I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
Yes, you’re right across the board. However this could be a bit of the dog catching the car. These issues are settled as a national, moral consensus, including abortion. The Christian Right has its victory, but as these issues get waged locally now, every single delegate and governor race will be about abortion, gay marriage, all of these privacy issues. I actually do not think this is a winner for them long term. The country is not getting less pro choice, less gay marriage or less pro contraception.
Politically speaking it’s the only thing that may prevent the democrats being wiped out in the midterms. At a minimum it will probably put a cap on the losses. The left and independents now have an issue. Pro choice was always less of a single issue voter issue than pro life simply because the right to an abortion was already the status quo. Now that it’s not a lot of pro choice independents and republicans may have no choice other than to jump ship. I hope so at least
the ultimate irony is overturning Roe the opinion states that this issue needs to be returned to the states to decide. However if the Republicans take the house and senate on day 1 a federal law banning abortion in all states will be introduced taking that right away from individual states. Biden would veto so that’s safe for at least 2 years.
As a woman, I want to just take a moment and say thank you to all the men on this forum supporting the right to choose. It doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with the physical act of abortion, what matters to me is that women are recognized as humans who no longer deserve our freedoms taken away. This isn’t the same as choosing whether or not to be vaccinated, an abortion isn’t contaminating anyone but the woman.
And to those who don’t understand how this is going to change everything like gender identification, gay marriage etc., get your head out of your ass because this is just the beginning.
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
Yes, you’re right across the board. However this could be a bit of the dog catching the car. These issues are settled as a national, moral consensus, including abortion. The Christian Right has its victory, but as these issues get waged locally now, every single delegate and governor race will be about abortion, gay marriage, all of these privacy issues. I actually do not think this is a winner for them long term. The country is not getting less pro choice, less gay marriage or less pro contraception.
Politically speaking it’s the only thing that may prevent the democrats being wiped out in the midterms. At a minimum it will probably put a cap on the losses. The left and independents now have an issue. Pro choice was always less of a single issue voter issue than pro life simply because the right to an abortion was already the status quo. Now that it’s not a lot of pro choice independents and republicans may have no choice other than to jump ship. I hope so at least
the ultimate irony is overturning Roe the opinion states that this issue needs to be returned to the states to decide. However if the Republicans take the house and senate on day 1 a federal law banning abortion in all states will be introduced taking that right away from individual states. Biden would veto so that’s safe for at least 2 years.
It will be interesting to see if the senate tries to do something, with help on the filibuster from Murkowski and Collins. They both came out and called two justices liars yesterday. That’s pretty unprecedented. It’s also naive and we all knew it.
As a woman, I want to just take a moment and say thank you to all the men on this forum supporting the right to choose. It doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with the physical act of abortion, what matters to me is that women are recognized as humans who no longer deserve our freedoms taken away. This isn’t the same as choosing whether or not to be vaccinated, an abortion isn’t contaminating anyone but the woman.
And to those who don’t understand how this is going to change everything like gender identification, gay marriage etc., get your head out of your ass because this is just the beginning.
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
Yes, you’re right across the board. However this could be a bit of the dog catching the car. These issues are settled as a national, moral consensus, including abortion. The Christian Right has its victory, but as these issues get waged locally now, every single delegate and governor race will be about abortion, gay marriage, all of these privacy issues. I actually do not think this is a winner for them long term. The country is not getting less pro choice, less gay marriage or less pro contraception.
Politically speaking it’s the only thing that may prevent the democrats being wiped out in the midterms. At a minimum it will probably put a cap on the losses. The left and independents now have an issue. Pro choice was always less of a single issue voter issue than pro life simply because the right to an abortion was already the status quo. Now that it’s not a lot of pro choice independents and republicans may have no choice other than to jump ship. I hope so at least
the ultimate irony is overturning Roe the opinion states that this issue needs to be returned to the states to decide. However if the Republicans take the house and senate on day 1 a federal law banning abortion in all states will be introduced taking that right away from individual states. Biden would veto so that’s safe for at least 2 years.
It will be interesting to see if the senate tries to do something, with help on the filibuster from Murkowski and Collins. They both came out and called two justices liars yesterday. That’s pretty unprecedented. It’s also naive and we all knew it.
To me there is a huge risk if an electoral rebuke doesn’t happen. It’s going to embolden all kinds of hard right policies. Ending the filibuster could happen with 49 democrats and either Collins or Murkowski to pass a federal law guaranteeing the right to an abortion but the republicans could just overturn it down the road. Making them pay politically and they just may back off
Too many people vote for the right wing politicians because they agree with them on fiscal issues but not social issues. The American public at large isn’t with the right on nearly any culture war/social issue but finances are real, and social issues are abstract unless it directly affects you. Getting social issues to have equal weight is the key if it doesn’t get equal weight who knows what happens
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
Yes, you’re right across the board. However this could be a bit of the dog catching the car. These issues are settled as a national, moral consensus, including abortion. The Christian Right has its victory, but as these issues get waged locally now, every single delegate and governor race will be about abortion, gay marriage, all of these privacy issues. I actually do not think this is a winner for them long term. The country is not getting less pro choice, less gay marriage or less pro contraception.
