Personally I am increasingly uncomfortable feeling the "need" to apologize to regressive people about feeling hurt or insulted. They are entirely responsible for their actions.

They are also not sorry that they are pushing the majority of people (women, LGBTQ+, basically anything non-cis-white-men) into a second class or even subhuman status.

I realize that most people are only open to changing themselves when their feelings are not threatened and when they're feeling understood. But what we're talking about here, I don't know the right word, but "accidental" or "unintentional" are not part of it. If regressive leaders like trump or desantis or whoever get elected then we're talking about borderline genocide done on purpose. I don't see how we can come back to acknowledging the feelings of bigots at that point.

You just described most of the major SCOTUS rulings over the last couple of decades, at least.

A judge can’t make rulings solely based on facts, because facts cannot provide a foundation for ethics. Facts can only tell you the way things are, not the way they should be. Rulings should be informed by facts and based on the values of society as a whole.

I agree that they shouldn’t be based on the judge’s personal beliefs. I suppose our judicial system kind of makes this inevitable, though…

Don't worry, they're coming.

Maybe they do. If nothing else, that'll give the police an excuse to bust out all of their military surplus armaments for a play date.

The law will not, however, require states to issue marriage licenses contrary to state laws.

That legislation ensures the federal government recognizes it and requires states to recognize marriages from other states. It does not prevent a state from banning it within that state. (Really shitty that NBC doesn’t link to the actual text so people can read it themselves)

If you read the article it does not mean states will have to issue licenses to same sex couples in their own state, just, from my understanding, honor ones issued in states where it is legal (which while Obergefell stands is all of them). It is also important to note that the Supreme Court had the power to overturn legislation if it deems it unconditional, so, while it would be hard for them to outright overturn this bill using the constitution, since a state cannot hold religious preference due to seperation of church and state, it cannot be ruled out entirely. I feel it is likely they rule in favor of an individual, such as a county clerk, not having to issue a marriage license if it "goes against their religious beliefs", which could basically mean a ban for large areas of some states with highly religious conservatives.

LMAO no. They absolutely cannot. The Repubs have basically deadlocked Congress now in their ideological war. Dems won't get any Repubs to join. But it's moot because Dems won't even bother. Even if they had a supermajority trifecta, they'd still kowtow and refuse to pass a bill without bipartisan support (like they always do). And we even have examples already. Congress knew for over a month that Roe was about to fall and did literally nothing to stop it. And in the time since, Dems haven't said a single word about it or done anything to codify reproductive rights at the federal level.

For all of our sakes I hope you're right.

Then again, underestimating regressive politicians leaves us with a massive blind spot. You can bet they're counting on that while they lie to literally anyone who will listen about how "evil" progressives are.

Regrettably, it seems like most mainstream Democrats are happy being the anti-Republican Party. They've been happy to try to play centrist or even center right for the last 30 years on a great many issues.

Are enough of them willing to step up on this issue? I wouldn't bet on it.

Yeah, it essentially makes it a state issue, and each state can ban, or not, and choose to recognize marriages from other states, or not. So if you got married in Washington that might allow same-sex marriage and respect marriages from other states, and then you move to e.g. Tennessee that banned it and didn't recognize out of state marriages, your marriage essentially wouldn't exist there. I also imagine for the case of emergencies and whatnot, if you were traveling through such a state, you wouldn't be recognized as spouses, making it literally a life or death issue for travel.

It's very, very bad.

Maybe even that depends on the judges.

Nah, that's rather what right wingers do.

If it really did, it would have happened by now.