5 ms·

The contemporary Democratic party version of liberalism has introduced a new, very intense sexual orthodoxy, and the deep desire to encode it into law, by viole

The contemporary Democratic party version of liberalism has introduced a new, very intense sexual orthodoxy, and the deep desire to encode it into law, by violence if necessary. Religious conservatives and liberal centrists are having a sex war. It's not one-sided.

lapcat 3y ago
> encode it into law, by violence if necessary I'm afraid to ask, but what does this mean exactly? I would note that the Democratic party has consistently neglected to encode abortion rights into law when it had full control of the legislative branches of the federal government at the beginning of the Biden, Obama, and Clinton administrations.
- lumb63 3y ago
  Not GP so I can’t comment on what they’re referring to. The point you make is one I’ve thought about over the last year and I’m curious to hear other theories and thoughts on why Democratic legislatures haven’t passed any federal-level abortion legislation. My inclination is to believe that some Democratic strategist(s) predicted that their party would get more votes by campaigning on “they’re taking away your rights” rather than “we’re guaranteeing your rights”.
  - bbatha 3y ago
    The truth is because of the history OP points to Democrats have likely never had the votes for federal abortion legislation. Nor did they need it because it was a constitutional right. The last true democratic trifecta was in the army Obama years where there were still plenty of “blue dog” and pro-life democrats. There were many more democrats like Biden who were personally pro life, due to his catholic background, but content with it as a constitutional right. The Hyde amendment which prohibits Medicare funds for abortions is ample evidence of this artifact of older political lines. This leaves the 2020-22 congress to shore up abortion rights. However those congresses had the narrowest of majorities and much larger fish to fry (pandemic recovery and inflation, etc etc). It’s only been a strong and unifying rallying by cry for the party since the post roe era and even that wasn’t obvious until after the 2022 mid terms.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    To have any chance of getting it through, you’d presumably need 60 senators on board, which is probably not going to happen.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      The filibuster is a Senate rule that can be abolished with a simply majority vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State... The Constitution already provides a lot of checks and balances: the bicameral legislature, the Presidential veto, and the Supreme Court. The filibuster is not in the Constitution, and it's unclear why we need yet another impediment to making any progress.
      - rsynnott 3y ago
        Then you need to sell 51 senators on removing the filibuster. The democrats have not been in a position to do that for a long time, if ever.
        lapcat 3y ago
        > The democrats have not been in a position to do that for a long time, if ever. Well, this is kind of a strange statement in my opinion. There are 2 indisputable facts: 1) The Democrats have had >50 Senators many times. 2) Those Democrats have not abolished the filibuster. To my knowledge, the Senate majority leader has never even scheduled a vote to abolish the filibuster entirely, regardless of whether that vote would win or lose. So, my feeling is that the Democrats have not tried to abolish the filibuster. President Biden (former longtime Senator) has said he doesn't support abolishing the filibuster. The party has never put political pressure on its members to abolish the filibuster. The leaders aren't campaigning on it. To my knowledge, it's not in the party platform. The inescapable conclusion, I feel, is that the Democrats don't want to abolish the filibuster. Nothing is stopping them, except themselves.
      - HDThoreaun 3y ago
        Senators are not beholden to their party leadership like for example representatives in the house of commons are. Biden had a trifecta and wanted to remove the filibuster but manchin and sinema refused. At that point there was nothing he could do.
amanaplanacanal 3y ago
I think I’m going to need more details to understand exactly what you are claiming here.
- wilg 3y ago
  To be fair, explaining it clearly would probably reveal it's incorrect.
atoav 3y ago
What do you mean by "new, sexual orthodoxy"? The fact that sex (biology features) and gender (social role) are two distinct things that can be in a complex relation with each other and they try to aknowledge that? Or that people with certain sexual orientations can marry? If the Democrats encode into law that sex and gender are a spectrum (for which we have ample scientific evidence) and they let people marry however they like I am not seeing how this hurts anybody else? I mean what exactly do you mean by forcing those laws "by violence"? Got any examples that showcase this is a widespread Democratic agenda? What do I have to imagine there? Forcing two MAGA-guys to kiss on gunpoint or what?