Politically speaking it’s the only thing that may prevent the democrats being wiped out in the midterms. At a minimum it will probably put a cap on the losses. The left and independents now have an issue. Pro choice was always less of a single issue voter issue than pro life simply because the right to an abortion was already the status quo. Now that it’s not a lot of pro choice independents and republicans may have no choice other than to jump ship. I hope so at least
the ultimate irony is overturning Roe the opinion states that this issue needs to be returned to the states to decide. However if the Republicans take the house and senate on day 1 a federal law banning abortion in all states will be introduced taking that right away from individual states. Biden would veto so that’s safe for at least 2 years.
It will be interesting to see if the senate tries to do something, with help on the filibuster from Murkowski and Collins. They both came out and called two justices liars yesterday. That’s pretty unprecedented. It’s also naive and we all knew it.
To me there is a huge risk if an electoral rebuke doesn’t happen. It’s going to embolden all kinds of hard right policies.
Too many people vote for the right wing politicians because they agree with them on fiscal issues but not social issues. The American public at large isn’t with the right on nearly any culture war/social issue but finances are real, and social issues are abstract unless it directly affects you. Getting social issues to have equal weight is the key if it doesn’t get equal weight who knows what happens
Of course the irony is there’s little difference in the economic policies between the two parties. The only real difference is renewable energy but even that is abstract as well.
As a woman, I want to just take a moment and say thank you to all the men on this forum supporting the right to choose. It doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with the physical act of abortion, what matters to me is that women are recognized as humans who no longer deserve our freedoms taken away. This isn’t the same as choosing whether or not to be vaccinated, an abortion isn’t contaminating anyone but the woman.
And to those who don’t understand how this is going to change everything like gender identification, gay marriage etc., get your head out of your ass because this is just the beginning.
You are correct on all points.
What I can't believe is that in 2022 I still have to explain to people that being pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. That nobody is "yay abortions".
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.
What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.
As a woman, I want to just take a moment and say thank you to all the men on this forum supporting the right to choose. It doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with the physical act of abortion, what matters to me is that women are recognized as humans who no longer deserve our freedoms taken away. This isn’t the same as choosing whether or not to be vaccinated, an abortion isn’t contaminating anyone but the woman.
And to those who don’t understand how this is going to change everything like gender identification, gay marriage etc., get your head out of your ass because this is just the beginning.
You are correct on all points.
What I can't believe is that in 2022 I still have to explain to people that being pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. That nobody is "yay abortions".
Pro choice is actually the “conservative” position if it was any other issue.
freedom of choice, individual liberty, etc Vs government deciding for you. Insert any other issue… vaccines, masking, gun rights, regulation, health insurance mandates, etc. personal choice is almost always the conservative position not government overreach
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.
I think this is partly "in theory." The GOP is flexing its muscle right now. The door is open. Right now, I don't see a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage. Or to reverse Brown v Topeka Board of Education.
Gay Marriage? That's a formality. That's getting reversed.
As for the others, While very few people want those things outlawed, it's really not much of a leap to "the states should decide these things." I'm not saying it's going to happen. But it'll be interesting to see how an emboldened social right moves ahead.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.
I think this is partly "in theory." The GOP is flexing its muscle right now. The door is open. Right now, I don't see a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage. Or to reverse Brown v Topeka Board of Education.
Gay Marriage? That's a formality. That's getting reversed.
As for the others, While very few people want those things outlawed, it's really not much of a leap to "the states should decide these things." I'm not saying it's going to happen. But it'll be interesting to see how an emboldened social right moves ahead.
Exactly. It’s the slippery slope concept. By definition you don’t know where it ends, just that it’s possible. Those rights are no longer guaranteed and are now open to revision or challenge
Over the past several years seeing trends I’m not convinced they know what going too far looks like anymore.
I can absolutely see hyper conservative states like ID, WY,UT etc pushing the envelope pretty far as test cases on some of this stuff and those aren’t even the southern states.
This might be an unpopular opinion... but the time has come for USA to start talking peaceful separation before another civil war breaks out.
And sure, sounds alarmist. But the population is so remarkably broken and on opposite sides on so many issues... just get the ball rolling for two separate countries and be done with it.
Toronto 2000
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013 Toronto I&II 2016 10C: 220xxx
This might be an unpopular opinion... but the time has come for USA to start talking peaceful separation before another civil war breaks out.
And sure, sounds alarmist. But the population is so remarkably broken and on opposite sides on so many issues... just get the ball rolling for two separate countries and be done with it.
