TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

LGBTQ+ Rights and America

Go To

Discussion of religion in the context of LGBTQ+ rights is only allowed in the LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion Thread.

Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBTQ+ rights..." threads.

Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.

Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:53:59 PM

Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#17226: Jan 14th 2015 at 6:36:10 AM

Urgh. What kind of message is that? "God is love... just don't show us any expressions of yours." tongue

And, could they have been more crass?

Morgikit Mikon :3 from War Drobe, Spare Oom Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: What's love got to do with it?
Mikon :3
#17227: Jan 14th 2015 at 6:47:39 AM

Normally I'd be against this, but a lawsuit needs to happen here. They backed out of a financial agreement at the last minute, but they also humiliated the deceased's family, putting them through much unneeded stress at this time of grief. Further proof you don't have to protest at somebody's funeral to be a bigot.

Gabrael from My musings Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
#17228: Jan 14th 2015 at 7:13:35 AM

  • We'll let you sit in our church.

  • We'll pray over you.

  • We'll help your family mourn you.

So long as you hide all proof that you were gay.

Assholes...

They had two daughters as well who deserved to be able to say a proper goodbye to their mother.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#17229: Jan 14th 2015 at 12:31:22 PM

Yeah that's pretty fucked up. If you're going to welcome gay people, welcome gay people.

edited 14th Jan '15 12:34:03 PM by Pykrete

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#17230: Jan 15th 2015 at 2:30:01 PM

A state senator from Kentucky wants to pass a bill that would force students to use school baths according to their biological sex, and give students 2,500 bucks (from the school) if they encounter a violation for the "trauma" they endure.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/01/15/3611920/kentucky-transgender-bathroom-ban/

He's also opposed anti-bullying laws because it dared to make sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes, so he's certainly consistent in being a prick at least.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#17232: Jan 16th 2015 at 1:13:53 PM

Ooh. It would be pretty staggering if they overturned all the decisions making it legal.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Morgikit Mikon :3 from War Drobe, Spare Oom Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: What's love got to do with it?
Mikon :3
#17233: Jan 16th 2015 at 1:14:23 PM

[up][up]Off topic, I know. But trying to access the above link on my phone led to a pop up that is apparently part of a phishing scam. Use caution.

edited 16th Jan '15 1:14:58 PM by Morgikit

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#17235: Jan 16th 2015 at 1:18:56 PM

[up][up][up]They'd need a pretty compelling reason to do that though. If there was something that could be used to overturn it entirely I'd imagine the opponents of SSM would have found it by now.

Keybreak (Long Runner)
#17236: Jan 16th 2015 at 1:20:38 PM

Took its time.

Are there only two options? Marriage everywhere or nowhere?

If it's nowhere, then would invalidate all of those marriages that have been allowed in the past decade (or longer) and bring them back down to civil unions or domestic partnerships? Or would nothing change and it would keep coming at a slow crawl.

You gotta believe me when I scare you away, all that I wish for is that you would stay
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#17237: Jan 16th 2015 at 1:21:53 PM

Technically a third option would be to leave it up to the states but that would just be a colossal waste of everyone's time.

Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#17238: Jan 16th 2015 at 1:23:50 PM

If they ruled on the "gay marriage nowhere" side, the reaction would be huge. Yes, the anti-gay-marriage people tend to be very loud, but there are a lot of people who are for gay marriage who don't really say much, and there's also the people who are basically indifferent, but would be furious about all the marriages being annulled.

If they ruled on the "gay marriage everywhere" side, there would be complaints from the anti people, but they'd fade away pretty quickly once they realized their complaints weren't doing anything. That's kind of how it happened in Canada.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#17239: Jan 16th 2015 at 1:25:02 PM

Their DOMA ruling gives a lot of hope to the pro-gay rights side.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#17240: Jan 16th 2015 at 1:27:17 PM

Even though the court isn't elected a ruling of no would probably get a lot of people pissed off at the Republicans since they're the ones pushing for this. They probably wouldn't want that.

Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#17241: Jan 16th 2015 at 1:33:34 PM

A ruling of no would simply allow the states who wanted to re-instate their bans to do so, meaning that the issue would have to be solved at the ballot box, which could take 50 years to get all 50 states on board

PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#17242: Jan 16th 2015 at 1:33:39 PM

I'm expecting it's going to go in favor, via cynicism. Roberts and Kennedy are probably thinking legacy, and know they need something to brunt history eviscerating them on Hobby Lobby/The Affordable Care Act/et al.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#17243: Jan 16th 2015 at 1:46:34 PM

[up] It's sad/funny how we aren't talking about them ruling on clear Constitutional principles.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#17244: Jan 16th 2015 at 2:08:56 PM

Are there only two options? Marriage everywhere or nowhere?

Barring half the court getting replaced by Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum in skinsuits of the Justices, "nowhere" isn't on the table. It's between everywhere or individual states' decision.

edited 16th Jan '15 2:09:13 PM by Pykrete

Morgikit Mikon :3 from War Drobe, Spare Oom Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: What's love got to do with it?
Mikon :3
#17245: Jan 16th 2015 at 2:09:36 PM

Taking a third option is out of the question. Letting the people decide just leads to discrimination in states with a bigoted majority (or an apathetic majority easily charmed by the bigoted). Equality couldn't be trusted to the whims of the majority in the 1960s, and it can't be trusted to them now.

Sixthhokage1 Since: Feb, 2013
#17246: Jan 16th 2015 at 2:12:48 PM

Because the way constitutional principles apply are very simple and clear. Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Add in the case law of Brown v. Board of Education ruling separate but equal to be inherently unequal…

Aqueos Nova here from Los Angeles Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Californicating
#17247: Jan 16th 2015 at 11:58:16 PM

I'd bet on an approval, they struck down DOMA after all. And yeah, the justices banning gay marriage period is out of the question, if they wanted to do that, they had a couple chances already. And justifying that with the constitution? Even I can't figure out what you'd use to do that.

[up]Eh, applying constitutional principles is hardly ever simple. The US bends the heck out of the constitution all the time. The commerce clause is used to regulate pretty much any material good. Sure, you can make a clear easy argument. But I'm sure someone with enough time and an agenda could come up with a workable counter-argument. The easiest argument is to just classify homosexual relationships as different from relationships in general, thereby dodging the whole equal protection business.

edited 17th Jan '15 5:17:06 PM by Aqueos

Bet you didn't see that coming
Aqueos Nova here from Los Angeles Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Californicating
#17249: Jan 18th 2015 at 8:24:27 PM

Oh bleh. Really Texas, do you have to be such a PITA?

If gay marriage is legalized by judicial power, that law has about the same chance of standing up as a wet piece of paper. If it isn't, it's unnecessary.

edited 18th Jan '15 8:25:52 PM by Aqueos

Bet you didn't see that coming
BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#17250: Jan 21st 2015 at 3:58:27 AM

In more heartwarming news, Trans kids who delay puberty turn out perfectly fine, despite shrieking from conservative groups.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Total posts: 21,560
Top