Summary

In response to Donald Trump’s re-election, some same-sex couples, like Ben Nelson and Adam Weinberger, are accelerating plans to marry, fearing potential rollbacks of LGBTQ rights.

Concerns stem from the Supreme Court’s 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade and past statements from conservative justices suggesting interest in revisiting the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.

While the Respect for Marriage Act offers federal safeguards, uncertainty persists.

LGBTQ-friendly businesses are stepping up to support couples, but fears of broader restrictions, including on parenting options, remain widespread among the community.

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    7 hours ago

    The Republican Party is turning into the Taliban of the United States. On the other hand, Americans knew that and knew what Trump is all about when they voted, and they walked right into this with eyes wide open, serving both Houses of Congress and the Presidency to that party. We deserve everything that’s coming to us.

    • JimVanDeventer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      They aren’t turning into; they have always been. They have finally consolidated power. I don’t even live in the US and I am dreading the worldwide ramifications of your election. Where can I go to escape? The moon? Apparently not even that.

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Breaking up marriages is recognized worldwide as an act of genocide, but putting restrictions on who can marry isn’t as universally recognized.

        • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          7 hours ago

          The world has never cared about a genocide that happened within a nation’s borders.

          Had Hitler not invaded other countries, there wouldn’t have been any consequences more severe than a public condemnation.

          Hell, there would have provably been foreign support for genociding Romani people.

        • uniquethrowagay
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Odd statement. The world has cared a lot more about genocide after 1945.

      • AngryRobot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 hours ago

        They did it to my mom. She and her partner drove to San Francisco on that weekend when they were doing gay marriages in the mid 2000s. That ,marriage was canceled once they straightened iut the laws.

        They’re legally wed right here in Arizona now, but I wouldn’t put it past these fucks to try to annul their marriage again.

        • III@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          He doesn’t care about domestic law. I doubt he would care about laws he personally enacted if they stood in opposition to his in-the-moment wants.

    • youstolemyname@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      I’d personally be afraid I’d be putting myself on a termination list tbh, but others are probably braver than me.

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Marriage is a vow, not an oath.

    I understand why the headline is what it is but my inner grammar enthusiast can’t just let it slide.

    • III@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      What’s the difference? I tried looking and there are various minor differences but none that would make one more applicable to marriage than the other. The argument would come down to the personal position of the person getting married. Not really something you can dictate the terminology over.

      • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        25 minutes ago

        I understand the confusion, a lot of terms have been conflated so frequently that the definitions of the terms themselves have been adapted to the usage rather than people getting educated on the correct use of terminology.

        A good, and common example of this that was highlighted by the Simpsons, of all things, is the difference between jealousy and envy.

        Jealousy is the feeling of fear of loss of a thing, and envy is the feeling of wanting what someone else has. If you look at the definition of jealousy now, it shows that jealousy basically has both definitions because the use of the word has changed because most of the population doesn’t care, and uses jealousy when they mean envy.

        I’d have to dive into the etymology of the terms for evidence but on the surface and from my own knowledge, an oath is a commitment to an office, like the court, King, country, etc. A vow is a promise to an individual.

        Legal proceedings have always cared about the textbook definitions of things, which is why we see oaths taken in court, when taking a position in government or the military, etc. And vows for things like marriage. I would always fall back on legal definitions for the first hint at what the etymology of the term is, and an indication of it’s correct usage, rather than the adapted usage by the public which often gets written into dictionaries.

        My inner grammar enthusiast likes to use the correct terms for things like vow vs oath and jealous vs envious. It tickles my brain in a way that I like. At the same time, I try not to be so rigorous about it that I hold others to my standards. It’s more important that I understand what you mean, rather than enforcing that you use the right words when you say it.

  • Firebirdie713@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    17 hours ago

    My husband and I did this after the Dobbs decision came down and cited ‘future reconsiderations’ for Casey and Obergefell. Called a handful of friends and family and told them to meet us at the courthouse in two weeks.