So are cities and counties supposed to secede from states or do you see this happening as a mass migration with certain states forming a country etc. In my home state of michigan alone the UP would be in the conservative camp as well as most rural areas of lower MI outside of major cities. I'm pretty sure that whatever peoples political leanings are that they would rather go to war than be forced to relocate from their chosen home. Sounds like a lot of costs to bear for the people that would have to be displaced.
This might be an unpopular opinion... but the time has come for USA to start talking peaceful separation before another civil war breaks out.
And sure, sounds alarmist. But the population is so remarkably broken and on opposite sides on so many issues... just get the ball rolling for two separate countries and be done with it.
I would be all for it but it seems logistically impossible. The Civil War had a clear boundary into two nations. Now it's rural vs. urban...A giant confederacy with scattered pieces of the Union.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
This might be an unpopular opinion... but the time has come for USA to start talking peaceful separation before another civil war breaks out.
And sure, sounds alarmist. But the population is so remarkably broken and on opposite sides on so many issues... just get the ball rolling for two separate countries and be done with it.
So are cities and counties supposed to secede from states or do you see this happening as a mass migration with certain states forming a country etc. In my home state of michigan alone the UP would be in the conservative camp as well as most rural areas of lower MI outside of major cities. I'm pretty sure that whatever peoples political leanings are that they would rather go to war than be forced to relocate from their chosen home. Sounds like a lot of costs to bare for the people that would have to be displaced.
Right, there's no realistic way for this to happen. Cities are liberal, rural areas are conservative. Will Salt Lake City sit like Vatican City in the middle of Italy? The solution is for center and left leaning people to vote, vote, vote. Local elections will be more important than ever.
Now remember, Congress could pass laws to protect all of these issues. They just haven't because it's too bottled up and everyone has relied on Roe and now Obergfell. The supremacy clause would trump any state movements, even if they had state constitutional amendments.
This might be an unpopular opinion... but the time has come for USA to start talking peaceful separation before another civil war breaks out.
And sure, sounds alarmist. But the population is so remarkably broken and on opposite sides on so many issues... just get the ball rolling for two separate countries and be done with it.
I would be all for it but it seems logistically impossible. The Civil War had a clear boundary into two nations. Now it's rural vs. urban...A giant confederacy with scattered pieces of the Union.
Democratic counties account for 70% of the GDP (the entire economy). We also control all the ports basically and coasts. I’m cool with that split hypothetically speaking
we vastly outperform our share of the population in terms of economic output. We can buy our grain from Canada
red states have nearly all the nukes though.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,760
This might be an unpopular opinion... but the time has come for USA to start talking peaceful separation before another civil war breaks out.
And sure, sounds alarmist. But the population is so remarkably broken and on opposite sides on so many issues... just get the ball rolling for two separate countries and be done with it.
Or we could do what Black Flag bass player Chuck Dukowski once suggested (no doubt out of frustration with the way things were going at that time): "Give everyone in America a gun and see who is left standing." Sorry, my cynicism factor is running high this morning. On a more serious note, as others have pointed out, this might be logistically very difficult. I can't even fathom an answer to all of the conflicted state this country is in. We are very likely going to start seeing some very ugly, very violent activity in many city centers.
As a woman, I want to just take a moment and say thank you to all the men on this forum supporting the right to choose. It doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with the physical act of abortion, what matters to me is that women are recognized as humans who no longer deserve our freedoms taken away. This isn’t the same as choosing whether or not to be vaccinated, an abortion isn’t contaminating anyone but the woman.
And to those who don’t understand how this is going to change everything like gender identification, gay marriage etc., get your head out of your ass because this is just the beginning.
It is looking bad, indeed, cblock, but do know many of us are with you!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.
What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.
These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that. No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.
This might be an unpopular opinion... but the time has come for USA to start talking peaceful separation before another civil war breaks out.
And sure, sounds alarmist. But the population is so remarkably broken and on opposite sides on so many issues... just get the ball rolling for two separate countries and be done with it.
So are cities and counties supposed to secede from states or do you see this happening as a mass migration with certain states forming a country etc. In my home state of michigan alone the UP would be in the conservative camp as well as most rural areas of lower MI outside of major cities. I'm pretty sure that whatever peoples political leanings are that they would rather go to war than be forced to relocate from their chosen home. Sounds like a lot of costs to bare for the people that would have to be displaced.
The supremacy clause would trump any state movements, even if they had state constitutional amendments.
Texas being a former republic throws a tantrum every time a democrat gets elected president. Perry threatened to secede over the ACA. Texas claims they reserved the right. They can’t but the fact they threaten when they don’t get their way is pretty telling
I have this picture in my mind about those who are opposed to abortion and the folks who protest it etc. etc.
Last year I was driving through central Ontario and we drove past an anti-abortion protest and I would describe the crowd as old, white, sad looking. What I would LOVE to know on this day... is how many of those people and the people who protest, the Pro-Life activists.. do something, anything beyond protesting.
