Posted on 05/03/2022 5:39:36 PM PDT by libh8er
SACRAMENTO — If the “right to privacy” that courts have ruled is provided by the U.S. Constitution were a home, Roe v. Wade would be the foundation and subsequent rulings enshrining LGBTQ rights would be akin to the floors built above.
LGBTQ activists and legal scholars say that’s why the revelation that the Supreme Court is set to overturn Roe v. Wade, the historic case protecting abortion rights, sent a wave of panic through the community as many question whether rulings protecting same-sex marriage and consensual sexual acts could be targeted next.
“If the foundation of a house crumbles, the whole house is threatened,” said Samuel Garrett-Pate, a spokesperson for Equality California, an LGBTQ advocacy group. “The court is clearly telegraphing exactly where they plan to go next.”
A draft opinion leaked to Politico revealed that the court’s conservative majority is preparing to repeal Roe v. Wade, though it has not issued a formal ruling yet. The draft ruling, if made official, would allow individual states to decide whether to ban the procedure.
The situation led many in the LGBTQ community to question if overturning such a foundational section of privacy law in the United States could lead to a patchwork of laws in Republican states that roll back the community’s rights.
.....
“I’ll be honest, we are living in very, very scary times,” he said of the Roe v. Wade draft opinion.
Wiener, who is gay, stepped up his warnings in a series of tweets, likening the situation to “The Handmaid’s Tale,” a dystopian book and TV drama about a fanatical religious government that kills queer people and enslaves women to bear children.
“They’re coming for us next,” Wiener wrote. “They’ll stop at nothing to make us second-class citizens & push us back into the shadows.”
(Excerpt) Read more at sfchronicle.com ...
Fags realize their sins against humanity are as reprehensible as murdering children.
chopping innocent babies to pieces is not a “right to privacy.”
These people are able to “panic” because they were born, right?
“As someone said, you can ignore reality. But you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”
That was Rand.
L
The 1964 Civil Rights Act banned discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin.
Sex meant gender, of which there are two, with a microscopic number of hermaphrodites which are freaks of nature, in the same vein as conjoined twins; rare and abnormal.
Sex most certainly was never intended to morph into “sexual orientation”, it’s meaning was twisted by perverse minds to carve out special rights for those who think their sexual proclivities need to be enshrined in law, implied in the Constitution.
Hope so!
If genocide can be stopped will perversion be next asked San Francisco libtards 🤪
That’s like saying that the gargantuan all-encompassing federal monster is perfectly fine because it was all slipped in a piece at a time under the Commerce Clause. The existence of 99% of the current federal government is a direct violation of the Constitution, and has nothing to do with making commerce “regular”, and you have to be at least as inventive as the Court was in “discovering” a right to abortion in “discovering” a right to “gay marriage.”
Unless you believe that words have no meaning, you must realize that the equal protection clause can at best only ensure that EXISTING rights are uniformly extended to all. But the definition of what constitutes “marriage” matters greatly here, and no such right for homosexuals to “marry” has ever existed, because by the very definition of the word “marriage” it excludes anyone other than a man and a woman (with the possible exception of polygamous “marriages” in some places). The Court can only determine whether the law is fairly extending EXISTING, actual rights to all; it cannot INVENT a new “right” out of whole cloth. It cannot redefine universally-understood terms to fit its desired social outcome, which is exactly what was done in Obergfell. At a bare minimum, you would have to point me to the law passed by Congress that defined this new “right” that the Court sought to extend to everyone, and you cannot.
Besides, homosexuals already have the very same right to marry as does everyone else - they can marry any person of the opposite sex that they choose, so long as that person is of legal age. Obergfell wasn’t about “equal protection” in any way; it was about a devious ploy to redefine a timeless institution that is the very foundation of civil society.
There was no precedent for gay marriage he thought he needed to uphold. That's the issue for him.
Some things should be hidden. Perversion is one of them.
There’s a couple of executive orders too, that added sexual orientations to the protected class replacing sex as in two biological genders, that need to be revoked. Clinton and Obama EOs.
We’d have to add the trans and other unnatural things to the list as well.
Wow! That pendulum has a wicked swing to the right huh.
Betcha they wish they didn’t try to start that grooming stuff
“They’re coming for us next”
Really bad drama, even for a community college theater class.
No, you idiot alphabet-people. You should rejoice at the prospect of so many new babies you can adopt! / {Barfasm}
They are ALL completely nuts, not one lick of common sense, no ability to make a decision on their own, no independent thought process very weak minded people who are sheep!! How in the hell did SO MANY parents do such a horrible job of raising these people??
If these women are of child-bearing age, then they should bear them.
roll eyes….
Actually Leviticus 20.13 says if a man lies with another man, both should be put to death. The same chapter calls for the death penalty for adultery and other offenses.
SF Chronicle has been working overtime to save Boudin from recall. Shows how evil their staff is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.