08-10-2023, 02:50 PM
(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.
