3 ms·

Your comment trivializes how difficult it is to pass a constitutional amendment. An amendment on an issue this polarizing would never get the requisite support

Your comment trivializes how difficult it is to pass a constitutional amendment. An amendment on an issue this polarizing would never get the requisite support from enough states, no to mention that it doesn’t even matter if you control three branches of government to pass an amendment, only Congress is involved in the process.

toyg 4y ago
The political point is valid, though. There have been multiple windows for Democrats to pass federal laws that would have helped solidify these rights. Nothing was done, because cultural arguments help both sides in the electoral theatre.
- wbsss4412 4y ago
  Except it isn’t valid, because while there was a Supreme Court precedent, such a law would be superfluous, and while there now isn’t, such a law would’ve be repealed the moment republicans regain control of the congress. Do you really think that a Republican controlled Congress for the majority of the 2010s would have allowed such a law to remain on the books?
  - toyg 4y ago
    > such a law would be superfluous Do you really think no superfluous law is ever passed...? The books are full of them. > such a law would’ve be repealed the moment republicans regain control of the congress Maybe, or maybe it would have increased Democratic majorities and forced Republicans to face a politically dangerous repeal or even a major policy switch. Politicians are ready to go with the flow... see for example gay marriage in the UK, which was cautiously introduced by Labour as a separate formulation and then brought into full existence, with great fanfare, by a Conservative Party that had been staunchly against it for decades prior.
    - wbsss4412 4y ago
      > Do you really think no superfluous law is ever passed...? A comment ago you were complaining about political theater, how is passing superfluous laws anything but political theater? > Maybe, or maybe it would have increased Democratic majorities and forced Republicans to face a politically dangerous repeal or even a major policy switch. This suggests to me that you aren’t very familiar with the last 50 years of American political history.

toyg 4y ago

The political point is valid, though. There have been multiple windows for Democrats to pass federal laws that would have helped solidify these rights. Nothing was done, because cultural arguments help both sides in the electoral theatre.

wbsss4412 4y ago
Except it isn’t valid, because while there was a Supreme Court precedent, such a law would be superfluous, and while there now isn’t, such a law would’ve be repealed the moment republicans regain control of the congress. Do you really think that a Republican controlled Congress for the majority of the 2010s would have allowed such a law to remain on the books?
- toyg 4y ago
  > such a law would be superfluous Do you really think no superfluous law is ever passed...? The books are full of them. > such a law would’ve be repealed the moment republicans regain control of the congress Maybe, or maybe it would have increased Democratic majorities and forced Republicans to face a politically dangerous repeal or even a major policy switch. Politicians are ready to go with the flow... see for example gay marriage in the UK, which was cautiously introduced by Labour as a separate formulation and then brought into full existence, with great fanfare, by a Conservative Party that had been staunchly against it for decades prior.
  - wbsss4412 4y ago
    > Do you really think no superfluous law is ever passed...? A comment ago you were complaining about political theater, how is passing superfluous laws anything but political theater? > Maybe, or maybe it would have increased Democratic majorities and forced Republicans to face a politically dangerous repeal or even a major policy switch. This suggests to me that you aren’t very familiar with the last 50 years of American political history.