The past is always a predecessor to the future. I wouldn’t trust her with my rights anymore than I would trust Trump
In high school I thought homosexuality was a sin, and was occasionally a little shit about it. But I had been raised to be kind and empathetic, even towards people I thought were going against God’s will (because my faith growing up was very careful to drive home that literally everyone is a sinner and we should not judge one another), and that kindness and empathy eventually led to me getting to know LGBTQ people and learning more about them, feeling for their struggles, which among other things helped reshape the views I had in my younger years to my current extremely allied stance.
People change. Especially when given new information and perspectives. Especially over time. I am not the person I was then, and I am thoroughly grateful to the people who didn’t just discard me because I held views that disagreed with theirs.
She also supported the Respect for Marriage Act, which will throw LGBTQ+ and interracial marriages back under the bus if SCOTUS strikes down Loving and/or Obergefell.
I’m extremely confused by what you mean here. The RFMA specifically codifies parts of the decisions in Loving and Obergefell. Even if those decisions were overturned, we now have Federal laws on the subject. Whereas before the RFMA, if Obergefell were overturned, then DOMA would be law again and gay marriage wouldn’t be federally recognized nor required to be recognized by the states. It was brought into law because of the threat to Obergefell after Row was overturned.
How would RFMA “throw LGBTQ+ and interracial marriages back under the bus”?
For those not already married their rights could be denied by a simple county clerk that doesn’t believe in gay or interracial marriage.
That would absolutely suck, sure, but I’m not sure what they could do about that. Marriage licenses are state-issued and it’s a power not given to the Federal government. RFMA demands states accept marriage licenses from other states (as the full faith and credit clause allows them to demand) and repealed DOMA, which prevented the Federal government from recognizing gay marriage (in the event of Obergefell being overturned). Those are important, even if it may fall short of perfection. And for that reason the bill was largely touted as a win for progressives.
Short of a constitutional amendment, which will NOT happen in our current national climate, there’s not much more the federal government can do I think. I’m not a constitutional scholar.
Considering every single Democrat in Congress voted for RFMA, I think holding Harris’s support for the bill against her is quite silly.
In high school I thought homosexuality was a sin, and was occasionally a little shit about it. But I had been raised to be kind and empathetic, even towards people I thought were going against God’s will (because my faith growing up was very careful to drive home that literally everyone is a sinner and we should not judge one another), and that kindness and empathy eventually led to me getting to know LGBTQ people and learning more about them, feeling for their struggles, which among other things helped reshape the views I had in my younger years to my current extremely allied stance.
People change. Especially when given new information and perspectives. Especially over time. I am not the person I was then, and I am thoroughly grateful to the people who didn’t just discard me because I held views that disagreed with theirs.
I’m extremely confused by what you mean here. The RFMA specifically codifies parts of the decisions in Loving and Obergefell. Even if those decisions were overturned, we now have Federal laws on the subject. Whereas before the RFMA, if Obergefell were overturned, then DOMA would be law again and gay marriage wouldn’t be federally recognized nor required to be recognized by the states. It was brought into law because of the threat to Obergefell after Row was overturned.
How would RFMA “throw LGBTQ+ and interracial marriages back under the bus”?
For those not already married their rights could be denied by a simple county clerk that doesn’t believe in gay or interracial marriage.
That would absolutely suck, sure, but I’m not sure what they could do about that. Marriage licenses are state-issued and it’s a power not given to the Federal government. RFMA demands states accept marriage licenses from other states (as the full faith and credit clause allows them to demand) and repealed DOMA, which prevented the Federal government from recognizing gay marriage (in the event of Obergefell being overturned). Those are important, even if it may fall short of perfection. And for that reason the bill was largely touted as a win for progressives.
Short of a constitutional amendment, which will NOT happen in our current national climate, there’s not much more the federal government can do I think. I’m not a constitutional scholar.
Considering every single Democrat in Congress voted for RFMA, I think holding Harris’s support for the bill against her is quite silly.
I got way more against Harris than just a single bill. Her history against the broad spectrum of the marginalized is horrific