|
BigRed0427 posted:So basically Gay marriage now means loving nothing because the Texas Supreme Court are a bunch of ducking cowards. The Texas Supreme Court is not capable of overruling the supreme Court, not even in Texas, why would you think this?
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
Quorum posted:The Texas Supreme Court is not capable of overruling the supreme Court, not even in Texas, why would you think this? It still stands until SCOTUS clarifies their decision/whatever legal poo poo needs to happen to get the case to them
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Moatman posted:It still stands until SCOTUS clarifies their decision/whatever legal poo poo needs to happen to get the case to them Yeah...in texas. I think the broadness of Bigred's statement makes it sound as if they think it applies everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Yeah...in texas. I think the broadness of Bigred's statement makes it sound as if they think it applies everywhere. Yeah, but how long does it take to get things before the supreme court? What if we have another vacancy by then? Also, LBGT couples in Texas are screwed until this gets cleared up. Sorry, I've just been scared and angry all day because of this and other stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Even with another Trump appointee, SCOTUS probably isn't going to agree with the legal argument that saying "X are allowed to marry" doesn't mean that they're entitled to the benefits of marriage as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Yeah, but how long does it take to get things before the supreme court? What if we have another vacancy by then? Also, LBGT couples in Texas are screwed until this gets cleared up. I dont want to sound blasé about your concerns, for what its worth. I agree, for couples in Texas this is a really lovely situation that keeps happening due to America's insistance on states rights. But this routine is old hat, some conservative judge or politician passes a law he knows wont hold water because he wants to impress his constituents, and then gets slapped down by the federal government. Politician whines that mean ol' big government is crushing states rights, gets re-elected. Its theatre in political form. Whats so important is not to get into the "gently caress this, gently caress everyone" mentality because that kind of cynicism will eat away at you. This is a localized change affecting a single state, and theres a lot of really good people who will fight this, and definitely win.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Also the ruling is primarily about whether gay married couples should get benefits applied retroactively from before the Obergefell ruling, while not saying that they can't get them from whenever their gay marriage became legal in Texas. I'm not sure if there were ever similar applications of retroactive benefits for the last similar situation, when interracial marriage was legalized nationwide.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
Mind you, those rights and benefits should be retroactive in some respects, because the legal standing for preventing their application was specious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Just thought I'd point this out... https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2796/text It looks like it's mostly meant to invalidate a bunch of anti-discrimination laws, because they don't like the judicial precedents.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
Vulpes Vvardenfell posted:Just thought I'd point this out... Ah, so a national superseding law to hit that states they don't control.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
Glazier posted:Ah, so a national superseding law to hit that states they don't control. No. This proposed law effects only federal civil rights laws, like Title IX (Education) the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Accommodations), Fair Housing Act, etc. It does not (and constitutionally cannot) do anything to states that have legislatively or judicially broadened their civil rights protections. This bill is meant to permanently undo the changes the Obama Administration made in defining the word 'sex' as used in those statutes, particularly Title IX. The changes were temporarily undone when the administrations changed and Trump's DoJ disavowed the expanded definitions, so the actual impact of this bill is moot, at least for the next 3 1/2 years. This ensures that future executive departments can't just declare new definitions, and that any future changes in the definition will have to come from congress. This bill essentially says, "We, congress, made this law. We, congress, get to decide what definitions get used. We, congress, understand the executive branch has broadened our definitions. We, congress, declare that those broadened definitions were not what we, congress meant when we made those definitions. Here is a new, more extensive definition that clears up any ambiguity in that area." This is basic high school civics, so there's nothing hinky about it legally or procedurally, it's just a lovely thing to do. I'm not sure how this will effect the 7th Circuit's work on the gender sterotyping/gender nonconformity angle it's been developing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
joat mon posted:No. This proposed law effects only federal civil rights laws, like Title IX (Education) the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Accommodations), Fair Housing Act, etc. It does not (and constitutionally cannot) do anything to states that have legislatively or judicially broadened their civil rights protections. Thanks for the breakdown, really good info 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/owner-dallas-gay-leather-bar-enters-texas-governor-s-race-n784581
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/owner-dallas-gay-leather-bar-enters-texas-governor-s-race-n784581 Well I'm sold.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
gently caress this poo poo stain of a president! I am so pissed right now! http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/343847-trump-calls-for-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-military
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
There's gonna be another tweet roundup but it'll probably be around midday cause when stuff like this drops its literally impossible to keep track with the number of reactions and everybody hurriedly writing articles. Having said that this came completely out of the blue cause I don't recall ANYTHING on this leaking after Mattis put his foot down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
i personally can't bring myself to muster up much outrage over not being allowed to serve in america's military like "oh no i can't take part in a racist imperialist machine designed to promote american corporate interests, how dare." wake me up when he finally manages to repeal the healthcare law
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:There's gonna be another tweet roundup but it'll probably be around midday cause when stuff like this drops its literally impossible to keep track with the number of reactions and everybody hurriedly writing articles. Thanks, PPJ. You're doing the lord's work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:i personally can't bring myself to muster up much outrage over not being allowed to serve in america's military For many transpersons the military represents the only option to avoid homelessness and have a chance at a real life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:For many transpersons the military represents the only option to avoid homelessness and have a chance at a real life. that's more a condemnation of society than an exoneration of the military, though
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:i personally can't bring myself to muster up much outrage over not being allowed to serve in america's military Heard stats in other threads that something like 20% of trans folk serve in the military at some point. There are somewhere between 4-15k currently serving. Hearing conflicting information on the exact number. You don't have to like the military but Trump trying to destroy thousands of people's lives for an electoral wedge issue is monstrous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:i personally can't bring myself to muster up much outrage over not being allowed to serve in america's military the military is the single largest employer of trans people and you can be against militarism and imperialism and still realize that excluding trans people from the military is another step toward extermination and exclusion from society by denying them access to public institutions that are (even wrongly) associated with values and social responsibility don't by a myopic dick about this
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:i personally can't bring myself to muster up much outrage over not being allowed to serve in america's military I agree, and on the same line of reasoning, black people should be forbidden from working for Wall Street
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:that's more a condemnation of society than an exoneration of the military, though Same with allowing LGB people to serve openly. Yeah, it's a message that carries the undertone of "you can be an imperialist no matter what your sexuality" but that's still a step up from "we're proud to be a homophobic institution."
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:that's more a condemnation of society than an exoneration of the military, though While technically correct, I would point out that your argument is of little comfort to a homeless person. For better or worse the military represents one of the few paths many transpersons have out of heinously abusive families/communities. Losing that is a big deal. An even bigger deal though will the the validation of social stigmas that will result from this. We are now officially 2nd class citizens who cannot even serve our country in the armed forces. This will both be held against us (we are now moochers who are supported by the rest of society) as well as justification for violence (trannies are now weaklings who are unfit to serve). This is a very, very big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
I can't see this not going to SCOTUS. Does anyone know for sure what Gorsuch's views on the atypically sexual are?