    Now, we are bracing to help people who may have to travel to our blue state to get married, just like they had to 15-ish years ago. We may not be able to leave, but we have some means to help others, so we are doing what we can.

  • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Gay marriages seem a bit purer to me because you know it’s not about kids. They legit like each other.

    • Ellen_musk_ox@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Just because same sex couples don’t birth kids doesn’t mean we’ll stop trying.

      Anything is possible through Jesus.

      • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I see that more likely with 2 females than 2 males. Unless Arnold Schwarzenegger JR becomes a thing.

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I know multiple same-sex couples that got married explicitly for the purpose of being allowed to adopt.

      • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Well least it’s not like biological clock is ticking so get pregnant now or else leading to bad choices.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I’m heterosexual and we were marred for 10 years before we had a kid. My brother has been married to a woman almost 30 years and has never had kids. My uncle has been married to a woman almost 50 years and has never had kids. I have lots of friends who are heterosexual and married and have no kids.

      And there are two queer couples I’m friends with that do have kids.

      On top of that, I know people with kids who never got married.

      Marriage and children are really not related except when it comes to certain legal issues.

      • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I was thinking more being socially forced to marriage thanks to issues revolving around biological kids which to me “ruins the sanctity” of marriage. Meanwhile gay people don’t have that issue. Like oh no someone got my pregnant if I don’t get marriage my family stone me but my partner is a one night stand that I found out is a serial killer.

    • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Well, some gay couples do have kids. Some men have ovaries and some women have testicles.

  • jjagaimo@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    I wonder what the chances are that the coming administration invalidate such marriages, probably on some dumb Christian nationalist grounds

          • III@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Conservatives everywhere hoping for some religious issue to enter into legal dispute based on a woman named Sharia so they redefine that term just like they do with every word that describes their shit-baggery.

      • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I wonder how this would work with their anti-trans initiatives. If a transwoman tried to marry her girlfriend, would it technically be legal under their backwards laws?

        • midribbon_action@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          13 hours ago

          No, they see us as criminals and will deny every right they can, marriage, public service, equal treatment under the law, medical insurance/medication, freedom of association, speech, and even our right to exist. The point is to criminalize and erase our existence from public life.

    • tiramichu@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Anything is possible, but it would be far more difficult to invalidate existing marriages than prevent new ones. Which is exactly why couples are rushing to get it done now.

      • III@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        They are openly stating they will deport legal citizens… so, acting like their should be no concern might not be a great idea.

    • cygnus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      It’s already happening in Italy, so there’s no reason to believe the GOP would hold back.

    • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      17 hours ago

      the Democrats defended Roe v. Wade so hard it fell so it is scary what four years of Republican rule will bring

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        15 hours ago

        We don’t get much from the democrats. But at least we do get something. I’d really hate to be one of those people that spent the whole last year as “useful idiots” for foreign Nations and oligarchs. Screaming about how Democrats are just the same as Republicans and just genocidal murders.

        I assume most didn’t want things to get worse. Didn’t want trump. This has to be like ashes on their tongue. I hope that they and the people they misinformed/demotivated. Will be ready to show solidarity if we’re ever given another chance at elections. And do what it takes to keep Republicans and their allies far away from any elected office for the rest of their lives.

        • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          I hope that they and the people they misinformed/demotivated. Will be ready to show solidarity if we’re ever given another chance at elections.

          Yes I hope all those center-right neolibs running the party realize the failure of their ways and join in solidarity with those of us on the left. I have my doubts though.

          • Eldritch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Well until such time as an actual left-wing party a cruise any sort of actual power we’re going to need them. And the best way to make them better with us. Feeling in local State offices which Republicans often run for unopposed with actual leftist candidates. Who will largely caucus with the Democratic Party. Building our influence inside it and dragging them left. Not engaging doesn’t persuade them anymore.

        • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          15 hours ago

          tasted like ashes since the one and only time was allowed to cast a vote and Obama got it

          both parties have utterly failed the US and it is past time to face the reality that both parties are bought and paid for

          • Eldritch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            14 hours ago

            I knew you would not be one of the ones that learned. Enjoy the Trump administration. You worked hard for it. 😀

            /EDIT/

            Real talk though folks. I’m chuckling a bit at the pyrrhic silent down votes. I bet I could name every one. But don’t be like the magats. Don’t give into the sunk cost fallacy and commit to destroying things like verdy and the others. There’s no value in unrealized ideological purity.

            This will be a harsh setback. And a lot of our friends and family are going to suffer. But they’re counting on everyone getting their shit together. Learning the lessons that need to be learned. Standing in solidarity against the oligarchs. Better still, liberating the minds of those they manipulate to stand with us.

            Whether you want an actual left wing party to electe. Or the relegation of neoliberal and liberal economic policy to the dustbins of history. That starts with relegating Republicans to the history books like the Whigs. Running and supporting actual leftist candidates locally. Especially in red States. And working to make democrats better at the national level where it makes sense. If Republicans disappeared tomorrow the current Democratic Party would crumble in an instant. Splitting into two at minimum. Wouldn’t that be a beautiful sight to see. But we’re not going to get there by destroying things. Only by building.

            • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Enjoy the Trump administration. You worked hard for it. 😀

              Interesting how you blame people on the left for not supporting either one of these right-wing candidates and then get all giddy throwing Trump’s victory in their face. Your comment is indistinguishable from some MAGA supporter posting on Facebook.

              • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 hours ago

                Perfect is the enemy of good

                Or you’re just a right wing shill… probably that

              • Eldritch@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                8 hours ago

                Okay so let’s start with this. Just because someone is nominally on the left. That does not mean that they are good. Authoritarians like leninists are nominally on the left. I don’t trust them anymore than I do fascists. Which is to say not at all.

                Second there is plenty of blame to go around. The Democrats definitely own some of it. But let’s not be naive and say that all these people going around spreading a lot of the misinformation and hyperbole didn’t have an impact. They absolutely did.

                Finally I was putting it in one particular person’s face. A known unrepentant quantity. If you go on to read what I posted later. I spoke about other people who got used learning the lesson and coming back to stand in solidarity with the rest of us to actually make things better next time.

                Also if you know anything about the American electoral system. When it comes to National elections like the presidency. The winner always comes from one of the two major parties. Are they both right wing? Absolutely. Would I rather be having to deal with the less abjectly horrible right wing personality instead of the most abjectly horrible one? You betcha. Is your ideological Purity going to keep any of these trans people or gay couples from being targeted and attacked by this administration? Would this have been a similar issue under the other Administration? If you’re honest the answers are clear. And yes as a leftist, and Anarchist even. I can say that I would have rather had the Democrat, and the people fighting against the Democrat 100% helped the Republican win. That’s not even a controversial statement.

    • phx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      They’re likely on a list already if that’s the case, but it is standing for what they believe in

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Yep, that’s on the congress. Which Democrats did not have sufficient control of. Which Republicans/DINOs would have struck down hard if they even tried. But simple minds do love simple solutions for complex problems. Regardless of whether they work or not.

      • NeoToasty@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I do, but why explain to an asshole who decided to be an asshole just out of the blue for a simple comment? Bye.

        • whithom@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          12 hours ago

          You’re upset someone called you out on your shit because you want to say whatever you want without consequences? Okay MAGA.

          • TheLadyAugust@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            I thought OP was making a sarcastic comment, not literally blaming Obama. It used to be a meme to blame Obama for every little insignificant thing that wasn’t his fault. I might have read it wrong though. e.g. r/thanksobama

            • whithom@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Well, if that’s the case, it illustrates the importance of the /s or the use of the meme, because that joke is now dead and it sounds like they’re blaming Obama.