If the majority of a population in a democratic society ultimately decides the laws.. and in this case (for Canada at least) we are Pro-Choice.... if you're in the minority and you just care so much about life... I would want to know if these people along with protesting are actively taking in fosters. Are actively adopting children. Are actively helping PEOPLE, LIVE PEOPLE in a community. To me, that must be a part of any Pro-Life effort. They obviously care so much about OTHER PEOPLE that they dedicate a large portion of their time and money to OTHER PEOPLE... right? They follow the example of Jesus (socialist) SO MUCH that they keep very little for themselves... they house and feed the needy... right? I mean.. that's obvious if their Pro-Life.... right?
And I'm guessing... just guessing here.. that they do not. Most of them. And I'm guessing it's because doing the actual work of helping and raising a child is FUCKING DIFFICULT and remarkably inconvenient.
As for the politicians who support Pro-Life... show me the one who most exemplifies the teachings and examples of Jesus. They're so Pro-Life that they support social programs, health care, education, phys-ed, mental health.... right? They're concerned about the hungry and the homeless... right? I mean... obviously... they're pro-life. Makes perfect sense.
The logic of most Pro-Life people, especially the politicians is so remarkably flawed. Save the lives of unborn fetuses at all costs because I guess that's what the bible says? That's what morality says? Once their born... fuck em, they're on their own. Yet THAT is somehow ok according to the bible? According to morals?
Toronto 2000
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013 Toronto I&II 2016 10C: 220xxx
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.
What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.
These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that. No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.
60% of the country supports gay marriage. 60% of the country supports a woman's right to choose. These are averages but there isn't a huge statistical difference between them. I think you are being overly glib about the possibilities.
Now gay marriage and interracial marriage rely on the Equal Protection Clause rather than the more esoteric 'privacy' right that is not specifically enumerated. So it's a more difficult legal challenge. However, Alito's draft opinion makes clear that he believes the only rights protected are the ones that are specifically enumerated or follow a long historical precedent. Gay marriage does not meet either of those. I would argue interracial marriage has a longer tradition, but still only mid century.
This might be an unpopular opinion... but the time has come for USA to start talking peaceful separation before another civil war breaks out.
And sure, sounds alarmist. But the population is so remarkably broken and on opposite sides on so many issues... just get the ball rolling for two separate countries and be done with it.
So are cities and counties supposed to secede from states or do you see this happening as a mass migration with certain states forming a country etc. In my home state of michigan alone the UP would be in the conservative camp as well as most rural areas of lower MI outside of major cities. I'm pretty sure that whatever peoples political leanings are that they would rather go to war than be forced to relocate from their chosen home. Sounds like a lot of costs to bear for the people that would have to be displaced.
Logistical nightmare... to be sure.
I suppose my point is... what other options are there? It's no different than a shitty marriage. Continue hating each other for another 30 years because you can't afford to split? Or bite the bullet and start fresh?
Interestingly.... and I honestly believe this to be sure. Just start talking about it.
Have the two parties begin the process. Create a commission. Have a referendum. Do stuff. Start talking about where the lines are going to be... just start talking. And get them and the public to realize that resolving issues is the better option than splitting the country up.
Sounds awesome.. but when I look at things.. I think people have gone well beyond the possibility of reconciliation. But maybe that could change when people start actually looking at the real possibility or desire to separate.
Toronto 2000
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013 Toronto I&II 2016 10C: 220xxx
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.
What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.
These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that. No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.
60% of the country supports gay marriage. 60% of the country supports a woman's right to choose. These are averages but there isn't a huge statistical difference between them. I think you are being overly glib about the possibilities.
Now gay marriage and interracial marriage rely on the Equal Protection Clause rather than the more esoteric 'privacy' right that is not specifically enumerated. So it's a more difficult legal challenge. However, Alito's draft opinion makes clear that he believes the only rights protected are the ones that are specifically enumerated or follow a long historical precedent. Gay marriage does not meet either of those. I would argue interracial marriage has a longer tradition, but still only mid century.
The important thing to remember is there have been something like 32 or 33 different judges on the Supreme Court since 1973. Abortion issues come up every single year in one form or another.
now you have 5 judges saying the court was wrong for 50 years, that’s multiple different configurations of the Supreme Court over a long period of time.
The hubris that requires to be so sure they are now right is not only stunning but dangerous. In reality, no one can predict how this ends because quite frankly this is pretty unprecedented as these 5 judges are elevating themselves above everyone who came before them and the court itself. Legal precedent is as core to our system of justice as anything and probably more so
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
Yes, you’re right across the board. However this could be a bit of the dog catching the car. These issues are settled as a national, moral consensus, including abortion. The Christian Right has its victory, but as these issues get waged locally now, every single delegate and governor race will be about abortion, gay marriage, all of these privacy issues. I actually do not think this is a winner for them long term. The country is not getting less pro choice, less gay marriage or less pro contraception.
