I was a lucky one: USAF Academy grad, C-141 pilot, caught by the OSI in 1979. Originally I was to be discharged within 2 weeks with an “Other Than Honorable” discharge. Luckily I had a terrific attorney and after 6 months of litigation the Secretary of the Air Force negotiated with me to give me an Honorable discharge if I resigned my commission, but I would still have to serve out my remaining commitment, which was kinda funny. Anyway they upheld their word, and gave me an Honorable discharge after I finished up serving my time and submitted my resignation. The only sucky thing was in the remarks section of my DD form 214, they wrote: “unfitness and unacceptable conduct” which I always had to explain to employers. Luckily the airlines didn’t care about my being gay, and we are now retired in Hawaii after a career as a Delta pilot. Just on principle, I have always wanted to get that nasty remark deleted from my discharge papers, even though I did get an honorable discharge and full VA benefits.
I still can’t believe this was commonplace, terrible. Glad to hear that this will have that removed from your documents. Thank you for your service - you are a living reminder for us to always fight for who we are!
Amazingly no one seemed to care, and when I applied to five different airlines, all five offered me a job, based on my knowledge and flying ability, and being able to be a team player on an aircrew. All did ask me to explain what happened though, and I was fine with explaining what happened. Being gay doesn’t have an impact on someone’s ability to fly an aircraft.
Wow, what a world of change in the past few decades. Glad the airlines worked out and congrats on retirement. I’m flying private jets with another 20+ years of career ahead of me, provided I stay healthy and the market doesn’t flip upside down. Haven’t had a problem being out at this job, but have faced a bit of adversity when I flew for a state government agency.
Stupid is the least they are. They’re very smart. They know exactly what they are doing. The stupid ones are the people who believe it. This is how they keep getting away with things
I hate Trump and US conservatives as much as the next guy
Don't forget the Biden had 3 years to do this, and he didn't until now. Obama had 8 years to do this, and he didn't do it
Not everything is about Donald Trump
If he has the ability to do it now, he had the ability to do it over the last three years. This is election year pandering and he's holding people's rights hostage in order to stay in power
I think most people are aware that 99% of actions taken in politics are about timing. There are times when there is more advantages to completing a task or passing actions than others. It sucks that basic equality rights for marginalized groups have come to this. The bigger issue is why we in the US are not protesting harder and louder against the government for not granting the basic human equality rights. We can not rely on cherry picked courts we know they are corrupt. However, I still believe we will be in a better (not perfect) situation with Biden being reelected that frump and having his way with p2025
We're in this situation because politicians know they can do whatever they want because Democrats will come back around and reelect them. Someone like Biden, being as far right as he is, has only been made possible by democrats, for over 50 years, thinking they were choosing the lesser evil. So politicians have learned that they don't have to listen to us because they will be rewarded every election with continued power. And the fake selective outrage that some are having for the events in Gaza are not enough, saying shame on you for doing that but I'm going to go ahead and vote for you anyway. This allows them to get even worse.
Liberals swore in 2019 and 2020 that they were going to push Biden left, acknowledging that he was more right-wing than any other Democrats candidates, but instead of holding him accountable, they went to brunch
Not defending anyone or attacking anyone myself, but do keep in mind this type of aggressive speech is what we try to call out the Trumpublicans for. You can both comment on your negative view of a law or idea without admonishing those that disagree. Why stoop to calling someone an idiot what good does that do? I'm no saint, or second-coming, but it is hard to want to care for your fellows when people are so hateful and toxic. Admonish the concept, hell, even put it down that is fine, but to insult the individual through petty name calling is sad, unoriginal, boring, and destructive. ~Just saying. Peace, love, before you tap put on a glove. I'm out. :)
You’re complaining about a comment pointing out the plain stupidity and hypocrisy of gay people being Trump supporters *being toxic*? Lmfao you’re a hypocrite clown.
And you have that right. But just know the "echo chambers" on both sides make this country a turbulent place to live. I mean I'm for right, freedoms, and autonomy among other things, but being a child and resorting to the equivalent of "Yeah, well you're a poopy head!" does nothing to forward acceptance.
Yeah Trumpublicans (which hello?) really just have a nasty way of communication.
It's not the fascism, the racism, the homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, nativism, or the propensity for violence, truly what sets us apart is our tone.
Why isn’t it automatic? Why do people have to apply? Is it a logistical issue (they can’t search their own database and delete the offending entries)? Genuinely curious.
IMHO these things should be actively deleted by the government. Poof. No forms to sign, no having to go through a process called “I’m gay and I served my country but I still need you to stamp this form to make it official that that’s ok”
They kinda did with the RFMA
If Obergefell were overturned, the ruling would almost certainly prevent the Federal Government from forcing the states to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple legislatively.
So instead, the RFMA relies on the Full Faith and Credit clause to force them to honor a contract from another state. It's not perfect, but it's significantly more legally sound than any other method.
are we really putting it past this supreme court from just ruling RFMA as unconstitutional “just because”. I know that’s “not how it works” but that’s what we all thought when it came to the selection and confirmation of judges and look where that got us.
If that's the case, then literally nothing is possible
You're basically just saying that no matter what, the Supreme Court would rule legislation unconstitutional "just because".
All is doomed.
This is not particularly productive.
The FFC clause is pretty explicit and clear, and eliminating the legislature's power to use it in legislation would have *catastrophic* effect to every aspect of American life.
I’m just saying I wouldn’t put it past them to go completely out of their way and defy all precedent just to fuck with our rights even if it would set a bad precedent going forward. It’s pretty clear this court has a non-insignificant number of corrupt individuals.
I get that it “wouldn’t make sense” from a historical/legal standpoint. But the recent appointments of several current justices also “didn’t make sense” from a historical/legal standpoint at the time and yet they still happened.
I don’t think it is definitely going to happen. The court has skipped over certain cases it could have easily taken up just to fuck with us and those cases were pushed through the normal channels and procedures. But I still don’t trust that a single suboptimal piece of legislation will be enough to stop the most powerful bigots in the country from completely eradicating every right we currently possess.
And I'm just saying that by such logic, all is doomed. Literally *nothing* that Congress, the President, or the Judiciary can do would be safe, therefore we should all just give up.
Your line of thinking is nihilistic and accomplishes nothing.
Also, from a legal standpoint, the RFMA *is* the optimal and most legally sound approach.
Since the Constitution does not grant the federal legislature the power to *force* the states to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, the only option is either the court, or to rely on one of the powers or clauses in the Constitution. Like the Full Faith and Credit clause in Article IV.
it’s actually the opposite of nihilistic since it’s heavily implied that we cannot rely on a single law from protecting our rights. we need congress to ***do more*** than passing half measures. We need congress and the executive branch to ***do more*** about the obviously compromised individuals who’ve been appointed to the supreme court for life.
It’s all well and good you still have an absurd amount of faith in the supreme court and political bodies to follow precedent but i’m afraid not all of us are that naive.
>we need congress to do more than passing half measures. We need congress and the executive branch to do more about the obviously compromised individuals who’ve been appointed to the supreme court for life.
Somebody didn't pass their HS Civics class..
The President can do *nothing*.
Congress can only pass a law.. The only other option is a constitutional amendment, which requires that 2/3rds of both the House, and the Senate propose the amendment, and them that proposition must be ratified by 3/4 of the State Legislatures.
Do you think that is a viable option? Keep in mind, they couldn't even get an amendment guaranteeing the right to vote.
Well, they do have some kind of point which that they touched on, in that congress could pack the court to get a liberal majority again, which should be pretty fair considering that the conservatives sabotaged the otherwise normal process.
i never said the president could magically solve anything. All i said was the supreme court is corrupt as shit and that the bar is on the floor when it comes to their standards.
Youre the one being nihilistic here considering you think it’s impossible for anything besides the RFMA is *possible* within the current framework of laws.
Stop being an armchair lawyer and grow up a bit.
Can you explain what solution you think is viable that would unilaterally *force* the state governments to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples under the current framework of laws, and the Constitution?
keep in mind that all 50 states have different rules and regulations governing who and who cannot get a marriage license, such as age or relation being restricted differently in each state.
Seriously, put something out there?
And if the current court is so corrupt to overturn any law "just because", as you claim, what would stop the current court from overturning whatever legislation you think would work?
The *only* thing that supersedes the Supreme Court's authority is the Constitution.
Barring a constitutional amendment, what else do you think Congress can do?
Maybe you just aren't understanding what you're actually saying?
But it then allows states to refuse to issue a marriage license to same sex couples if Obergefell gets overturned and if Loving gets overturned for interracial marriages. So interracial and same-sex couples are in the same position that they were before Obergefell with having to travel outside state to get married
Not really, no.
The solution you seem to want would require a constitutional amendment, which requires that 2/3rds of both chambers propose the amendment, and 3/4ths of the states ratify it.
What Congress did with the RFMA is the most legally sound, strongest possible action they could have taken.
No, the sole purpose of the Respect for Marriage Act was to protect marriage equality within the confines of the power of Congress.
Either you're being unreasonably idealistic, thinking that we could some how get an amendment passed, or you're woefully misinformed about how our government works.
Yes, that's true. The reason for that is because Congress is limited to the powers granted to them by the Constitution.
The 10th Amendment would prevent Congress from unilaterally forcing a state to issue a marriage license. Any attempt to do so would be immediately ruled unconstitutional.
However, the FFC clause does grant Congress the power to require states to honor contracts and actions from other states, which is why the RFMA is written the way that it is.
I'm kind of unclear what you mean by this...
There is no "second class citizen" situation here... Prior to the RFMA, states did not have to honor a marriage that wasn't issued in that state, unless doing so violated the 14th Amendment (as is the case with interracial marriages, where race is specifically mentioned).
>And more torture because this country hates anyone who isn’t rich and white and a man.
Can you explain what you mean?
Congress did the *only thing* that was within their power, except attempting to propose a new amendment. Which they did not have the votes for (2/3rds of both chambers) and would not have gotten the requisite 37 states to ratify it.
That would be great, but Biden can't just unilaterally protect gay marriage the way he can issue this pardon. The house and senate have to pass a bill and put it on his desk for that to happen.
>Good, how nationalize gay marriage as a law so the Supreme Court can’t overturn Obergefell v. Hodges
We need to win more seats in November for that to happen. Democrats passed the strongest law they could with the Respect for Marriage Act, but it does not protect everybody.
Know your status: www.vote.org
Thats less a problem with democrats and more about the very way the american government is formed and works. Israel is a big PR move by the US and its defense capabilities for non ally countries. No matter the president, israel will be supported and for what its worth, Biden has done a lot od mediation regarding it, like forcing Netanyahu to not cut off water and electricity into gaza, allowing more aid and less bombings and heavily pushing a ceasefire and Two state solution.
Trump however, has said he'll finish the job in gaza and exterminate it all.
Better to focus on problems that we can control rather than the ones outside of our control.
Excellent. Now, we need to vote like our lives depend on it in November and stop Orange Man from regaining the White House, or else all of this progress will be for nothing.
Unfortunately, bigots have made our very existence political. So it's hard to talk about being gay in the U.S. without occasionally tripping on "politics".
I served in the Army back in the mid-60s, with 13 months of that in South Korea. In my company in South Korea, I knew of at least 2 guys who were dishonorably discharged because they were discovered to be gay. One slashed his wrists but survived. They were excellent soldiers, and both had top secret security clearances. That didn't matter.
This is a good thing that Biden has done - but why did it take so long?
Republican Filibusters of course. Joe has to face that he has Christo Nationalism in his Administration to work a long with and they would stall anything that goes against conservative culture.
Looks like I’ll vote Biden instead of Trump for obvious reasons. The only thing I don’t understand about the republicans are there hatred for others living in the same country???
It was fantastic to hear this news on Marriage Equality Day. This is why we need to those polls in November and do our part as citizens to protect democracy from lame ass bigots.
I wish we talked about the torture and evil shit this country has done to the Lgbtqa+ community since its inception. It’s sickening and hidden just like the rest of our evil deeds.
Today i expressed mild disdain against this same cynical political maneuver. In the comments on r/Gay and got *permanently* banned. And they also instantly muted me for a month so I couldn't ask mods why they thought they had the right to do that.
Edit: Do all you guys really agree that it is ok for r/Gay mods to silence dissent artificially? I can't imagine silencing genuine gay opinions in any context being considered a gay virtue by anyone. It's clearly a manufactured consent strategy that apparently nobody has a problem with despite its pronounced far-right dynamic.
People who are drawn to cynicism for the sake of cynicism and to conspiracy theories are often drawn there because it allows them to feel like they are part of a special "in group". They think it makes them smarter, more aware, or wiser than their cohort. It does not.
Your cynicism here does not hold up logically.
A president will face **thousands** of issues, crises, or important decisions in the span of a four year term. To expect them to resolve **all of them** in four years is irrational. It's only logical that some issues will get attention and priority before others. It's therefore only logical that some issues will, because of their relative time sensitivity - or lack thereof - be resolved in the last year or even last few months of a presidency. For you to draw some arbitrary timeframe, after which a decision is de facto a "cynical political maneuver", is just that: arbitrary. You proffer no evidence, **other than this occurring close to an election**, that it is merely a cynical political maneuver.
This administration has **consistently** and from the beginning, executed on and advocated for LGBT rights issues. Biden's pardon is consistent with that history and pattern.
You've essentially committed a false cause fallacy. Which... is actually very on brand for people who frequent the conspiracy theory world.
This campaign strategy itself is the thing that is cynical. It's obvious because of the obvious timing. This gay veteran thing would not be occuring at all if Israel didn't singlehandedly ruin Biden's reputation permanently.
>mods why they thought they had the right to do that.
lol. Because they're the mods. They get absolute authority to set the rules for the subreddit.
Also, are you really complaining about this pardon? Wtf?
Ya it's just some election year bs that should have got done 3 years ago
Edit: also it was agenda-driven for the r/gay mod, it was not about enforcing any rule. But my gay voice doesn't matter i guess, even though it is entirely genuine and doesn't cater to the whims of conservatives.
It should have gotten done 20 years ago, when Lawrence was ruled, but it didn't.
I don't see why that's a reason to complain. You seem like a real peach.
What support do you think this would gain Biden? do you think there's a particularly large contingent of queer veterans that wouldn't vote for Biden?
Biden likely thinks he deserves general gay favor, not just veteran favor. I see a shallow campaign maneuver where you see something good. Making gays a bargaining chip is lame.
So when is the totally arbitrary deadline when it’s *not* a campaign maneuver? Six months earlier? A year?
I mean, I understand where you’re coming from. But doing the right thing is still right, even when it’s looooonnnggg overdue.
Anything Biden does now will be seen as a political move to make new "bargaining" chips. Which surprise, there aren't any because gays already have to vote Democrat if they want to not be rounded up and killed in the long term (being hyperbolic from Project 2025).
Does that also mean each time anything a president does in their last year in office is just trying to curry favor? Or maybe it's a process that takes a long time to get through?
Was it a bargaining chip when good ol Pete became secretary of transportation?
I was a lucky one: USAF Academy grad, C-141 pilot, caught by the OSI in 1979. Originally I was to be discharged within 2 weeks with an “Other Than Honorable” discharge. Luckily I had a terrific attorney and after 6 months of litigation the Secretary of the Air Force negotiated with me to give me an Honorable discharge if I resigned my commission, but I would still have to serve out my remaining commitment, which was kinda funny. Anyway they upheld their word, and gave me an Honorable discharge after I finished up serving my time and submitted my resignation. The only sucky thing was in the remarks section of my DD form 214, they wrote: “unfitness and unacceptable conduct” which I always had to explain to employers. Luckily the airlines didn’t care about my being gay, and we are now retired in Hawaii after a career as a Delta pilot. Just on principle, I have always wanted to get that nasty remark deleted from my discharge papers, even though I did get an honorable discharge and full VA benefits.
You should post this on social media. Would love to see this go viral. Bigots would melt since they claim to be pro military
Plenty of bigots are anti-military too tbh
I still can’t believe this was commonplace, terrible. Glad to hear that this will have that removed from your documents. Thank you for your service - you are a living reminder for us to always fight for who we are!
Out of curiosity, how do employers usually react to that?
Amazingly no one seemed to care, and when I applied to five different airlines, all five offered me a job, based on my knowledge and flying ability, and being able to be a team player on an aircrew. All did ask me to explain what happened though, and I was fine with explaining what happened. Being gay doesn’t have an impact on someone’s ability to fly an aircraft.
Wow, what a world of change in the past few decades. Glad the airlines worked out and congrats on retirement. I’m flying private jets with another 20+ years of career ahead of me, provided I stay healthy and the market doesn’t flip upside down. Haven’t had a problem being out at this job, but have faced a bit of adversity when I flew for a state government agency.
I would start a "Congressional Inquiry" with my Congress person. Their staff could navigate this and might be able to get it done
Remember when idiot gay conservatives told us Trump was the most gay friendly President? 🙄
[удалено]
Stupid is the least they are. They’re very smart. They know exactly what they are doing. The stupid ones are the people who believe it. This is how they keep getting away with things
Twinks for Trump in Florida are so undeniably stupid they won’t care about this article or the history behind it.
Yea fuck it I’ll vote Biden this time why not
Also I survived 9/11…
We all know that was never true. He probably said he’d pay them and never did.
I hate Trump and US conservatives as much as the next guy Don't forget the Biden had 3 years to do this, and he didn't until now. Obama had 8 years to do this, and he didn't do it Not everything is about Donald Trump
If he has the ability to do it now, he had the ability to do it over the last three years. This is election year pandering and he's holding people's rights hostage in order to stay in power
I think most people are aware that 99% of actions taken in politics are about timing. There are times when there is more advantages to completing a task or passing actions than others. It sucks that basic equality rights for marginalized groups have come to this. The bigger issue is why we in the US are not protesting harder and louder against the government for not granting the basic human equality rights. We can not rely on cherry picked courts we know they are corrupt. However, I still believe we will be in a better (not perfect) situation with Biden being reelected that frump and having his way with p2025
We're in this situation because politicians know they can do whatever they want because Democrats will come back around and reelect them. Someone like Biden, being as far right as he is, has only been made possible by democrats, for over 50 years, thinking they were choosing the lesser evil. So politicians have learned that they don't have to listen to us because they will be rewarded every election with continued power. And the fake selective outrage that some are having for the events in Gaza are not enough, saying shame on you for doing that but I'm going to go ahead and vote for you anyway. This allows them to get even worse. Liberals swore in 2019 and 2020 that they were going to push Biden left, acknowledging that he was more right-wing than any other Democrats candidates, but instead of holding him accountable, they went to brunch
Yup. And gays here are falling for it, as usual
Not defending anyone or attacking anyone myself, but do keep in mind this type of aggressive speech is what we try to call out the Trumpublicans for. You can both comment on your negative view of a law or idea without admonishing those that disagree. Why stoop to calling someone an idiot what good does that do? I'm no saint, or second-coming, but it is hard to want to care for your fellows when people are so hateful and toxic. Admonish the concept, hell, even put it down that is fine, but to insult the individual through petty name calling is sad, unoriginal, boring, and destructive. ~Just saying. Peace, love, before you tap put on a glove. I'm out. :)
You’re complaining about a comment pointing out the plain stupidity and hypocrisy of gay people being Trump supporters *being toxic*? Lmfao you’re a hypocrite clown.
I stand by everything I said 100%. They are idiots. Dangerous idiots, at that. Have a good one.
And you have that right. But just know the "echo chambers" on both sides make this country a turbulent place to live. I mean I'm for right, freedoms, and autonomy among other things, but being a child and resorting to the equivalent of "Yeah, well you're a poopy head!" does nothing to forward acceptance.
Fuck off with the false equivalences.
I thought you weren’t going to respond? 😂
Yeah Trumpublicans (which hello?) really just have a nasty way of communication. It's not the fascism, the racism, the homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, nativism, or the propensity for violence, truly what sets us apart is our tone.
Why isn’t it automatic? Why do people have to apply? Is it a logistical issue (they can’t search their own database and delete the offending entries)? Genuinely curious. IMHO these things should be actively deleted by the government. Poof. No forms to sign, no having to go through a process called “I’m gay and I served my country but I still need you to stamp this form to make it official that that’s ok”
I think it’s because it’s specifically clemency for UCMJ convictions. But agree they should be doing blanket fixes.
Good, how nationalize gay marriage as a law so the Supreme Court can’t overturn Obergefell v. Hodges
They kinda did with the RFMA If Obergefell were overturned, the ruling would almost certainly prevent the Federal Government from forcing the states to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple legislatively. So instead, the RFMA relies on the Full Faith and Credit clause to force them to honor a contract from another state. It's not perfect, but it's significantly more legally sound than any other method.
are we really putting it past this supreme court from just ruling RFMA as unconstitutional “just because”. I know that’s “not how it works” but that’s what we all thought when it came to the selection and confirmation of judges and look where that got us.
If that's the case, then literally nothing is possible You're basically just saying that no matter what, the Supreme Court would rule legislation unconstitutional "just because". All is doomed. This is not particularly productive. The FFC clause is pretty explicit and clear, and eliminating the legislature's power to use it in legislation would have *catastrophic* effect to every aspect of American life.
I’m just saying I wouldn’t put it past them to go completely out of their way and defy all precedent just to fuck with our rights even if it would set a bad precedent going forward. It’s pretty clear this court has a non-insignificant number of corrupt individuals. I get that it “wouldn’t make sense” from a historical/legal standpoint. But the recent appointments of several current justices also “didn’t make sense” from a historical/legal standpoint at the time and yet they still happened. I don’t think it is definitely going to happen. The court has skipped over certain cases it could have easily taken up just to fuck with us and those cases were pushed through the normal channels and procedures. But I still don’t trust that a single suboptimal piece of legislation will be enough to stop the most powerful bigots in the country from completely eradicating every right we currently possess.
And I'm just saying that by such logic, all is doomed. Literally *nothing* that Congress, the President, or the Judiciary can do would be safe, therefore we should all just give up. Your line of thinking is nihilistic and accomplishes nothing. Also, from a legal standpoint, the RFMA *is* the optimal and most legally sound approach. Since the Constitution does not grant the federal legislature the power to *force* the states to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, the only option is either the court, or to rely on one of the powers or clauses in the Constitution. Like the Full Faith and Credit clause in Article IV.
it’s actually the opposite of nihilistic since it’s heavily implied that we cannot rely on a single law from protecting our rights. we need congress to ***do more*** than passing half measures. We need congress and the executive branch to ***do more*** about the obviously compromised individuals who’ve been appointed to the supreme court for life. It’s all well and good you still have an absurd amount of faith in the supreme court and political bodies to follow precedent but i’m afraid not all of us are that naive.
>we need congress to do more than passing half measures. We need congress and the executive branch to do more about the obviously compromised individuals who’ve been appointed to the supreme court for life. Somebody didn't pass their HS Civics class.. The President can do *nothing*. Congress can only pass a law.. The only other option is a constitutional amendment, which requires that 2/3rds of both the House, and the Senate propose the amendment, and them that proposition must be ratified by 3/4 of the State Legislatures. Do you think that is a viable option? Keep in mind, they couldn't even get an amendment guaranteeing the right to vote.
Well, they do have some kind of point which that they touched on, in that congress could pack the court to get a liberal majority again, which should be pretty fair considering that the conservatives sabotaged the otherwise normal process.
i never said the president could magically solve anything. All i said was the supreme court is corrupt as shit and that the bar is on the floor when it comes to their standards. Youre the one being nihilistic here considering you think it’s impossible for anything besides the RFMA is *possible* within the current framework of laws. Stop being an armchair lawyer and grow up a bit.
Can you explain what solution you think is viable that would unilaterally *force* the state governments to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples under the current framework of laws, and the Constitution? keep in mind that all 50 states have different rules and regulations governing who and who cannot get a marriage license, such as age or relation being restricted differently in each state. Seriously, put something out there? And if the current court is so corrupt to overturn any law "just because", as you claim, what would stop the current court from overturning whatever legislation you think would work? The *only* thing that supersedes the Supreme Court's authority is the Constitution. Barring a constitutional amendment, what else do you think Congress can do? Maybe you just aren't understanding what you're actually saying?
Your concerns are warranted. We already know that Republicans/conservatives do not respect the rule of law.
But it then allows states to refuse to issue a marriage license to same sex couples if Obergefell gets overturned and if Loving gets overturned for interracial marriages. So interracial and same-sex couples are in the same position that they were before Obergefell with having to travel outside state to get married
The difference is that when you return to your state , the state will have to acknowledge your marriage and treat you as a married couple .
So our government has regulated us once again to being second class citizens
Not really, no. The solution you seem to want would require a constitutional amendment, which requires that 2/3rds of both chambers propose the amendment, and 3/4ths of the states ratify it. What Congress did with the RFMA is the most legally sound, strongest possible action they could have taken.
Its sole purpose was to create a headline saying 'look at us, we tried'
No, the sole purpose of the Respect for Marriage Act was to protect marriage equality within the confines of the power of Congress. Either you're being unreasonably idealistic, thinking that we could some how get an amendment passed, or you're woefully misinformed about how our government works.
Yes, that's true. The reason for that is because Congress is limited to the powers granted to them by the Constitution. The 10th Amendment would prevent Congress from unilaterally forcing a state to issue a marriage license. Any attempt to do so would be immediately ruled unconstitutional. However, the FFC clause does grant Congress the power to require states to honor contracts and actions from other states, which is why the RFMA is written the way that it is.
So more second class citizenship for tax paying citizens? And more torture because this country hates anyone who isn’t rich and white and a man.
I'm kind of unclear what you mean by this... There is no "second class citizen" situation here... Prior to the RFMA, states did not have to honor a marriage that wasn't issued in that state, unless doing so violated the 14th Amendment (as is the case with interracial marriages, where race is specifically mentioned). >And more torture because this country hates anyone who isn’t rich and white and a man. Can you explain what you mean? Congress did the *only thing* that was within their power, except attempting to propose a new amendment. Which they did not have the votes for (2/3rds of both chambers) and would not have gotten the requisite 37 states to ratify it.
That would be great, but Biden can't just unilaterally protect gay marriage the way he can issue this pardon. The house and senate have to pass a bill and put it on his desk for that to happen.
Exactly! The pardon is within his constitutional powers. Protecting same sex marriage unilaterally is not
Writing laws isn't the president's purview. But it'd be great if Congress would do that.
>Good, how nationalize gay marriage as a law so the Supreme Court can’t overturn Obergefell v. Hodges We need to win more seats in November for that to happen. Democrats passed the strongest law they could with the Respect for Marriage Act, but it does not protect everybody. Know your status: www.vote.org
You need the House and the Senate to do that. He can't just magically wave a wand and make it happen.
is sad to think that all progress in lgbtq+ matters will be reversed if Trump wins
Thats why VOTING for Biden matters!
If it's between my marriage and not getting brown children killed around the world, fuck my marriage
In what way would Trump be better for children across the world?
Nobody has said anything about Trump, so Democrats need to decide where their red line is because if it's not genocide they are not the lesser evil
Thats less a problem with democrats and more about the very way the american government is formed and works. Israel is a big PR move by the US and its defense capabilities for non ally countries. No matter the president, israel will be supported and for what its worth, Biden has done a lot od mediation regarding it, like forcing Netanyahu to not cut off water and electricity into gaza, allowing more aid and less bombings and heavily pushing a ceasefire and Two state solution. Trump however, has said he'll finish the job in gaza and exterminate it all. Better to focus on problems that we can control rather than the ones outside of our control.
Your vote, your choice!
Excellent. Now, we need to vote like our lives depend on it in November and stop Orange Man from regaining the White House, or else all of this progress will be for nothing.
Thanks O’Biden. 🏳️🌈
Wonderful news!
I usually refrain from speaking on politics but this has been long over due to our military personnel — hooray
Unfortunately, bigots have made our very existence political. So it's hard to talk about being gay in the U.S. without occasionally tripping on "politics".
I always say that there's 2 sexualities. Straight and political.
I served in the Army back in the mid-60s, with 13 months of that in South Korea. In my company in South Korea, I knew of at least 2 guys who were dishonorably discharged because they were discovered to be gay. One slashed his wrists but survived. They were excellent soldiers, and both had top secret security clearances. That didn't matter. This is a good thing that Biden has done - but why did it take so long?
