517
submitted 3 weeks ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Summary

In response to Donald Trump’s re-election, some same-sex couples, like Ben Nelson and Adam Weinberger, are accelerating plans to marry, fearing potential rollbacks of LGBTQ rights.

Concerns stem from the Supreme Court’s 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade and past statements from conservative justices suggesting interest in revisiting the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.

While the Respect for Marriage Act offers federal safeguards, uncertainty persists.

LGBTQ-friendly businesses are stepping up to support couples, but fears of broader restrictions, including on parenting options, remain widespread among the community.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Firebirdie713@lemmy.blahaj.zone 109 points 3 weeks ago

My husband and I did this after the Dobbs decision came down and cited 'future reconsiderations' for Casey and Obergefell. Called a handful of friends and family and told them to meet us at the courthouse in two weeks.

Now, we are bracing to help people who may have to travel to our blue state to get married, just like they had to 15-ish years ago. We may not be able to leave, but we have some means to help others, so we are doing what we can.

[-] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 3 weeks ago

My partner and I got our partnership right after the election on a lazy day

[-] NotBillMurray@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

I'm a registered minister in the church of the latter day dude based out of Oregon and am happy to marry lgbtq folks.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] jjagaimo@lemmy.ca 72 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I wonder what the chances are that the coming administration invalidate such marriages, probably on some dumb Christian nationalist grounds

[-] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 64 points 3 weeks ago

Supreme Court has already signaled that gay marriage is on the chopping block.

[-] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 3 weeks ago

I wonder how this would work with their anti-trans initiatives. If a transwoman tried to marry her girlfriend, would it technically be legal under their backwards laws?

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 38 points 3 weeks ago

Logically yes, but they are not bound by logic.

[-] midribbon_action@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 3 weeks ago

No, they see us as criminals and will deny every right they can, marriage, public service, equal treatment under the law, medical insurance/medication, freedom of association, speech, and even our right to exist. The point is to criminalize and erase our existence from public life.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] x00z@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

Weren't they against sharia law?

[-] Yeller_king@reddthat.com 24 points 3 weeks ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] tiramichu@lemm.ee 21 points 3 weeks ago

Anything is possible, but it would be far more difficult to invalidate existing marriages than prevent new ones. Which is exactly why couples are rushing to get it done now.

[-] III@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

They are openly stating they will deport legal citizens... so, acting like their should be no concern might not be a great idea.

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 19 points 3 weeks ago

It's already happening in Italy, so there's no reason to believe the GOP would hold back.

[-] whithom@discuss.online 7 points 3 weeks ago

Italy has never recognized same-sex marriage.

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 weeks ago

Sorry, Captain Pedantic — they have same-sex unions (and recently banned travel for surrogacy specifically for gay couples)

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[-] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 50 points 3 weeks ago

Do these people not realize that the government can just invalidate their marriage and punish them?

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 40 points 3 weeks ago

Breaking up marriages is recognized worldwide as an act of genocide, but putting restrictions on who can marry isn’t as universally recognized.

[-] rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee 30 points 3 weeks ago

The world hasn't cared about genocides since 1945.

[-] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 3 weeks ago

The world has never cared about a genocide that happened within a nation's borders.

Had Hitler not invaded other countries, there wouldn't have been any consequences more severe than a public condemnation.

Hell, there would have provably been foreign support for genociding Romani people.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] AngryRobot@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago

They did it to my mom. She and her partner drove to San Francisco on that weekend when they were doing gay marriages in the mid 2000s. That ,marriage was canceled once they straightened iut the laws.

They're legally wed right here in Arizona now, but I wouldn't put it past these fucks to try to annul their marriage again.

[-] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 3 weeks ago

I'm sure Trump really cares about international law

[-] III@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

He doesn't care about domestic law. I doubt he would care about laws he personally enacted if they stood in opposition to his in-the-moment wants.

[-] youstolemyname@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I'd personally be afraid I'd be putting myself on a termination list tbh, but others are probably braver than me.

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 38 points 3 weeks ago

The Republican Party is turning into the Taliban of the United States. On the other hand, Americans knew that and knew what Trump is all about when they voted, and they walked right into this with eyes wide open, serving both Houses of Congress and the Presidency to that party. We deserve everything that's coming to us.

[-] JimVanDeventer@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

They aren't turning into; they have always been. They have finally consolidated power. I don't even live in the US and I am dreading the worldwide ramifications of your election. Where can I go to escape? The moon? Apparently not even that.

[-] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

there is US citizens not allowed to vote, and we did not choose this nor deserve it fuck that

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like Americans are going to learn until it really, really hurts. I hope we get all the pain that comes from this straight on. No relief until we start voting differently.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] GhiLA@sh.itjust.works 33 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Trump was great for the economy, people rushed to get married, buy hard drives, canned food, rice, life insurance policies, plan funerals, finish that bucket list...

[-] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 30 points 3 weeks ago

Gay marriages seem a bit purer to me because you know it's not about kids. They legit like each other.

[-] ellen_musk_0x@lemm.ee 15 points 3 weeks ago

Just because same sex couples don't birth kids doesn't mean we'll stop trying.

Anything is possible through Jesus.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

I'm heterosexual and we were marred for 10 years before we had a kid. My brother has been married to a woman almost 30 years and has never had kids. My uncle has been married to a woman almost 50 years and has never had kids. I have lots of friends who are heterosexual and married and have no kids.

And there are two queer couples I'm friends with that do have kids.

On top of that, I know people with kids who never got married.

Marriage and children are really not related except when it comes to certain legal issues.

[-] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 4 points 3 weeks ago

I was thinking more being socially forced to marriage thanks to issues revolving around biological kids which to me "ruins the sanctity" of marriage. Meanwhile gay people don't have that issue. Like oh no someone got my pregnant if I don't get marriage my family stone me but my partner is a one night stand that I found out is a serial killer.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago

I know multiple same-sex couples that got married explicitly for the purpose of being allowed to adopt.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] WeUnite@lemm.ee 23 points 3 weeks ago

I'm still shocked by the number of gay, black, latino and women votes Trump got this election. I wish they would realize that racism, sexism and homophobia are what drives Trump's most loyal and core supporters.

[-] Alenalda@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

like anyone else gay, black, latino and women voters are themselves capable of racism, sexism and homophobia

[-] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 4 points 3 weeks ago

They will sadly

[-] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

Isn't going to help when the Republicans and the Republican Supreme Court goes after Obergefell v. Hodges.

[-] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 weeks ago

Marriage is a vow, not an oath.

I understand why the headline is what it is but my inner grammar enthusiast can't just let it slide.

load more comments (2 replies)

I feel like this is a good way to get yourself on a target list.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2024
517 points (96.7% liked)

News

23655 readers
4397 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS