708
Tennessee GOP quietly overturns marriage equality by giving officials the right to refuse
(www.advocate.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
708 points (97.5% liked)
politics
19241 readers
1679 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fucking SCOTUS bait. This is to overturn Hodges
And Loving v. Virginia is next.
The act of Clarence Thomas voting to overturn Loving will be America's pinnacle act of irony. Nothing will top it.
I can imagine him literally writing in his concurrence: "It is time to pull the ladder up behind us."
I’ve been predicting it for years that that’s what will happen
My understanding is that Thomas wants to end Loving and allow bans on interracial marriage because he wants to expose how racist America is and to radicalize black Americans into separatism.
Like the goal is to show black Americans that racist whites run the country and that they will prevent you from marrying other races because they hate you and consider you to be The Other. And it is impossible to change their minds on this. Which is why the Constitution and caselaw cannot protect us. Instead, we need to self-segregate away from whites and form our own communities away from them. Similar to the Amish or the hasidic Jewish neighborhoods in NYC.
Thomas in some ways has more in common with Marcus Garvey than Ronald Reagan. It's just an incredibly cruel and largely contradictory version of Garvey's racial separatism
Very creative and all but... You do know about his wife, right?
The white lady who helped plan the insurrection?
Yeah, she isn't an issue with any of this. His point is that if it wasn't for SCOTUS then interracial marriage would still be banned. And he wants to make that true so that others are radicalized by it.
Him being deprived of his own marriage would just be seen by him as effective additional propaganda - would show that no matter how high black people climb in society, whites will still destroy their lives. Which would help show that integration is an impossibility, which is his goal
Thomas is going to be all in on overturning Loving v. Virginia.
In case anyone else was wondering, you might know this case better as Obergefell (since SCOTUS cases are typically informally called by the plaintiff's name).