Justices Thomas and Alito and same-sex marriage

[saveinla]

If we are rethinking  the old cases, I think we should revisit the interracial marriage law - if you know what I mean 

[thyme4change]

Oct 6, 2020 12:39:21 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oct 6, 2020 11:36:34 GMT -5 @aj said:

Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Legalize Workplace Discrimination Against Gay Employees
August, 2019

With an amicus brief filed on Friday, the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to essentially legalize anti-gay discrimination in the workplace. The brief, from Solicitor General Noel Francisco, argues federal prohibitions on employer discrimination do not extend to protect individuals from being fired or otherwise disenfranchised in the workplace because of their sexual orientation.

The Justice Department’s arguments pertain to the employment protections offered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which are being argued in two Supreme Court cases involving gay workers in October. Title VII is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion or national origin.

But it does not, the Justice Department says, cover sexuality.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department submitted another brief asking the Justices to conclude that Title VII does not protect transgender people from employer discrimination.

Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Legalize Workplace Discrimination Against Gay Employees

Doesn't the federal government have anything better to do than to get some very, very small percentage of people fired?

[thyme4change]

Oct 6, 2020 15:22:53 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

I worked for a pharma company that was one of first to have female oral contraceptives and went on to implants. Significant research was done for a male contraceptive drug but was stopped before sending for approval primarily because it was thought market wasn’t sufficient to profit. An obstacle was women not in control and not trusting male.

I hate that thought. Not that women can't trust a man. But because of potentially lower profits a man has to trust a woman. And they both have to trust their chosen form of birth control. And, if it is a hook-up situation, neither should trust the other.

If men could get the vas deference plug, and women could use some form of hormone based birth control, the chances of them both failing at the same time would make a huge difference in the abortion rate. The only way to make it fair is for both parties to take control of their own half of the potential baby. Two people having sex, two people preventing a baby, two people not being part of an abortion decision.

Condems break (or slip off), diaphragms get shifted, the pill is sometimes forgotten, or rendered ineffective by other meds, or just plain fails. Doubling up everything helps a lot. If the pill is 99.5% effective, and you have sex once a week, you will statistically be pregnant in the next 4 years.

[Deleted]

When I think of the worst possible evil America's highest court could inflict, I think it would be to somehow roll back the clock on the FINALLY, legally recognized unions of so many of our friends.  These are people whose journeys we've shared, their path to marriage and all the challenges that come with marriage,  Yup, for better and for worse.  Worse, like cancer and unemployment and loss of family members.  Better, like the simple ability to post photos of a wedding and share anniversary messages on social media.  DH and I can't imagine life without these friends, and taking away their right to legal marriage chips off some part of their humanity.  That diminishes them and us 

[haapai]

Oct 6, 2020 15:34:36 GMT -5 saveinla said:

If we are rethinking  the old cases, I think we should revisit the interracial marriage law - if you know what I mean 

Yeah, Thomas dismays me too. 

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 6, 2020 15:42:23 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Oct 6, 2020 15:22:53 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

I worked for a pharma company that was one of first to have female oral contraceptives and went on to implants. Significant research was done for a male contraceptive drug but was stopped before sending for approval primarily because it was thought market wasn’t sufficient to profit. An obstacle was women not in control and not trusting male.

I hate that thought. Not that women can't trust a man. But because of potentially lower profits a man has to trust a woman. And they both have to trust their chosen form of birth control. And, if it is a hook-up situation, neither should trust the other.

If men could get the vas deference plug, and women could use some form of hormone based birth control, the chances of them both failing at the same time would make a huge difference in the abortion rate. The only way to make it fair is for both parties to take control of their own half of the potential baby. Two people having sex, two people preventing a baby, two people not being part of an abortion decision.

Condems break (or slip off), diaphragms get shifted, the pill is sometimes forgotten, or rendered ineffective by other meds, or just plain fails. Doubling up everything helps a lot. If the pill is 99.5% effective, and you have sex once a week, you will statistically be pregnant in the next 4 years.

Men do have birth control...condoms. Condoms combined with birth control would be pretty effective. I get that the effectiveness of condoms isn’t as high as birth control, but men should always wear them if they do not want a baby. They are just as responsible for preventing a pregnancy as the woman.

[sesfw]

Men do have birth control...condoms.





They can also have a vasectomy .......... just like women can have a tubal .........

[thyme4change]

Oct 6, 2020 20:41:10 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Oct 6, 2020 15:42:23 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I hate that thought. Not that women can't trust a man. But because of potentially lower profits a man has to trust a woman. And they both have to trust their chosen form of birth control. And, if it is a hook-up situation, neither should trust the other.

If men could get the vas deference plug, and women could use some form of hormone based birth control, the chances of them both failing at the same time would make a huge difference in the abortion rate. The only way to make it fair is for both parties to take control of their own half of the potential baby. Two people having sex, two people preventing a baby, two people not being part of an abortion decision.

Condems break (or slip off), diaphragms get shifted, the pill is sometimes forgotten, or rendered ineffective by other meds, or just plain fails. Doubling up everything helps a lot. If the pill is 99.5% effective, and you have sex once a week, you will statistically be pregnant in the next 4 years.

Men do have birth control...condoms. Condoms combined with birth control would be pretty effective. I get that the effectiveness of condoms isn’t as high as birth control, but men should always wear them if they do not want a baby. They are just as responsible for preventing a pregnancy as the woman.

There are many problems with condems. They are not as effective as an ongoing structural birth control, especially if you take into account the people who get knocked up because they didn't use one that one night.

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 6, 2020 22:04:02 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Oct 6, 2020 20:41:10 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Men do have birth control...condoms. Condoms combined with birth control would be pretty effective. I get that the effectiveness of condoms isn’t as high as birth control, but men should always wear them if they do not want a baby. They are just as responsible for preventing a pregnancy as the woman.

There are many problems with condems. They are not as effective as an ongoing structural birth control, especially if you take into account the people who get knocked up because they didn't use one that one night.

Agreed that they aren’t as effective. But combined with the female being on birth control it’s very good (I don’t remember the stats but I do remember looking it up before).

Not using condoms every time is not a reason to not use them. If a man wants to be sure he doesn’t have an unwanted baby, he needs to wrap it up.

[thyme4change]

Oct 6, 2020 22:13:24 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Oct 6, 2020 22:04:02 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

There are many problems with condems. They are not as effective as an ongoing structural birth control, especially if you take into account the people who get knocked up because they didn't use one that one night.

Agreed that they aren’t as effective. But combined with the female being on birth control it’s very good (I don’t remember the stats but I do remember looking it up before).

Not using condoms every time is not a reason to not use them. If a man wants to be sure he doesn’t have an unwanted baby, he needs to wrap it up.

But, it goes back to women having to take hormones and men can only have barrier. Many women don't do well on the pill. If we had more options, more couples could find their comfortable and effective methods.

Vasagel!!

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 6, 2020 22:31:22 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Oct 6, 2020 22:13:24 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Agreed that they aren’t as effective. But combined with the female being on birth control it’s very good (I don’t remember the stats but I do remember looking it up before).

Not using condoms every time is not a reason to not use them. If a man wants to be sure he doesn’t have an unwanted baby, he needs to wrap it up.

But, it goes back to women having to take hormones and men can only have barrier. Many women don't do well on the pill. If we had more options, more couples could find their comfortable and effective methods.

Vasagel!!

I just read up on vasagel. Very interesting. I know that it isn’t being funded by pharmaceutical companies. I wonder if that is because they believe there won’t be a market for it? We are in a capitalist society so if there is a large market, wouldn’t money get thrown at it?

As a woman, I would still need to protect myself. And unless we are talking about a monogamous, long term relationship, condoms are still necessary to prevent STDs.

[justme]

But a huge reason why it's not is because our society is ok with the burden being on the women. We're ok with the woman being in charge of birth control. And a not small number of people are OK with burdening  forcing a woman to have a child if the birth control fails. And then we're OK with having financial and societal burden being put on a woman when the guy doesn't stand up. 

With all that - why the fuck should a guy go through something more difficult than wearing a condom. We as a society give him every ability to just walk the fuck away like it doesn't matter. No burden falls on him unless he chooses it every step of the way. While society attempts to take away a women's choice every step of the way. 

Seriously - why should men go through the "torture" of having a doctor stick a needle into the balls when it's damn easy for them to have no consequences to their actions without the needle?

As for the remarks of vasectomy/tubal ligation - 1) neither is full proof 2) neither are viable if you are wanting kids at some point in the future 3) our puritanical society has made it ridiculously difficult to get either unless you're older (30s) and have a lot of kids, more so for women than men.

When people hear about an unexpected pregnancy (speaking outside of marriage) if there's any negative comments it's very often why wasn't she on birth control NOT why didn't the dude wear a condom. Which is just ridiculous. 

I can't say with certainty - but based on my experience either 1) guys are beyond fucking stupid or 2) society and everything else has taught them that preventing pregnancy just isn't their problem. The burden isn't on them. It has happened on more than one occasion that a guy wanted to have sex with me without a condom - and these weren't random situations, these were situations were he knew he was at least going to try to have sex. Hell I've had booty calls show up past midnight WITHOUT a condom. The number of times I didn't have sex because the guy didn't have a condom even though he should have (it was a date, he asked to hang out after a bar closed, he called for a booty call) is ridiculous or well at least the percent of which this happens is ridiculously. [And before someone gives me some spiel about I should have condoms with me - I can't remember the last time this happened and I didn't. I've decided not to suffer no fools and if the guy is a dumbass I'm not going to reward him. If he has no condoms - oh no neither do I enjoy your blue balls]

Don't believe me that guys just accept it's all on the women? Go ask guys you know (under 35 or with a kid under 5) "if you were married and you either a) were done having children or b) knew you didn't want to have children would you have a vasectomy". I'd be surprised if much more than half of them said yes. Even when future kids are non existent to them guys are still ok with putting the burden on women (women they claim to love!).

[irishpad]

Oct 6, 2020 15:34:36 GMT -5 saveinla said:

If we are rethinking  the old cases, I think we should revisit the interracial marriage law - if you know what I mean 

You mean like a marriage between an American and someone from Slovenia?   

[oped]

Oct 7, 2020 1:45:48 GMT -5 irishpad said:

Oct 6, 2020 15:34:36 GMT -5 saveinla said:

If we are rethinking  the old cases, I think we should revisit the interracial marriage law - if you know what I mean 

You mean like a marriage between an American and someone from Slovenia?   

Justice Thomas’s wife is white.

[andi9899]

Oct 6, 2020 11:27:47 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

And an argument against gay marriage is that two women or two men cannot "naturally" bear children so therefore there is no need to grant them the right to get married.

What if the hetero couple decides not to have children or can't due to medical reasons? Do they not get to marry either?

I know it's not you who thinks that way, but I'd sure ask the question to whoever made the statement.

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 7, 2020 0:50:05 GMT -5 justme said:

But a huge reason why it's not is because our society is ok with the burden being on the women. We're ok with the woman being in charge of birth control. And a not small number of people are OK with burdening  forcing a woman to have a child if the birth control fails. And then we're OK with having financial and societal burden being put on a woman when the guy doesn't stand up. 

With all that - why the fuck should a guy go through something more difficult than wearing a condom. We as a society give him every ability to just walk the fuck away like it doesn't matter. No burden falls on him unless he chooses it every step of the way. While society attempts to take away a women's choice every step of the way. 

Seriously - why should men go through the "torture" of having a doctor stick a needle into the balls when it's damn easy for them to have no consequences to their actions without the needle?

As for the remarks of vasectomy/tubal ligation - 1) neither is full proof 2) neither are viable if you are wanting kids at some point in the future 3) our puritanical society has made it ridiculously difficult to get either unless you're older (30s) and have a lot of kids, more so for women than men.

When people hear about an unexpected pregnancy (speaking outside of marriage) if there's any negative comments it's very often why wasn't she on birth control NOT why didn't the dude wear a condom. Which is just ridiculous. 

I can't say with certainty - but based on my experience either 1) guys are beyond fucking stupid or 2) society and everything else has taught them that preventing pregnancy just isn't their problem. The burden isn't on them. It has happened on more than one occasion that a guy wanted to have sex with me without a condom - and these weren't random situations, these were situations were he knew he was at least going to try to have sex. Hell I've had booty calls show up past midnight WITHOUT a condom. The number of times I didn't have sex because the guy didn't have a condom even though he should have (it was a date, he asked to hang out after a bar closed, he called for a booty call) is ridiculous or well at least the percent of which this happens is ridiculously. [And before someone gives me some spiel about I should have condoms with me - I can't remember the last time this happened and I didn't. I've decided not to suffer no fools and if the guy is a dumbass I'm not going to reward him. If he has no condoms - oh no neither do I enjoy your blue balls]

Don't believe me that guys just accept it's all on the women? Go ask guys you know (under 35 or with a kid under 5) "if you were married and you either a) were done having children or b) knew you didn't want to have children would you have a vasectomy". I'd be surprised if much more than half of them said yes. Even when future kids are non existent to them guys are still ok with putting the burden on women (women they claim to love!).

What burden do you expect men to carry for an unwanted child? Serious question. Women have all the say since they carry the child to birth. If they do not want the child, they abort it. A man doesn’t have that option. He can’t even terminate his rights at birth unless they are putting the baby up for adoption. If there is an unwanted child, the man is in the hook for the next 18 years for child support. I can’t speak for all areas but in my area, men are thrown in jail for not paying child support.

I’ve always felt since it was my body and my health af risk, I was making damn sure that I was on birth control to prevent a pregnancy that wasn’t ready for. I’m the one that would be the one pregnant so I was going to take every precaution I could to make sure I didn’t get pregnant.

Now, since men get zero choice when it came to the pregnancy, I would think the smartest thing would be for them to also use protection. But if people were smart there wouldn’t be so many unwanted pregnancies. Condoms and birth control together Have to have a pretty high prevention rate. As a woman, if there was a food way to prevent prefnancy for women without using hormones, I would be all over that. But as far as I know there isn’t.

[oped]

The current candidate for Supreme Court isn’t just anti abortion. She’s anti IVF and birth control as well.

[thyme4change]

Oct 7, 2020 6:38:27 GMT -5 oped said:

The current candidate for Supreme Court isn’t just anti abortion. She’s anti IVF and birth control as well.

Ugh.

WTF is happening?

[Tennesseer]

Regardless of who uses what type of birth control method including vasectomies and tubal ligation, the costs need to be low, possibly on a sliding income scale.  And if the patient is married, no approval of procedure by spouse required.  Doctors should not try to persuade patient from getting the procedure though no surgeries for minors.  

As for birth control pills, codoms, gels, or whatever else is out there at pharmacies, it should all be treated as an over-the-counter item with a month's supply of birth control pills costing maybe $5 at most or better yet, free.

[giramomma]

Oct 7, 2020 8:01:55 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Oct 7, 2020 6:38:27 GMT -5 oped said:

The current candidate for Supreme Court isn’t just anti abortion. She’s anti IVF and birth control as well.

Ugh.

WTF is happening?

Trump is scrounging around to find more people that will vote him in? Maybe he's thinking his evangelical base won't be enough?

He nominated the candidate to  help boost his numbers right before an election? Catholicism is still one of the biggest, if no the biggest religion in the US.

Here's some interesting stats on Catholicism by PEW :

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/10/7-facts-about-american-catholics/ 

Our previous bishop told the kids during their actual confirmation ceremony that if their parents didn't vote for Trump (in the last election), their parents were going to hell.

Another bishop recently told Catholics to get their asses back to church, EVEN as our state is now the new hotspot..We don't want to be sinners, you know.

Getting the nominee approved before the election might help Trump pick up some single issue voters.

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 7, 2020 8:28:46 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Regardless of who uses what type of birth control method including vasectomies and tubal ligation, the costs need to be low, possibly on a sliding income scale.  And if the patient is married, no approval of procedure by spouse required.  Doctors should not try to persuade patient from getting the procedure though no surgeries for minors.  

As for birth control pills, codoms, gels, or whatever else is out there at pharmacies, it should all be treated as an over-the-counter item with a month's supply of birth control pills costing maybe $5 at most or better yet, free.

I disagree on the birth control being OTC. There are some serious risks to taking birth control. I would never take those without being followed by my doctor

[thyme4change]

Maybe we should have birth control vans - like the ice cream man. They can drive through neighborhoods blasting Marvin Gaye's "Let's get it on", and when women pop out of their house, a doctor can do a quick exam and consultation and hand them pills.

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 7, 2020 9:45:33 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Maybe we should have birth control vans - like the ice cream man. They can drive through neighborhoods blasting Marvin Gaye's "Let's get it on", and when women pop out of their house, a doctor can do a quick exam and consultation and hand them pills.

Lol! But as long as she is being examined, I’m ok with it! I think it would be negligent to just hand out pills without knowing her risk factors, etc.

[oped]

Actually long term patches are best. In the Colorado study, free long term birth control patches reduced unwanted pregnancies and abortions in the test group by 40%

[haapai]

How did a thread about Obergefell turn into a discussion of birth control?  

Aren't we all old enough, twenty-first century enough, to discuss LGBTQ issues without triggering this need to go on record as straight? 

[thyme4change]

Oct 7, 2020 9:59:54 GMT -5 haapai said:

How did a thread about Obergefell turn into a discussion of birth control?  

Aren't we all old enough, twenty-first century enough, to discuss LGBTQ issues without triggering this need to go on record as straight? 

I don't think it is a straight thing. Just a thing about what will be in front of the SCOTUS. The appointment of Heritage Foundation approved judges serves multiple purposes - getting rid of trans protections and making abortion illegal are two sides of the same coin.

[oped]

Oct 7, 2020 9:59:54 GMT -5 haapai said:

How did a thread about Obergefell turn into a discussion of birth control?  

Aren't we all old enough, twenty-first century enough, to discuss LGBTQ issues without triggering this need to go on record as straight? 

Women's reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights are both up for repeal. 

[haapai]

You two are right, of course.  On the other hand, the optics of the discussion are .... quite old-fashioned. 

[justme]

Oct 7, 2020 6:36:06 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Oct 7, 2020 0:50:05 GMT -5 justme said:

But a huge reason why it's not is because our society is ok with the burden being on the women. We're ok with the woman being in charge of birth control. And a not small number of people are OK with burdening  forcing a woman to have a child if the birth control fails. And then we're OK with having financial and societal burden being put on a woman when the guy doesn't stand up. 

With all that - why the fuck should a guy go through something more difficult than wearing a condom. We as a society give him every ability to just walk the fuck away like it doesn't matter. No burden falls on him unless he chooses it every step of the way. While society attempts to take away a women's choice every step of the way. 

Seriously - why should men go through the "torture" of having a doctor stick a needle into the balls when it's damn easy for them to have no consequences to their actions without the needle?

As for the remarks of vasectomy/tubal ligation - 1) neither is full proof 2) neither are viable if you are wanting kids at some point in the future 3) our puritanical society has made it ridiculously difficult to get either unless you're older (30s) and have a lot of kids, more so for women than men.

When people hear about an unexpected pregnancy (speaking outside of marriage) if there's any negative comments it's very often why wasn't she on birth control NOT why didn't the dude wear a condom. Which is just ridiculous. 

I can't say with certainty - but based on my experience either 1) guys are beyond fucking stupid or 2) society and everything else has taught them that preventing pregnancy just isn't their problem. The burden isn't on them. It has happened on more than one occasion that a guy wanted to have sex with me without a condom - and these weren't random situations, these were situations were he knew he was at least going to try to have sex. Hell I've had booty calls show up past midnight WITHOUT a condom. The number of times I didn't have sex because the guy didn't have a condom even though he should have (it was a date, he asked to hang out after a bar closed, he called for a booty call) is ridiculous or well at least the percent of which this happens is ridiculously. [And before someone gives me some spiel about I should have condoms with me - I can't remember the last time this happened and I didn't. I've decided not to suffer no fools and if the guy is a dumbass I'm not going to reward him. If he has no condoms - oh no neither do I enjoy your blue balls]

Don't believe me that guys just accept it's all on the women? Go ask guys you know (under 35 or with a kid under 5) "if you were married and you either a) were done having children or b) knew you didn't want to have children would you have a vasectomy". I'd be surprised if much more than half of them said yes. Even when future kids are non existent to them guys are still ok with putting the burden on women (women they claim to love!).

What burden do you expect men to carry for an unwanted child? Serious question. Women have all the say since they carry the child to birth. If they do not want the child, they abort it. A man doesn’t have that option. He can’t even terminate his rights at birth unless they are putting the baby up for adoption. If there is an unwanted child, the man is in the hook for the next 18 years for child support. I can’t speak for all areas but in my area, men are thrown in jail for not paying child support.

I’ve always felt since it was my body and my health af risk, I was making damn sure that I was on birth control to prevent a pregnancy that wasn’t ready for. I’m the one that would be the one pregnant so I was going to take every precaution I could to make sure I didn’t get pregnant.

Now, since men get zero choice when it came to the pregnancy, I would think the smartest thing would be for them to also use protection. But if people were smart there wouldn’t be so many unwanted pregnancies. Condoms and birth control together Have to have a pretty high prevention rate. As a woman, if there was a food way to prevent prefnancy for women without using hormones, I would be all over that. But as far as I know there isn’t.

They do get a choice - their biology plus currently being failed by healthcare options means they just have one choice early in. More like two I guess - 1) have sex or not 2) wear a condom or not. 

Though they then do have a choice not to interact with the child, they should pay child support. I think the only way you can get to a point where men are able to sign away their financial responsibilities is when we have a society that is willing to pick up the slack (and a society that allows women to opt out as well - meaning abortion stays legal). Meaning government supported childcare, government supported healthcare for children, etc. In other words - society takes on the position of ensuring all children are properly cared for regardless of whether they have one parent or two so then it doesn't matter if they have one parent or two supporting them. But I doubt that will happen here anytime soon -- even though ironically doing that would decrease the amount of abortions (which often goes hand in hand with those that are against more government help want more restrictions on it). 

It's why I think there should be a huge push for better male birth control than condoms - which have a quite large failure rate - and vasectomies that don't work if you want kids later. I believe men should have more control over their fertility than they do currently. But that control shouldn't come at the expense of the kids. And guys themselves aren't making a big push for it like women did way back when -- because again the burden of children falls to women by default in our society. 

BTW going to jail for not paying doesn't occur everywhere. But not paying isn't the only issue. The other issue is when guys are only made to pay a few dollars towards their kids. Even $100 a month doesn't do squat when it comes to the costs of raising a child. 

[thyme4change]

Oct 7, 2020 10:09:52 GMT -5 haapai said:

You two are right, of course.  On the other hand, the optics of the discussion are .... quite old-fashioned. 

It is natural to steer a conversation towards personal experience. Sorry that I don't know more about the trans community. I imagine there are some very difficult days, and I hope the US laws and government don't make them any worse. All people deserve protections and the ability to live their lives. It really doesn't hurt anyone. I wish the losers and suckers that believe they are entitled to dictate other's lives burn in hell for not following Jesus's teachings.