Posted on 05/08/2022 6:33:33 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
The possibility that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade has set off alarm bells in the LGBT community.
Advocates and legal experts are warning that the 1973 landmark decision, which deemed that a woman’s right to abortion is constitutional, could have severe consequences for LGBT Americans’ mental and physical health, socioeconomic status and right to marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
“A lot of states did so. 16 of them in 1967.”
Is that something you support?
If they reverse this, is it too much to ask an examination of the possibility of “reversing the 2020 Election.”
NAhhhhh, that’s crazy talk.
TWO MORE YEARS!
There were other rulings that had weak foundation.
If I remember correctly, there is a Texas case involving homosexuality that had strong States’ Rights believers up in arms.
Does stating a fact somehow indicate support?
“LGBT mental health” just sounds like an oxymoron to me.
Well, on the marriage question, at least with regard to Supreme Court decisions, the 2013 decision mandated that the federal government must recognize same sex marriages from states which allowed them at that time. That reasoning was that the states had the ultimate authority over marriage and family law. The 2015 Supreme Court decision mandated same sex marriage nationwide.
Presumeably it depends on the legal criteria the courts would use to make decisions. With abortion, overturning Roe vs. Wade gives the matter back to the states. Since in 2013 the Supreme Court ruling on marriage was that the states make marriage and family law, that’s why I thought overturning Obergfell would send marriage back to the states.
“Y-you mean men can’t be birthing persons? Not even after a good butt reaming?”
You win best post of today!
A conundrum. What if a “gay gene” is discovered and parents want to abort their gay baby? Does it remain a “parasitic lump of cells?” Would the gaystapo support aborting one of their own?
““LGBT mental health” just sounds like an oxymoron to me.”
They are normal when compared to Trans people. By now, gay and lesbian is boring and is old hat.
Well, not all of us agree that homosexual marriage has a sound legal footing based on equal protection. I say that because, before the courts got involved, all of us were treated equally under marriage laws. All of were limited to an opposite sex partner. All of us were limited to one partner at a time. All of us were constrained against marriage to certain close relatives.
I understand a homosexual man doesn’t want to marry a woman. But the point is, he had the same legal rights as all of us. Some heterosexual men don’t want to marry a woman. The point is, he had the same rights as everyone else under the notion of marriage as a man and a woman.
Overturning laws against interracial marriage did not change the definition of marriage as a man and a woman. Overturning laws to mandate homosexual marriage DID change the definition of marriage. That’s the difference between homosexual marriage and interracial marriage.
Agree. And the government interest in marriage is in producing and raising the next generation. Homosexuals are incapable of the former and generally inferior at the latter.
Utter nonsense
After we start jailing women for contracting the murder of their unborn children, maybe we can go back to jailing and rehabilitating the sodomites. And hanging pedophiles who molest children.
Homosexual men fear that they will not be able to get abortions if the infamous Constitution is followed and Roe v Wade is overturned.
It also legalized gay marriage in states where it was illegal.
With abortion, overturning Roe vs. Wade gives the matter back to the states.
It gives it back to the people and the legislatures, be that state or federal.
Right you are. You caught me in an error.
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.