How will LGBT Bore deal with living in Trump's America?

[Himu]

Because we are fucked.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/these-are-the-lgbt-rights-trump-could-start-reversing-on-day?

And not in a good way.

[Tasty]

As possibly the only Bore member living in the first state to legalize marriage equality:

Fight.

Never stop fighting.

Never stand aside when you see injustice.

Be loud. Be visible. Call elected officials. Campaign. Protest.

That is how. There is no other way.

Stonewall was 1969.

Lawrence v. Texas was 2003.

Obergefell v. Hodges was only year ago.

We will move forward. History bends towards justice. We can be slowed, but never stopped.

[Himu]

> "Unfounded"

> Pence

 

[Tasty]

I suppose it depends on how well you can manage or get rid of unfounded anxieties like these.

If you can't, you won't deal well.

Hey, instead of being an incredible douchebag for a second, maybe think twice and not post.

Marriage equality isn't going away but trans rights are set to suffer a huge setback right when they were poised to enter the mainstream. Pence supports conversion therapy. The atmosphere Trump emboldens will only be homophobic despite whatever he actually does.

Get fucked.

[Himu]

As possibly the only Bore member living in the first state to legalize marriage equality:

Fight.

Never stop fighting.

Never stand aside when you see injustice.

Be loud. Be visible. Call elected officials. Campaign. Protest.

That is how. There is no other way.

Stonewall was 1969.

Lawrence v. Texas was 2003.

Obergefell v. Hodges was only year ago.

We will move forward. History bends towards justice. We can be slowed, but never stopped.

What if federal laws start to contradict state laws? I'm sure Federal won't recognize the state as legitimate even though it's from the party of "small guvment"

[Tasty]

As possibly the only Bore member living in the first state to legalize marriage equality:

Fight.

Never stop fighting.

Never stand aside when you see injustice.

Be loud. Be visible. Call elected officials. Campaign. Protest.

That is how. There is no other way.

Stonewall was 1969.

Lawrence v. Texas was 2003.

Obergefell v. Hodges was only year ago.

We will move forward. History bends towards justice. We can be slowed, but never stopped.

What if federal laws start to contradict state laws? I'm sure Federal won't recognize the state as legitimate even though it's from the party of "big givment"

Depends on the law. If it actually springs up in congress and starts making its way through, that's when to protest and start the calls. We have to be vigilant. It's not enough to check a box every few years.

[zomgee]

notgonnatakethebait notgonnatakethebait notgonnatakethebai

FINE.

Unfounded? What do you mean unfounded? I think the Buzzfeed article is a little overreaching, but the mere fact he has Pence as VP should probably show there is definite concern for the potential of rollback of protections. I've resigned myself to a wait and see on his policies but who (granted the media is reporting) he is gathering for positions as advisers does not fill me with a lot of hope.

I feel like LGBT people have a right to be concerned.

[Himu]

T rights by state

http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/non_discrimination_laws

[benjipwns]

Of those in the article, I think the most likely is simply the inaction factor, like mentioned not appealing the transgender ruling and not pushing as hard in other court cases. That was how the W. Bush Administration did a lot of things more than being intensely pro-active in opposition. (This also worked out in favor of states introducing medical marijuana.) Not to say they weren't, just that overall, inaction and status quo got more play.

The least likely reversal I think is probably the military if only because the military itself was quietly pushing for that and I doubt they'd want to switch back after finally getting a policy in place.

Some of this will be difficult, even with a hardliner like Pence, simply because as mentioned businesses and such won't be happy. And I think if Trump splits differences it will be in that direction. And if we take Trump at his word (wait, stop laughing...come back!) his priorities would indicate that if Pence brings him a huge stack of socially conservative stuff to deal with, he'll let it sit until he needs to do something for support. (Much like Rick Snyder tried to do.)

I guess I'm just being hopeful that the Trump that suddenly became anti-gay marriage and pro-"religious rights" suddenly when he started considering running for President was a persona and that the Trump that was pro-gay rights for the prior ten years is more like the real thing. (I mean, who switches in that direction? Especially a guy who was a desperate celebrity elite hobnobber like Trump until two years ago?)

[Himu]

As possibly the only Bore member living in the first state to legalize marriage equality:

Fight.

Never stop fighting.

Never stand aside when you see injustice.

Be loud. Be visible. Call elected officials. Campaign. Protest.

That is how. There is no other way.

Stonewall was 1969.

Lawrence v. Texas was 2003.

Obergefell v. Hodges was only year ago.

We will move forward. History bends towards justice. We can be slowed, but never stopped.

What if federal laws start to contradict state laws? I'm sure Federal won't recognize the state as legitimate even though it's from the party of "big givment"

Depends on the law. If it actually springs up in congress and starts making its way through, that's when to protest and start the calls. We have to be vigilant. It's not enough to check a box every few years.

I hear you on that. Protest will be my main form of getting the word out. But in the mean time? Gotta prepare lol

[Tasty]

Hey, instead of being an incredible douchebag for a second, maybe think twice and not post.

I'm sorry, I wouldn't want to interfere in your monopoly on douchebaggery.

Marriage equality isn't going away but trans rights are set to suffer a huge setback right when they were poised to enter the mainstream.

I mean ideally one day Obergefell v. Hodges would be overturned for the ridiculous unconstitutional garbage it is but that's not exactly likely anytime soon.

Pegged you for a homophobe but thanks for being so blatant about it. Your cartoonish level of evil is approaching the Crusher from the Brave Little Toaster.

Cue "I have lots of gay friends and I'm really only a Repub cause small gubmint" spiel.

[zomgee]

I mean ideally one day Obergefell v. Hodges would be overturned for the ridiculous unconstitutional garbage it is but that's not exactly likely anytime soon.

Trump is not the goddamn bogeyman and people are being ridiculous.

Do you feel Obergefell v. Hodges is an infringement on someone else's rights, or it should be left to the states or something? I'm not getting the unconstitutionality I guess.

Of those in the article, I think the most likely is simply the inaction factor, like mentioned not appealing the transgender ruling and not pushing as hard in other court cases.

I hope for a lot of that inaction myself but he was at least partially elected on the strength of his rhetoric to people who felt they were underrepresented. They're going to expect action, I think.

[Tasty]

JayDubya what are your thoughts on DOMA.

[benjipwns]

Also, in some cases, a Trump administration not getting involved in cases might work out better for transgender rights in terms of lots of state level action that will eventually culminate nationally. That's what happened to gay marriage. The Obama administration wasn't exactly out there getting engaged in those cases, leaving it to the interest groups to make better and more targeted cases to win incrementally. (Which was RBG's approach to women's rights/protections in the 1970s.)

[Himu]

I need to get a passport. They are going to fuck trans rights and I might not be able to get passport in a Trump's America lol

I'm lol-ing but I'm terrified lol

[zomgee]

Do you feel Obergefell v. Hodges is an infringement on someone else's rights, or it should be left to the states or something? I'm not getting the unconstitutionality I guess.

Zero rational or textual basis for the notion that getting married is an enumerated constitutional right ala speech, press, assembly, ownership and use of guns, a trial by jury, etc.

In the absence of text, 10th amendment, always.

I promise I'm not playing devil's advocate here because my political swimming pool is on the shallow end, but you're speaking of *all* marriage then? So you'd rather there wasn't any talk of specific marriage protections at all?

I've always had an issue wrapping my head around how fundamental rights are to be relegated to the states, but I think the difference is in what you see as a fundamental right versus what others do. To you, is ANY marriage a fundamental right?

And why should it be a state determination of an individual's right to something that has a federal legal basis (federal taxes, for example)? Would you abolish the federal distinction of "Married filing jointly" as a filing status?

Again, I'm not too deep on this stuff, sorry.

[benjipwns]

I hope for a lot of that inaction myself but he was at least partially elected on the strength of his rhetoric to people who felt they were underrepresented. They're going to expect action, I think.

That's always the case. And inaction generally wins, our institutions are built to encourage it. Look at Obama's rhetoric and plans in 2008 and what he little he truly got done right off the bat even with a favorable Congress. It was the GOP wins that made him turn to carrying out executive actions like these mentioned in the article, look at how many mentioned date to 2014 and forward.

Maybe I'm just trying to be optimistic. I was probably preparing myself to be in case Hillary won and haven't abandoned it.

[benjipwns]

Zero rational or textual basis for the notion that getting married is an enumerated constitutional right ala speech, press, assembly, ownership and use of guns, a trial by jury, etc.

In the absence of text, 10th amendment, always.

Or the Ninth:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Tasty]

Predicting a JayDubya post espousing the virtues of "civil unions" despite the historic social and federal benefits attached to the term "marriage."

[zomgee]

Do you feel Obergefell v. Hodges is an infringement on someone else's rights, or it should be left to the states or something? I'm not getting the unconstitutionality I guess.

Zero rational or textual basis for the notion that getting married is an enumerated constitutional right ala speech, press, assembly, ownership and use of guns, a trial by jury, etc.

In the absence of text, 10th amendment, always.

I promise I'm not playing devil's advocate here because my political swimming pool is on the shallow end, but you're speaking of *all* marriage then? So you'd rather there wasn't any talk of specific marriage protections at all?

I'd rather if people badly want there to be an enumerated constitutional right to marriage that they do what they were supposed to do and support an amendment naming it as such, rather than the Supreme Court just making up new shit from nothing.

Ok, so a constitutional amendment defining marriage as equal to all would be ok then? I mean if it got that far. Because it sounds like you're wanting all marriage rights (on a federal level) to be abolished unless clearly defined. But there are rights (or obligations or at least definitions) given to people on a federal level.

[Himu]

Jaydubya didn't vote for Trump but sure likes defending future administration and current staff! Sad!

[zomgee]

Ok, so a constitutional amendment defining marriage as equal to all would be ok then?

It'd be fine by me, I suppose.  Broadly, a better amendment might be to defend freedom of contract in general, as that is what marriage ultimately is.

Gotcha, ok. Just trying to understand better.

I mean I also know there are a pile of people who oppose any further amendments to the constitution and it doesn't sound like you're one of them. I think there's plenty of potential to refine the constitution in this way.

[benjipwns]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

9+10+14 = states cannot violate equal protection and deny the right to contract a marriage. The fact that the states require licensing to make it "legal" doesn't mean they can discriminate arbitrarily in the process. Especially when the state is establishing benefits and privileges upon that additional arbitrary standard.

States that disagree are certainly free to abolish their licensing and approval of marriages!

"Non-enumerated" rights have the same protection as those that just happened to be enumerated. Enumeration only limits the powers of the federal government, not the rights of the people.

[Tasty]

benji schooling JayDubya on politics

[benjipwns]

I think we actually had this argument before in the politics thread over another topic.

Jay's got a more conservative view (in the non-political sense of the word) of the Constitution, while mine is broader and more liberal (in the non-political sense of the word) that leans heavily on the X+9+10+14 equation. We aren't unique in this regard among the libertarian family!

The Paul's are way way more in line with Jay, for example.

[zomgee]

I think we actually had this argument before in the politics thread over another topic.

Jay's got a more conservative view (in the non-political sense of the word) of the Constitution, while mine is broader and more liberal (in the non-political sense of the word) that leans heavily on the X+9+10+14 equation. We aren't unique in this regard among the libertarian family!

The Paul's are way way more in line with Jay, for example.

Got it but it seems like the reading of the 10th and the 14th are enough, right? Unless you're drawing specifically on the enumerated rights from the 9th.

The 14th really lays down the whole groundwork:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

- States can't pass a law banning gay marriage no matter what a state wills which trumps states rights defined in Amendment 10 in this case

 nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

- Whatever

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

- LGBT rights and protections, and equality to everyone in recognition of those protections

So how could there be any rollback of protections which seem to me to be defined in 14?

spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'm not good at this

[close]

[benjipwns]

Right, but the out there is Jay's argument, the privileges of citizens aren't being abridged because the right to a marriage isn't one, it's not enumerated. Reading in the Ninth basically makes that impossible. Unless somehow State powers override individual rights. But then we're back to incorporation of the 14th.

And on that note, the people in these various states impacted by the incorporation of this new "right" clearly did not want their states to make this change, as evidenced by various amendments to their respective state constitutions... until of course this new and magical "right" was found in the United States Constitution and California's state constitution somehow could not be allowed to contain such text, and then none could.

But it wasn't a new right. It was merely a right that was being violated by state discrimination.

[benjipwns]

But it wasn't a "right" yet and pretending that we'd somehow been violating the Constitution, which says nothing about the topic, for 140 years by only allowing dudes and chicks to sign this contract which had traditionally always been between dudes and chicks is absurd on its face.

Of course it was a right. Just like interracial marriage was a right. Just like sodomy was a right. Just like not being enslaved was a right. The state just had no interest in protecting those rights until it did. And same thing has been true of the Court.

The Second Amendment, despite its plain language had never been incorporated against the states until the Roberts Court. And that's an enumerated one! Speaking of enumerated ones, the founding generation, in just the 5th Congress(!), openly violated the First Amendment. Wilson/Congress did it again and the Court upheld it! Incorporation of it took forever too.

You can't fall back on some claim of tradition as superseding individual rights in such a way that it grants State power to violate those rights.

The federal government should and does have a duty to protect individual rights from State violations of them. The fact that it does this imperfectly doesn't obligate it to ignore this duty in favor of granting the States absolute power to violate rights.

[recursivelyenumerable]

Wow you're really impressing me, I can't even get the constitution to build in debug mode on my machine

[curly]

There is something autistic in the Originalist willingness to sacrifice people's well being in the present day to maintain fidelity to the most literal definition of a text written to preserve the power of a slaveholder elite over 200 years ago, and I mean that as nonpejoratively as possible.

[Rufus]

It's what he does. I don't get it either, and for a while I thought it was a bit, but it's not.

[Steve Contra]

Wow guys, you're arguing with JayDubya in 2016.

[I'm a Puppy!]

But I thought LGBT rights exist because they do?

[Let's Cyber]

Trump can do a lot of damage if he follows through.  I guess one could take some solace in the fact we saw pushback in North Carolina by both the NBA and NCAA. 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36863216
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/12/sport/ncaa-pulls-championships-north-carolina-lgbtq/

That's obviously just at the local level in one state, but you would not have seen that kind of rejection by either institution even 15 years ago.  It does show that our culture has slowly shifted on LGBTQ rights for the better, thanks in part to Obama.  Trump can strip some of those protections instituted in the last 8 years but he won't totally flip the culture in just one term.  As small of a reassurance as it is, there will be blowback in some form. 

[CatsCatsCats]

Listen I'm not saying it's his fault but Tasty is the only member who sucked off a Trump voter

[chronovore]

Listen I'm not saying it's his fault but Tasty is the only member who sucked off a Trump voter

[Tasty]

Listen I'm not saying it's his fault but Tasty is the only member who sucked off a Trump voter