lapcat 3y ago

> encode it into law, by violence if necessary I'm afraid to ask, but what does this mean exactly? I would note that the Democratic party has consistently neglected to encode abortion rights into law when it had full control of the legislative branches of the federal government at the beginning of the Biden, Obama, and Clinton administrations.

lumb63 3y ago
Not GP so I can’t comment on what they’re referring to. The point you make is one I’ve thought about over the last year and I’m curious to hear other theories and thoughts on why Democratic legislatures haven’t passed any federal-level abortion legislation. My inclination is to believe that some Democratic strategist(s) predicted that their party would get more votes by campaigning on “they’re taking away your rights” rather than “we’re guaranteeing your rights”.
- bbatha 3y ago
  The truth is because of the history OP points to Democrats have likely never had the votes for federal abortion legislation. Nor did they need it because it was a constitutional right. The last true democratic trifecta was in the army Obama years where there were still plenty of “blue dog” and pro-life democrats. There were many more democrats like Biden who were personally pro life, due to his catholic background, but content with it as a constitutional right. The Hyde amendment which prohibits Medicare funds for abortions is ample evidence of this artifact of older political lines. This leaves the 2020-22 congress to shore up abortion rights. However those congresses had the narrowest of majorities and much larger fish to fry (pandemic recovery and inflation, etc etc). It’s only been a strong and unifying rallying by cry for the party since the post roe era and even that wasn’t obvious until after the 2022 mid terms.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  To have any chance of getting it through, you’d presumably need 60 senators on board, which is probably not going to happen.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    The filibuster is a Senate rule that can be abolished with a simply majority vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State... The Constitution already provides a lot of checks and balances: the bicameral legislature, the Presidential veto, and the Supreme Court. The filibuster is not in the Constitution, and it's unclear why we need yet another impediment to making any progress.
    - rsynnott 3y ago
      Then you need to sell 51 senators on removing the filibuster. The democrats have not been in a position to do that for a long time, if ever.
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > The democrats have not been in a position to do that for a long time, if ever. Well, this is kind of a strange statement in my opinion. There are 2 indisputable facts: 1) The Democrats have had >50 Senators many times. 2) Those Democrats have not abolished the filibuster. To my knowledge, the Senate majority leader has never even scheduled a vote to abolish the filibuster entirely, regardless of whether that vote would win or lose. So, my feeling is that the Democrats have not tried to abolish the filibuster. President Biden (former longtime Senator) has said he doesn't support abolishing the filibuster. The party has never put political pressure on its members to abolish the filibuster. The leaders aren't campaigning on it. To my knowledge, it's not in the party platform. The inescapable conclusion, I feel, is that the Democrats don't want to abolish the filibuster. Nothing is stopping them, except themselves.
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      Senators are not beholden to their party leadership like for example representatives in the house of commons are. Biden had a trifecta and wanted to remove the filibuster but manchin and sinema refused. At that point there was nothing he could do.

amanaplanacanal 3y ago

I think I’m going to need more details to understand exactly what you are claiming here.

wilg 3y ago
To be fair, explaining it clearly would probably reveal it's incorrect.

atoav 3y ago

What do you mean by "new, sexual orthodoxy"? The fact that sex (biology features) and gender (social role) are two distinct things that can be in a complex relation with each other and they try to aknowledge that? Or that people with certain sexual orientations can marry? If the Democrats encode into law that sex and gender are a spectrum (for which we have ample scientific evidence) and they let people marry however they like I am not seeing how this hurts anybody else? I mean what exactly do you mean by forcing those laws "by violence"? Got any examples that showcase this is a widespread Democratic agenda? What do I have to imagine there? Forcing two MAGA-guys to kiss on gunpoint or what?