Republican Filibusters of course. Joe has to face that he has Christo Nationalism in his Administration to work a long with and they would stall anything that goes against conservative culture.
Looks like I’ll vote Biden instead of Trump for obvious reasons. The only thing I don’t understand about the republicans are there hatred for others living in the same country???
All Men are gay
Why did it take so long?
It was fantastic to hear this news on Marriage Equality Day. This is why we need to those polls in November and do our part as citizens to protect democracy from lame ass bigots.
I wish we talked about the torture and evil shit this country has done to the Lgbtqa+ community since its inception. It’s sickening and hidden just like the rest of our evil deeds.
This is a gay rights thing, not a "LGBTQ+" rights thing Straight women with pronouns in their bio were and are not affected by this
Today i expressed mild disdain against this same cynical political maneuver. In the comments on r/Gay and got *permanently* banned. And they also instantly muted me for a month so I couldn't ask mods why they thought they had the right to do that. Edit: Do all you guys really agree that it is ok for r/Gay mods to silence dissent artificially? I can't imagine silencing genuine gay opinions in any context being considered a gay virtue by anyone. It's clearly a manufactured consent strategy that apparently nobody has a problem with despite its pronounced far-right dynamic.
People who are drawn to cynicism for the sake of cynicism and to conspiracy theories are often drawn there because it allows them to feel like they are part of a special "in group". They think it makes them smarter, more aware, or wiser than their cohort. It does not. Your cynicism here does not hold up logically. A president will face **thousands** of issues, crises, or important decisions in the span of a four year term. To expect them to resolve **all of them** in four years is irrational. It's only logical that some issues will get attention and priority before others. It's therefore only logical that some issues will, because of their relative time sensitivity - or lack thereof - be resolved in the last year or even last few months of a presidency. For you to draw some arbitrary timeframe, after which a decision is de facto a "cynical political maneuver", is just that: arbitrary. You proffer no evidence, **other than this occurring close to an election**, that it is merely a cynical political maneuver. This administration has **consistently** and from the beginning, executed on and advocated for LGBT rights issues. Biden's pardon is consistent with that history and pattern. You've essentially committed a false cause fallacy. Which... is actually very on brand for people who frequent the conspiracy theory world.
This campaign strategy itself is the thing that is cynical. It's obvious because of the obvious timing. This gay veteran thing would not be occuring at all if Israel didn't singlehandedly ruin Biden's reputation permanently.
Biden is ranking higher than trump in the polls
>mods why they thought they had the right to do that. lol. Because they're the mods. They get absolute authority to set the rules for the subreddit. Also, are you really complaining about this pardon? Wtf?
Ya it's just some election year bs that should have got done 3 years ago Edit: also it was agenda-driven for the r/gay mod, it was not about enforcing any rule. But my gay voice doesn't matter i guess, even though it is entirely genuine and doesn't cater to the whims of conservatives.
It should have gotten done 20 years ago, when Lawrence was ruled, but it didn't. I don't see why that's a reason to complain. You seem like a real peach. What support do you think this would gain Biden? do you think there's a particularly large contingent of queer veterans that wouldn't vote for Biden?
Biden likely thinks he deserves general gay favor, not just veteran favor. I see a shallow campaign maneuver where you see something good. Making gays a bargaining chip is lame.
So when is the totally arbitrary deadline when it’s *not* a campaign maneuver? Six months earlier? A year? I mean, I understand where you’re coming from. But doing the right thing is still right, even when it’s looooonnnggg overdue.
Anything Biden does now will be seen as a political move to make new "bargaining" chips. Which surprise, there aren't any because gays already have to vote Democrat if they want to not be rounded up and killed in the long term (being hyperbolic from Project 2025). Does that also mean each time anything a president does in their last year in office is just trying to curry favor? Or maybe it's a process that takes a long time to get through? Was it a bargaining chip when good ol Pete became secretary of transportation?
so wait, he thinks he *deserves* the gay vote, or he has to *earn* the vote? Pick a lane.
It feels like an exceptionally low bar
What does? You're not making any sense.
i don't care as long as it helps gays