Politically speaking it’s the only thing that may prevent the democrats being wiped out in the midterms. At a minimum it will probably put a cap on the losses. The left and independents now have an issue. Pro choice was always less of a single issue voter issue than pro life simply because the right to an abortion was already the status quo. Now that it’s not a lot of pro choice independents and republicans may have no choice other than to jump ship. I hope so at least
the ultimate irony is overturning Roe the opinion states that this issue needs to be returned to the states to decide. However if the Republicans take the house and senate on day 1 a federal law banning abortion in all states will be introduced taking that right away from individual states. Biden would veto so that’s safe for at least 2 years.
It will be interesting to see if the senate tries to do something, with help on the filibuster from Murkowski and Collins. They both came out and called two justices liars yesterday. That’s pretty unprecedented. It’s also naive and we all knew it.
To me there is a huge risk if an electoral rebuke doesn’t happen. It’s going to embolden all kinds of hard right policies. Ending the filibuster could happen with 49 democrats and either Collins or Murkowski to pass a federal law guaranteeing the right to an abortion but the republicans could just overturn it down the road. Making them pay politically and they just may back off
Too many people vote for the right wing politicians because they agree with them on fiscal issues but not social issues. The
American public at large isn’t with the right on nearly any culture war/social issue but finances are real, and social issues are abstract unless it directly affects you. Getting social issues to have equal weight is the key if it doesn’t get equal weight who knows what happens
2016 election was huge, and everyone at the time knew there was an empty court seat and that a liberal judge was over 80 with various illnesses. It was plainly obvious the balance of the court was at stake. Blaming Hilary is missing the point. She tried to talk about the court but all everyone wanted to do on the left was make that election about how evil and unqualified trump was. The Dem voters were not energized about scotus at that time, and white women even voted for Trump by a net of two points (not a fan of race politics but black women tend to vote D regardless ). I think we all would be surprised how many casual Republican voters are 100% in line with overturning Roe and many other culture war issues. I know my R friends/family are.
Democrats have never been able to rally voters on SCOTUS related issues and I see no reason that’s about to change. The left tends to cry and whine about almost irrelevant power/control things when in power (think BBB and crying about Manchin for example) and never plays the long game like R voters do every time. They show up, especially in the off year elections, when state level power is decided and that’s where SCOTUS seems to be handing the culture war power.
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.
What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.
These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that. No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.
60% of the country supports gay marriage. 60% of the country supports a woman's right to choose. These are averages but there isn't a huge statistical difference between them. I think you are being overly glib about the possibilities.
Now gay marriage and interracial marriage rely on the Equal Protection Clause rather than the more esoteric 'privacy' right that is not specifically enumerated. So it's a more difficult legal challenge. However, Alito's draft opinion makes clear that he believes the only rights protected are the ones that are specifically enumerated or follow a long historical precedent. Gay marriage does not meet either of those. I would argue interracial marriage has a longer tradition, but still only mid century.
The important thing to remember is there have been something like 32 or 33 different judges on the Supreme Court since 1973. Abortion issues come up every single year in one form or another.
now you have 5 judges saying the court was wrong for 50 years, that’s multiple different configurations of the Supreme Court over a long period of time.
The hubris that requires to be so sure they are now right is not only stunning but dangerous. In reality, no one can predict how this ends because quite frankly this is pretty unprecedented as these 5 judges are elevating themselves above everyone who came before them and the court itself. Legal precedent is as core to our system of justice as anything and probably more so
They point to Plessy as how the court could be wrong for so many years. And it was in that case.
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.
What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.
These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that. No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.
60% of the country supports gay marriage. 60% of the country supports a woman's right to choose. These are averages but there isn't a huge statistical difference between them. I think you are being overly glib about the possibilities.
Now gay marriage and interracial marriage rely on the Equal Protection Clause rather than the more esoteric 'privacy' right that is not specifically enumerated. So it's a more difficult legal challenge. However, Alito's draft opinion makes clear that he believes the only rights protected are the ones that are specifically enumerated or follow a long historical precedent. Gay marriage does not meet either of those. I would argue interracial marriage has a longer tradition, but still only mid century.
The important thing to remember is there have been something like 32 or 33 different judges on the Supreme Court since 1973. Abortion issues come up every single year in one form or another.
now you have 5 judges saying the court was wrong for 50 years, that’s multiple different configurations of the Supreme Court over a long period of time.
The hubris that requires to be so sure they are now right is not only stunning but dangerous. In reality, no one can predict how this ends because quite frankly this is pretty unprecedented as these 5 judges are elevating themselves above everyone who came before them and the court itself. Legal precedent is as core to our system of justice as anything and probably more so
They point to Plessy as how the court could be wrong for so many years. And it was in that case.
