Trump win resets culture war debate on abortion, LGBT rights

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

50 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

OK, take care, dude.

 

Is it your intent to diminish the concerns of LGBT people over their Constitutional right to equal protection by hijacking this thread into a kindergarten spat?

 

Some people may have relevant things to say and discuss.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Is it your intent to diminish the concerns of LGBT people over their Constitutional right to equal protection by hijacking this thread into a kindergarten spat?

 

Some people may have relevant things to say and discuss.

In actuality, LGBTQ people do not have a constitutional right to equal protection. Marriage equality was limited to marriage. It didn't go there. There is also no federal law protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination. 

[Trouble]

14 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

I was completely against gay marriage, but have no problem with something like  civil partnerships with the same rights as straights. In a way, I would like to see it go, but not sure it is fair after so many marriages have been performed.

I guess if the term "marriage" was changed to something else, but the rights were preserved, It would-be fair enough.

As to abortion, don't want to see it outlawed completely, but understand people that do. Don't want to go back to illrgal abortions and all the problems they cause though.

I support gay marriage.  With that said, it seems to me that the proper way to handle the situation is to consider all "marriages" a civil union gay or straight, in the eyes of the law.  Do what is done in many Asian countries such as Korea where people just go and register their union.  The act of registration becomes the legally binding contract. Marriage ceremonies are held by the couple as a celebration of their union, a different matter altogether.  Most of this conflict is all about the term marriage and seems like most people no longer object to civil unions anyway.  It is all much ado about nothing.  Further, Trump said in the 60 minutes interview that basically as far as he is concerned that is an issue already solved by the Supreme Court.  I think to him it is really a non issue and in the past.  He would rather concentrate on more important matters such as getting the country moving again and increasing the economic well being of the population. Hopefully he will be good at it. We can only hope.  

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

In actuality, LGBTQ people do not have a constitutional right to equal protection. Marriage equality was limited to marriage. It didn't go there. There is also no federal law protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination. 

 

OK. I over-reached. But the recent trend has been to use Title IX of the Civil Rights Act to facilitate LGBT protections until they are cemented in specific laws, which I would have thought were on track to be proposed. Until now.

[Jingthing]

Basically, LGBTQ civil rights under trump means not only going backwards, but not going forwards as it surely would have under Madame President (not to be).

 

Marriage equality was big but it happened in a nation with no national anti-discrimination laws for basic things. In most U.S. states people can be LEGALLY denied housing or employment just for the status of their sexual orientation or non-traditional gender i.d.

 

http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/11/13/trump-lying-about-marriage-equality

 

Trump Is Lying About Marriage Equality

Edited November 14, 2016 by Jingthing

[lannarebirth]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

The goal is to resist people thinking the trump regime is normal, to constantly remind people that the man baby didn't even get the most votes, and hopefully to tactically apply the most protest pressure when particularly odious things are about to be passed with the hope of getting them more tempered down.

 

If you burn all your righteous political capital protesting a free and fair election who is going to be listening to you when those "particularly odious things" come up. And I'm a big fan of legal protest by the way, but I'd keep my powder dry if were running that show.  Maybe they're just trying to establish lists of likely future protest campaigners.. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

[lannarebirth]

25 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

OK. I over-reached. But the recent trend has been to use Title IX of the Civil Rights Act to facilitate LGBT protections until they are cemented in specific laws, which I would have thought were on track to be proposed. Until now.

 

And of course Nixon gave us Title IX. I only mention this to point out that good can come from bad and vice versa.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

12 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

And of course Nixon gave us Title IX. I only mention this to point out that good can come from bad and vice versa.

 

Interesting that you invoke Nixon. There may be parallels between the Anti-War protests of his tenure and the current Anti-Trump protests.

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Interesting that you invoke Nixon. There may be parallels between the Anti-War protests of his tenure and the current Anti-Trump protests.

 

If the anti-war protests had started 15 years ago when they should have we probably wouldn't be in this situation now. Their righteous indignation seems rather selective to me. Not much good comes from extreme partisanship.