They've started to put gay marriage in the crosshairs. A New York Times op-ed casually mentioning gay marriage as a mistake. The "child marriage" bill in Tennessee establishing common law marriage as "between a man and a woman". It seems like some momentum is building there.
I really appreciate the effortpost comrade, and it's awesome to have lawyers on here. I think the analysis on roe is spot on.
However, I disagree slightly about the likehood of the effect on other precedents. I think Obergefell is much more threatened. While I don't dispute any of your legal analysis (not as a matter of deference--I just genuinely think you were spot on), there are current members of the court who have never concurred with it and the court has shown very, very little deference to precedent the past 10 years.
I don't think Lawrence is ever getting overturned. Even if there is theoretical legal grounds for doing so, there is virtually no political will to do so, and as we all know the judiciary is a political body in practice. Allowing legislation about private sex acts, generally, wouldn't be targeted enough--the Supreme Court will only risk trampling on the rights of minorities, like poor women, or LGBT people. Overtuning Roe was 40 years and 100s of billions of dollars in the making. There just isn't the same kind of momentum for sodomy laws. I'd also have a harder time seeing a challenge make it all the way to the Supreme Court. Not only do I believe the court wouldn't bother to hear it, I'm not sure what small, rural county is going to pass a law, enforce it, enforce it on someone with the wherewithal to challenge it, and continue to press the challenge all the way to the Supreme Court.
Similarly, even if Obergefell goes, Loving is absolutely not going anywhere. No one is going to create the necessary conditions for a challenge in this day and age. Not even in the deep south.
That said, this is indeed a dark day, and I do think there will be some amount of domino effect, as you said. like with contraceptives.
yes, absolutely. agree that they were originally one of the ways that queerness was literally criminalized up until recently. the question for me is whether they could function in that same targeted way again in this day and age. like, in my head, it's one thing to keep an old law on the books and use it to discriminate, but I think it takes a lot more inertia to write a new law that, as written, would technically not be targeted.
My recollection is that it was effectively or explicitly illegal to be queer in the United States leading up to Stonewall (as well as in other countries, but outside the US is a whole other matter entirely). Do you know what legal frameworks more explicitly drove that? Am I misremembering/mistaken?
deleted by creator
Those who are sufficiently (and militantly) organized.
The elite, that is the system that america have right now, to maximize the interest of the elite
They've started to put gay marriage in the crosshairs. A New York Times op-ed casually mentioning gay marriage as a mistake. The "child marriage" bill in Tennessee establishing common law marriage as "between a man and a woman". It seems like some momentum is building there.
deleted by creator
The "ratchet effect".
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1521296185977417732?s=20&t=vL5pzIhx33p8Xl_ZT_lc7w about that
deleted by creator
I really appreciate the effortpost comrade, and it's awesome to have lawyers on here. I think the analysis on roe is spot on.
However, I disagree slightly about the likehood of the effect on other precedents. I think Obergefell is much more threatened. While I don't dispute any of your legal analysis (not as a matter of deference--I just genuinely think you were spot on), there are current members of the court who have never concurred with it and the court has shown very, very little deference to precedent the past 10 years.
I don't think Lawrence is ever getting overturned. Even if there is theoretical legal grounds for doing so, there is virtually no political will to do so, and as we all know the judiciary is a political body in practice. Allowing legislation about private sex acts, generally, wouldn't be targeted enough--the Supreme Court will only risk trampling on the rights of minorities, like poor women, or LGBT people. Overtuning Roe was 40 years and 100s of billions of dollars in the making. There just isn't the same kind of momentum for sodomy laws. I'd also have a harder time seeing a challenge make it all the way to the Supreme Court. Not only do I believe the court wouldn't bother to hear it, I'm not sure what small, rural county is going to pass a law, enforce it, enforce it on someone with the wherewithal to challenge it, and continue to press the challenge all the way to the Supreme Court.
Similarly, even if Obergefell goes, Loving is absolutely not going anywhere. No one is going to create the necessary conditions for a challenge in this day and age. Not even in the deep south.
That said, this is indeed a dark day, and I do think there will be some amount of domino effect, as you said. like with contraceptives.
deleted by creator
yes, absolutely. agree that they were originally one of the ways that queerness was literally criminalized up until recently. the question for me is whether they could function in that same targeted way again in this day and age. like, in my head, it's one thing to keep an old law on the books and use it to discriminate, but I think it takes a lot more inertia to write a new law that, as written, would technically not be targeted.
deleted by creator
ah, TIL!
My recollection is that it was effectively or explicitly illegal to be queer in the United States leading up to Stonewall (as well as in other countries, but outside the US is a whole other matter entirely). Do you know what legal frameworks more explicitly drove that? Am I misremembering/mistaken?
deleted by creator
If America exists to survive in then we haven't done our job