Yes. Separate but equal. I just don’t see gutting the 14th amendment as anywhere near the level of mistake as segregation
plus the court has always (to my knowledge) reversed decisions of this type within the framework of moving forward and evolving in a society. Addition of rights not subtracting them. When it’s a revision in the negative in terms of protection that should give everyone pause, reguardless of the issue at hand
Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,760
This might be an unpopular opinion... but the time has come for USA to start talking peaceful separation before another civil war breaks out.
And sure, sounds alarmist. But the population is so remarkably broken and on opposite sides on so many issues... just get the ball rolling for two separate countries and be done with it.
So are cities and counties supposed to secede from states or do you see this happening as a mass migration with certain states forming a country etc. In my home state of michigan alone the UP would be in the conservative camp as well as most rural areas of lower MI outside of major cities. I'm pretty sure that whatever peoples political leanings are that they would rather go to war than be forced to relocate from their chosen home. Sounds like a lot of costs to bear for the people that would have to be displaced.
Logistical nightmare... to be sure.
I suppose my point is... what other options are there? It's no different than a shitty marriage. Continue hating each other for another 30 years because you can't afford to split? Or bite the bullet and start fresh?
Interestingly.... and I honestly believe this to be sure. Just start talking about it.
Have the two parties begin the process. Create a commission. Have a referendum. Do stuff. Start talking about where the lines are going to be... just start talking. And get them and the public to realize that resolving issues is the better option than splitting the country up.
Sounds awesome.. but when I look at things.. I think people have gone well beyond the possibility of reconciliation. But maybe that could change when people start actually looking at the real possibility or desire to separate.
Interestingly.... and I honestly believe this to be sure. Just start talking about it.
Interestingly enough, there are a few politicians who would like to see that happen. One in particular that I know of (and this is confirmed by a former mayor in Alaska I know) is Santa Claus.
Santa
Claus is a candidate for the Special Election to complete Alaska
Congressman Don Young’s current term, ending in January of 2023, in the
U.S. House of Representatives.
Santa
is a two-term Councilman and current Mayor Pro Tem of the City of North
Pole, Alaska. Santa Claus is an independent, progressive, democratic
socialist, and shares many of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders’s positions.
He is a long-time advocate for child health, safety, and welfare. Santa
believes ALL Members of Congress must find common ground, work together
to represent their diverse constituencies, and move our nation forward
in a productive manner that ensures happiness, peace, good health, and
prosperity for everyone living in the United States, including Alaska.
Alaska
is uniquely positioned to address many issues: energy, defense,
climate, education, Arctic nations collaboration, infrastructure,
especially broadband, indigenous and women’s rights, health,
immigration, justice, medical debt, etc. and capitalize on Alaska’s
myriad resources in ways that do not harm anyone. He has been a union
member for a half-century and supports Medicare for All and the
Congressional Cannabis Caucus.
Santa
is a former: Member of the Alaska Public Broadcasting Commission,
President of the North Pole Community Chamber of Commerce, and Senior
Ranger for the Fairbanks North Star Borough’s Chena Lake Recreation Area
(North Pole).
Years
ago, he completed his successful church-sponsored national Santa’s
Bless the Children Tour, visiting every Governor’s staff and most U.S.
Senators’ staffs throughout the United States, discussing the plight of
vulnerable children. He received numerous Governors’ awards for his
advocacy, even an international Peace Prize from the Santa Claus Peace
Council in Turkey, and was well-received in Washington, D.C., where he
was born, by Members of Congress and their staffs — many of whom
remarked that their visit from Santa was engaging and a memorable
highlight. As funny as it may seem to some, his name, Santa Claus,
afforded him ready access to and a friendly reception from the Members
of Congress and staffs he visited, regardless of party affiliation.
Before
his legal name change to Santa Claus in 2005, Santa served as Special
Assistant to the Deputy Police Commissioner of New York City, Member of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Defense Executive
Reserve, while Director of the Terrorism Research and Communication
Center, and Chief Safety and Security Officer of the U.S. Virgin Islands
Port Authority. He earned his bachelors and masters degrees at New York
University, where he completed his doctoral coursework in educational
communication and technology and graduated from two seminaries.
Santa
supports government policies that protect (1) child health, safety, and
welfare, (2) our Creator’s environment, and (3) the weak, poor, and
underprivileged, as well as policies (1) that recognize that science,
education, and religion can co-exist, (2) that unite, rather than
separate, (3) that promote peace, not war, (4) that favor natural
remedies, not pharmaceutical sales, and (5) that demonstrate compassion.
He believes that love, not fear, is the greatest power on Earth.
Please note that Santa Claus does not solicit or accept campaign contributions.
He encourages your interest, engagement, and, most importantly, your
VOTE on or before June 11th. He will be Tweeting and posting videos on
YouTube throughout his campaign.
