were reverted, who knows what they'd target next haha. 

What do you mean by "overturn trans rights"?  What is HRT?  What rights are you referring to?

The only real opposition I have heard of in regards to transgenderism is not allowing men to be in private areas meant for females and for men to not compete in female only sports.  Both seem perfectly reasonable.

[CJD]

(08-10-2023, 02:07 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: What do you mean by "overturn trans rights"?  What is HRT?  What rights are you referring to?

Hormone Replacement Therapy

[Mickeypoo]

(08-10-2023, 02:21 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Hormone Replacement Therapy

Ah, thanks.  Don't know why there would be a nationwide ban on HRT for adults.

[*Nately120*]

(08-10-2023, 02:42 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Ah, thanks.  Don't know why there would be a nationwide ban on HRT for adults.

Why not?  If it makes old conservatives uncomfortable to know it exists, it's currently on the table.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-10-2023, 01:52 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Thank you for reading what I wrote and evaluating it dispassionately. I appreciate the conversation. Maybe Roberts would vote in favor of gay rights if a second chance came around - he is generally seen as the moderating force of the SC - but it's important to remember that he did vote against gay marriage the first time in 2015. I could see him doing it again. I assume that's what you mean with "likely no vote," as yes vs no would depend on how the case was phrased (in this case, yes would be to ban gay marriage rather than yes, protect gay marriage?)

No problem, and allow me to extend the same to you as well.  It's easy to do when the person you're debating with does so in good faith and actually responds to what you actually stated.  As for Roberts, I actually think he'd be a vote in favor of same sex marriage now.  It's a much easier sell to maintain something already in place then to create it in the first place. 

Quote:In my post, I made no judgment or value statement on the transgender topic. At this point, you know my stances fairly well, but that is immaterial to the purpose of my post. I was just pointing out that it is the all-consuming topic and singular focus of conservative activists now that Roe v Wade is over. If the conservatives got a similar ruling as the RvW overturn for transgender rights (perhaps a nation wide ban on HRT? I'm not sure what that ruling would look like, specifically), they will have succeeded on their two most recent focuses. I don't think it's reasonable to think that conservative activists would just dust their hands, call it a job well done and disappear forever. They'd find something else to focus on. And, with trans rights and abortion rights effectively managed (in this hypothetical), I believe the most likely new target would revert back to gay marriage. They'd likely view it as "unfinished business" much like they viewed Roe V Wade.

And if gay marriage were reverted, who knows what they'd target next haha. 

Apologies, my statement was not meant to be accusatory.  I simply wanted to point out that opposition to same sex marriage is not on the same level as opposition to something like biological men in a woman's locker room.  While you argue in good faith, there are those who will make such comparisons simply to link a person's stance with something unpalatable.  In short, it was more addressed to the room than directly at you and I should have made that more clear.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-10-2023, 02:42 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Ah, thanks.  Don't know why there would be a nationwide ban on HRT for adults.

(08-10-2023, 02:48 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Why not?  If it makes old conservatives uncomfortable to know it exists, it's currently on the table.

This type of thing will happen when you have bad faith actors on both sides of the issue.  Of course no one should care what a consenting adult chooses to do.  But when you muddy the waters by introducing the same thing for minors you open the door for people to attack all of it.  It's like AOC's "green new deal".  She included a line that society should provide a living wage to those, "unable or unwilling to work".  The minute she put the unwilling part in she opened the whole proposal to attack.  She subsequently removed that language but the damage had already been done.  This is how you poison the well for a whole issue and the very reasonable demands of the transgender community have been tainted by some very unreasonable ones.  

[*Nately120*]

(08-10-2023, 02:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This type of thing will happen when you have bad faith actors on both sides of the issue.  Of course no one should care what a consenting adult chooses to do.  But when you muddy the waters by introducing the same thing for minors you open the door for people to attack all of it. 

You may be right, but let's be honest "I'm all about freedom, but this needs to be banned because it's hurting women/children!" has been strapped to everything from women voting, to letting Italians into the country, to gays and teachers being "groomers."  It's so open-ended.

I'm just saying that making an argument that HRT for adults hurts kids is almost certainly in the playbook.

Sometimes I feel like conservatives think everything hurts kids except corporal punishment, drunk driving, and guns.  Hyperbole alert there. . I need to disconnect.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-10-2023, 03:17 PM)Nately120 Wrote: You may be right, but let's be honest "I'm all about freedom, but this needs to be banned because it's hurting women/children!" has been strapped to everything from women voting, to letting Italians into the country, to gays and teachers being "groomers."  It's so open-ended.

I'm just saying that making an argument that HRT for adults hurts kids is almost certainly in the playbook.

Sometimes I feel like conservatives think everything hurts kids except corporal punishment, drunk driving, and guns.  Hyperbole alert there. . I need to disconnect.

You're not wrong.  Honestly whenever I hear "we need to protect the children" as an argument for something my bullshit detector goes off.  But that doesn't mean it's always a wrong or a disingenuous tactic.  There are some very real concerns about this and the consequences, even for puberty blockers can be lifelong.  So, yeah, you're actually making my same argument about poisoning the well, just in the reverse direction.  If you cry wolf a bunch of times it won't make you wrong when one is actually there, but it does ensure that many people won't believe you this time.

[*Nately120*]

(08-10-2023, 03:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're not wrong.  Honestly whenever I hear "we need to protect the children" as an argument for something my bullshit detector goes off.  But that doesn't mean it's always a wrong or a disingenuous tactic.  There are some very real concerns about this and the consequences, even for puberty blockers can be lifelong.  So, yeah, you're actually making my same argument about poisoning the well, just in the reverse direction.  If you cry wolf a bunch of times it won't make you wrong when one is actually there, but it does ensure that many people won't believe you this time.

Maybe...I think my issue with politics now is how many people who simply say "I know you are crying wolf, but I don't care."  We seem extra into the idea of just admitting we are being fed nonsense, but we want to hear it so badly we admit we don't believe it but we still support the notion.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-10-2023, 03:57 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Maybe...I think my issue with politics now is how many people who simply say "I know you are crying wolf, but I don't care."  We seem extra into the idea of just admitting we are being fed nonsense, but we want to hear it so badly we admit we don't believe it but we still support the notion.

I wish I could argue against this, but I can't.

[*Nately120*]

(08-10-2023, 04:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wish I could argue against this, but I can't.

Ehh, it's not so bad if you make the most of the lowered bar.  Remember, in the kingdom of the toothless, the one-toothed guy gets all the beef jerky, or something. 

[*michaelsean*]

(08-09-2023, 12:58 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Wife and I typically vote Republican, but we both voted no on issue 1.  It just seemed like a very pointed and short sighted proposition that also requested voters to give up rights to introduce initiatives to the ballot by way of petition.  So, there you have it from a conservative, we didn't like that attempt at a huge power grab, even by our own party.

Yeah they were pretending to fix something that wasn't broken.  i don't remember a whole lot of crazy amendments to the Constitution going through lately.  

[SunsetBengal]

(08-10-2023, 04:58 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah they were pretending to fix something that wasn't broken.  i don't remember a whole lot of crazy amendments to the Constitution going through lately.  

Yeah, I just get big warning signals going off in my head when either party asks citizens to give up power or rights in the name of "protecting themselves" from "insert outrage trigger of the week" threatening to forever make their lives miserable.  The power of the people to both approve amendments to the State Constitution by majority vote, and to put amendment proposals on the ballot via grass roots is the way the founders intended it to be.  As it stands now, if something does get voted in that people ultimately don't agree with, at least they can get it back on the ballot to undo it.  Had issue 1 passed, life would have gotten much tougher as only those State Legislators would have the power to decide what even goes on the ballot.  In other words, a massive power grab. 

[BigPapaKain]

(08-09-2023, 12:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not exactly shocking that elected officials don't always represent the preferences of the majority of their constituents.  It is interesting that red states such as Kansas and Ohio (yes, Ohio is a red state now, not a purple one) have delivered similar results on the abortion issue.  Unfortunately, being opposed to abortion is still going to be a litmus test for GOP presidential candidates, as I don't think opposition to it is a majority opinion in this nation.

Eh we're only Red instead of Purple due to illegally gerrymandered electoral maps.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-10-2023, 05:24 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Eh we're only Red instead of Purple due to illegally gerrymandered electoral maps.

Trump won Ohio by over eight percentage points in 2020.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/results/state/ohio/president

Seems rather red to me.

[BigPapaKain]

(08-10-2023, 05:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Trump won Ohio by over eight percentage points in 2020.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/results/state/ohio/president

Seems rather red to me.

Oh nationally we're red. But since the topic at hand was a state issue, I was talking about our state legislature being illegally red.

My mistake for not being more direct in my comment.