5 ms·

Do you think the "correct default" for deciding whether gay or interracial couples can get married is whether or not one is in a blue state?

by badRNG 4y ago

umvi 4y ago
People keep mentioning interracial marriage as being in danger by this SCOTUS, but is there any evidence anyone wants this? With abortion it is obvious a huge chunk of the population is against abortion as a practice. With LGBTQ rights it's obvious a huge chunk of the population is opposed to at least some of the rights in place or proposed (including gay marriage but also things like right for transgender women to compete with cis women in sports, etc). But with interracial marriage it's an extremely tiny fringe group opposed to it, as far as I can tell. Seems like the only point of bringing up interracial marriage is to fearmonger.
- badRNG 4y ago
  This isn't about fearmongering, it is about consistent application of the principle. If the legal principle of privacy and autonomy doesn't apply in Roe, then its reasonable to conclude that it doesn't apply for marriage equality either. The question is, is it reasonable that we should allow one's right to privacy and autonomy to only exist in some states? And if so, then this principle could apply to more than just abortion. Yes, reimplementing a ban on interracial marriage in any state seems completely unreasonable now, but so did banning abortion a decade ago. Things change. A senator just recently stated that anti-interracial marriage laws should not have been struck down by the courts [1] Interracial marriage is brought up for multiple reasons: - To demonstrate that the roll-back of constitutionally protected rights to individual privacy and autonomy have negative unintended consequences - To demonstrate that some who are opposed to constitutionally-protected privacy apply the principle inconsistently (usually contingent on whether it meshes with their personal/religious views) - To demonstrate that those who do support this rollback consistently are willing to let gay and interracial couples be collateral damage in the pursuit of their ideological goals [1] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/03/republican-sen-mike-braun-says-supreme-court-should-not-have-struck-down-state-laws-banning-interracial-marriage-then-backtracks-unconvincingly.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/03/republican-sen-m...
  - gadders 4y ago
    Page 62 to in the draft opinion: "And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterised, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion." That seems pretty clear to me.
- apntikt 4y ago
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    This issue is always framed in terms of trans women having an unfair advantage against cis women. But considering trans men even for a second shows how absurd the "compete with your birth gender" position is. Trans men will have a huge advantage against cis women because they're ingesting a performance enhancing drug: testosterone. So what solution do you propose? Unless you're advocating for just banning trans athletes from competing in general, there's a lot more nuance here than "men want to compete against women".
    - apntikt 4y ago
      How is this absurd? Prohibitions on performance-enhancing drugs still apply, no matter why the athlete is taking them. Anyone supplementing with testosterone would be banned from competing. Even if it's supposedly for a 'gender-affirming' purpose, it's still cheating.

Do you think the "correct default" for deciding whether gay or interracial couples can get married is whether or not one is in a blue state?

by badRNG 4y ago

Do you think the "correct default" for deciding whether gay or interracial couples can get married is whether or not one is in a blue state?

umvi 4y ago

People keep mentioning interracial marriage as being in danger by this SCOTUS, but is there any evidence anyone wants this? With abortion it is obvious a huge chunk of the population is against abortion as a practice. With LGBTQ rights it's obvious a huge chunk of the population is opposed to at least some of the rights in place or proposed (including gay marriage but also things like right for transgender women to compete with cis women in sports, etc). But with interracial marriage it's an extremely tiny fringe group opposed to it, as far as I can tell. Seems like the only point of bringing up interracial marriage is to fearmonger.

badRNG 4y ago
This isn't about fearmongering, it is about consistent application of the principle. If the legal principle of privacy and autonomy doesn't apply in Roe, then its reasonable to conclude that it doesn't apply for marriage equality either. The question is, is it reasonable that we should allow one's right to privacy and autonomy to only exist in some states? And if so, then this principle could apply to more than just abortion. Yes, reimplementing a ban on interracial marriage in any state seems completely unreasonable now, but so did banning abortion a decade ago. Things change. A senator just recently stated that anti-interracial marriage laws should not have been struck down by the courts [1] Interracial marriage is brought up for multiple reasons: - To demonstrate that the roll-back of constitutionally protected rights to individual privacy and autonomy have negative unintended consequences - To demonstrate that some who are opposed to constitutionally-protected privacy apply the principle inconsistently (usually contingent on whether it meshes with their personal/religious views) - To demonstrate that those who do support this rollback consistently are willing to let gay and interracial couples be collateral damage in the pursuit of their ideological goals [1] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/03/republican-sen-mike-braun-says-supreme-court-should-not-have-struck-down-state-laws-banning-interracial-marriage-then-backtracks-unconvincingly.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/03/republican-sen-m...
- gadders 4y ago
  Page 62 to in the draft opinion: "And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterised, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion." That seems pretty clear to me.
apntikt 4y ago
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  This issue is always framed in terms of trans women having an unfair advantage against cis women. But considering trans men even for a second shows how absurd the "compete with your birth gender" position is. Trans men will have a huge advantage against cis women because they're ingesting a performance enhancing drug: testosterone. So what solution do you propose? Unless you're advocating for just banning trans athletes from competing in general, there's a lot more nuance here than "men want to compete against women".
  - apntikt 4y ago
    How is this absurd? Prohibitions on performance-enhancing drugs still apply, no matter why the athlete is taking them. Anyone supplementing with testosterone would be banned from competing. Even if it's supposedly for a 'gender-affirming' purpose, it's still cheating.