Santa's Twitter account:
Twitter.com/SantaClausforAK
Santa's YouTube account:
YouTube.com/user/GenuineSantaClaus
For
those who may be interested, his name, Santa Claus, is derived from the
Dutch expression for Saint Nicholas: Sinterklaas. Nicholas was the
Christian Bishop of Myra who lived in Asia Minor, where Turkey is now,
during the fourth century.
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.
What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.
These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that. No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.
One wild card here could be how far we move into theocracy. Right now, the conditions don't exist to outlaw contraception. But 10 years from now, who knows? We might have only one viable party and if so, that party might be doing everything it can to make "we're a Christian nation" more official. Do you know what my opinion was on gay marriage in 1995? I didn't have one; the idea hadn't even occurred to me. Ten years later, the conditions were there for consideration. Ten years from now? Who knows? But we're in a cultural war and it's pretty obvious who's going to win that war.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Comments
the ultimate irony is overturning Roe the opinion states that this issue needs to be returned to the states to decide. However if the Republicans take the house and senate on day 1 a federal law banning abortion in all states will be introduced taking that right away from individual states. Biden would veto so that’s safe for at least 2 years.
What I can't believe is that in 2022 I still have to explain to people that being pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion.
That nobody is "yay abortions".
freedom of choice, individual liberty, etc Vs government deciding for you. Insert any other issue… vaccines, masking, gun rights, regulation, health insurance mandates, etc. personal choice is almost always the conservative position not government overreach
Gay Marriage? That's a formality. That's getting reversed.
As for the others, While very few people want those things outlawed, it's really not much of a leap to "the states should decide these things." I'm not saying it's going to happen. But it'll be interesting to see how an emboldened social right moves ahead.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
And sure, sounds alarmist. But the population is so remarkably broken and on opposite sides on so many issues... just get the ball rolling for two separate countries and be done with it.
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013
Toronto I&II 2016
10C: 220xxx
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Now remember, Congress could pass laws to protect all of these issues. They just haven't because it's too bottled up and everyone has relied on Roe and now Obergfell. The supremacy clause would trump any state movements, even if they had state constitutional amendments.
we vastly outperform our share of the population in terms of economic output. We can buy our grain from Canada
red states have nearly all the nukes though.
Sorry, my cynicism factor is running high this morning.
On a more serious note, as others have pointed out, this might be logistically very difficult. I can't even fathom an answer to all of the conflicted state this country is in. We are very likely going to start seeing some very ugly, very violent activity in many city centers.
It is looking bad, indeed, cblock, but do know many of us are with you!
No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.
I have this picture in my mind about those who are opposed to abortion and the folks who protest it etc. etc.
Last year I was driving through central Ontario and we drove past an anti-abortion protest and I would describe the crowd as old, white, sad looking. What I would LOVE to know on this day... is how many of those people and the people who protest, the Pro-Life activists.. do something, anything beyond protesting.
If the majority of a population in a democratic society ultimately decides the laws.. and in this case (for Canada at least) we are Pro-Choice.... if you're in the minority and you just care so much about life... I would want to know if these people along with protesting are actively taking in fosters. Are actively adopting children. Are actively helping PEOPLE, LIVE PEOPLE in a community. To me, that must be a part of any Pro-Life effort. They obviously care so much about OTHER PEOPLE that they dedicate a large portion of their time and money to OTHER PEOPLE... right? They follow the example of Jesus (socialist) SO MUCH that they keep very little for themselves... they house and feed the needy... right? I mean.. that's obvious if their Pro-Life.... right?
And I'm guessing... just guessing here.. that they do not. Most of them. And I'm guessing it's because doing the actual work of helping and raising a child is FUCKING DIFFICULT and remarkably inconvenient.
As for the politicians who support Pro-Life... show me the one who most exemplifies the teachings and examples of Jesus. They're so Pro-Life that they support social programs, health care, education, phys-ed, mental health.... right? They're concerned about the hungry and the homeless... right? I mean... obviously... they're pro-life. Makes perfect sense.
The logic of most Pro-Life people, especially the politicians is so remarkably flawed. Save the lives of unborn fetuses at all costs because I guess that's what the bible says? That's what morality says? Once their born... fuck em, they're on their own. Yet THAT is somehow ok according to the bible? According to morals?
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013
Toronto I&II 2016
10C: 220xxx
Now gay marriage and interracial marriage rely on the Equal Protection Clause rather than the more esoteric 'privacy' right that is not specifically enumerated. So it's a more difficult legal challenge. However, Alito's draft opinion makes clear that he believes the only rights protected are the ones that are specifically enumerated or follow a long historical precedent. Gay marriage does not meet either of those. I would argue interracial marriage has a longer tradition, but still only mid century.