Keeshhound fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Jul 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I can't see this not going to SCOTUS if implemented. Does anyone know for sure what Gorsuch's views on the atypically sexual are? What do you think?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:While technically correct, I would point out that your argument is of little comfort to a homeless person. For better or worse the military represents one of the few paths many transpersons have out of heinously abusive families/communities. Losing that is a big deal. Thanks, PJ, you've basically articulated my views on this matter and why even if you are the wokest, most Anti-Imperialist person ever to have Anti-Imperialisted, you should be upset about this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:While technically correct, I would point out that your argument is of little comfort to a homeless person. For better or worse the military represents one of the few paths many transpersons have out of heinously abusive families/communities. Losing that is a big deal. People made fun of me when I called for queer people to acquire and practice with firearms. "Oh you're just overreacting, they're not coming for you." I wish they had been correct.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:What do you think? That he's a hollowed out corporatist shill whose default response is going to be the astonishingly lazy "what does the law as written say?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Reene posted:the military is the single largest employer of trans people and you can be against militarism and imperialism and still realize that excluding trans people from the military is another step toward extermination and exclusion from society by denying them access to public institutions that are (even wrongly) associated with values and social responsibility for the employment thing; okay. i mean, how does that compare with the national average? are more trans people in the military than the average population? is the number active military only or does it include former military members? and honestly i'm not sure how i feel about "military as a job creator" when we're in the middle of an eternal war. kinda feels like we're throwing poor people in a meat grinder in the name of scraps and benefits the government consistently fails to properly distribute. also i'm not sure your second point is true. the military is actually a unique case, in that an executive order can clearly change who can or cannot be allowed to be employed. as far as other public institutions, judicial review and legislation are far more important than executive order, and the former's being tested by the current supreme court and justice department and the latter's been in the hands of republicans for years. it seems less "one step further" and more "a step a lot of people saw coming the second trump was elected and the order to allow trans people in the military was delayed six months." i don't know, this seems like not a great barometer for trans rights. i feel like the current healthcare debates might have more far reaching consequences for trans people than this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:That he's a hollowed out corporatist shill whose default response is going to be the astonishingly lazy "what does the law as written say?" This matters only in as much as the law as written has a conservative bias. Gorsuch is entirely willing to throw away that strategy to toe the GOP/right-wing line. Plus, he'll prolly just say "lol I don't see where in the Constitution it says that we CAN'T gently caress over trans people so eat it".
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:for the employment thing; okay. i mean, how does that compare with the national average? are more trans people in the military than the average population? is the number active military only or does it include former military members? Gay people serving in the military is frequently cited as a huge reason for the social transformation w/r/t gay rights. That path has now been squarely forbidden to transpeople and purposefully to avoid transpeople from acquiring the same social acceptance through service that gay people did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Glazier posted:People made fun of me when I called for queer people to acquire and practice with firearms. "Oh you're just overreacting, they're not coming for you." I wish they had been correct. Take your meds homie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JamilSmith/status/890217328855531520
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:While technically correct, I would point out that your argument is of little comfort to a homeless person. For better or worse the military represents one of the few paths many transpersons have out of heinously abusive families/communities. Losing that is a big deal. quote:An even bigger deal though will the the validation of social stigmas that will result from this. We are now officially 2nd class citizens who cannot even serve our country in the armed forces. This will both be held against us (we are now moochers who are supported by the rest of society) as well as justification for violence (trannies are now weaklings who are unfit to serve). This is a very, very big deal. i'm pretty sure the difficulty trans people as a class have at accessing most social services cements trans people's status as secondhand citizens, not the ability to serve in the military. and as for it being held against us, i think you're putting the cart before the horse. people aren't going to say "trans people can't serve in the military therefore x" they're gonna say "trans people SHOULDN'T serve in the military BECAUSE they're x" as for violence, the majority of violence that happens to trans people is against trans women of color as a result of street harassment and trans people in the military isn't going to hurt or help those statistics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Gay people serving in the military is frequently cited as a huge reason for the social transformation w/r/t gay rights. That path has now been squarely forbidden to transpeople and purposefully to avoid transpeople from acquiring the same social acceptance through service that gay people did. is it? by whom? i've heard will and grace cited as the source for the acceptance of gay rights but not the inclusion of gays in the military
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:is it? by whom? i've heard will and grace cited as the source for the acceptance of gay rights but not the inclusion of gays in the military Im actually not gonna disagree on that point but really im kinda shocked that this thread is going into "well maybe in this scenario, the military industrial complex is good?". I'm trans but admittedly privileged enough to not have gone into the military to survive. Im sympathetic to those views. But i agree with senjuu that maybe feeding the bodies of the poor queers is playing their game in a way I'm not comfortable with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Im actually not gonna disagree on that point but really im kinda shocked that this thread is going into "well maybe in this scenario, the military industrial complex is good?". I also welcome this system being forced to be less poo poo on LGBT issues while recognizing that it is still bad in other ways.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Im actually not gonna disagree on that point but really im kinda shocked that this thread is going into "well maybe in this scenario, the military industrial complex is good?". I don't want to join the army. Some people do and it's hosed up they can't because they are trans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:42
|
|