Preventable childhood illnesses kill a lot of kids who are already here. Your care is tied to your ability to pay for it not to your “right to life”
I suppose my point is... what other options are there? It's no different than a shitty marriage. Continue hating each other for another 30 years because you can't afford to split? Or bite the bullet and start fresh?
Interestingly.... and I honestly believe this to be sure. Just start talking about it.
Have the two parties begin the process. Create a commission. Have a referendum. Do stuff. Start talking about where the lines are going to be... just start talking. And get them and the public to realize that resolving issues is the better option than splitting the country up.
Sounds awesome.. but when I look at things.. I think people have gone well beyond the possibility of reconciliation. But maybe that could change when people start actually looking at the real possibility or desire to separate.
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013
Toronto I&II 2016
10C: 220xxx
now you have 5 judges saying the court was wrong for 50 years, that’s multiple different configurations of the Supreme Court over a long period of time.
Democrats have never been able to rally voters on SCOTUS related issues and I see no reason that’s about to change. The left tends to cry and whine about almost irrelevant power/control things when in power (think BBB and crying about Manchin for example) and never plays the long game like R voters do every time. They show up, especially in the off year elections, when state level power is decided and that’s where SCOTUS seems to be handing the culture war power.
plus the court has always (to my knowledge) reversed decisions of this type within the framework of moving forward and evolving in a society. Addition of rights not subtracting them. When it’s a revision in the negative in terms of protection that should give everyone pause, reguardless of the issue at hand
Santa Claus
Santa Claus is a candidate for the Special Election to complete Alaska Congressman Don Young’s current term, ending in January of 2023, in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Santa is a two-term Councilman and current Mayor Pro Tem of the City of North Pole, Alaska. Santa Claus is an independent, progressive, democratic socialist, and shares many of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders’s positions. He is a long-time advocate for child health, safety, and welfare. Santa believes ALL Members of Congress must find common ground, work together to represent their diverse constituencies, and move our nation forward in a productive manner that ensures happiness, peace, good health, and prosperity for everyone living in the United States, including Alaska.
Alaska is uniquely positioned to address many issues: energy, defense, climate, education, Arctic nations collaboration, infrastructure, especially broadband, indigenous and women’s rights, health, immigration, justice, medical debt, etc. and capitalize on Alaska’s myriad resources in ways that do not harm anyone. He has been a union member for a half-century and supports Medicare for All and the Congressional Cannabis Caucus.
Santa is a former: Member of the Alaska Public Broadcasting Commission, President of the North Pole Community Chamber of Commerce, and Senior Ranger for the Fairbanks North Star Borough’s Chena Lake Recreation Area (North Pole).
Years ago, he completed his successful church-sponsored national Santa’s Bless the Children Tour, visiting every Governor’s staff and most U.S. Senators’ staffs throughout the United States, discussing the plight of vulnerable children. He received numerous Governors’ awards for his advocacy, even an international Peace Prize from the Santa Claus Peace Council in Turkey, and was well-received in Washington, D.C., where he was born, by Members of Congress and their staffs — many of whom remarked that their visit from Santa was engaging and a memorable highlight. As funny as it may seem to some, his name, Santa Claus, afforded him ready access to and a friendly reception from the Members of Congress and staffs he visited, regardless of party affiliation.
Before his legal name change to Santa Claus in 2005, Santa served as Special Assistant to the Deputy Police Commissioner of New York City, Member of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Defense Executive Reserve, while Director of the Terrorism Research and Communication Center, and Chief Safety and Security Officer of the U.S. Virgin Islands Port Authority. He earned his bachelors and masters degrees at New York University, where he completed his doctoral coursework in educational communication and technology and graduated from two seminaries.Santa supports government policies that protect (1) child health, safety, and welfare, (2) our Creator’s environment, and (3) the weak, poor, and underprivileged, as well as policies (1) that recognize that science, education, and religion can co-exist, (2) that unite, rather than separate, (3) that promote peace, not war, (4) that favor natural remedies, not pharmaceutical sales, and (5) that demonstrate compassion. He believes that love, not fear, is the greatest power on Earth.
Please note that Santa Claus does not solicit or accept campaign contributions.
He encourages your interest, engagement, and, most importantly, your VOTE on or before June 11th. He will be Tweeting and posting videos on YouTube throughout his campaign.
Santa's Twitter account:
Twitter.com/SantaClausforAK
Santa's YouTube account:
YouTube.com/user/GenuineSantaClaus
For those who may be interested, his name, Santa Claus, is derived from the Dutch expression for Saint Nicholas: Sinterklaas. Nicholas was the Christian Bishop of Myra who lived in Asia Minor, where Turkey is now, during the fourth century.
PLEASE NOTE:
Santa Claus for Alaska
does not solicit or accept
campaign contributions.
This website is paid for by:
Santa Claus for Alaska
PO Box 55122
North Pole, AK 99705
Email:
Campaign-SantaClausforAlaska@USA.net
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin