SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Xyonai]

Since Republican political plays are almost always telegraphed by their media mouth-pieces: Lotta rumbling going on by popular Wingnut reactionaries in the wake of the Dobbs decision to also look at removing No Fault Divorces.

[Endus]

Since Republican political plays are almost always telegraphed by their media mouth-pieces: Lotta rumbling going on by popular Wingnut reactionaries in the wake of the Dobbs decision to also look at removing No Fault Divorces.

What possible argument could there be to deny people the ability to voluntarily exit from a contractual obligation?

Note that nobody's letting them out without potential penalty, we're just literally talking about being able to end the contract at all.

[Rasulis]

C'mon Kansas....

They called it already. Not even close. The urban voters totally dominated the rural voters.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/poli...263823143.html

Kentucky next in Nov.

- - - Updated - - -

As much as I’m against Roe v Wade being abolished, I respect that Kansas, a red state, still left the decision up to its people.

They have no choice. Without the state constitutional amendment, Kentucky GOP legislators can't pass laws banning abortion.

[Gestopft]

What possible argument could there be to deny people the ability to voluntarily exit from a contractual obligation?

Note that nobody's letting them out without potential penalty, we're just literally talking about being able to end the contract at all.

"No-fault divorce" is their way of ignoring the material conditions that built the middle class in the 50's and 60's so they can pretend the American decline is just about "family values."

[DarkTZeratul]

I wonder if they will attempt to throw this out and go for it anyways...

As far as I understand it, they can't. It's already constitutionally protected in the state; this vote was to remove that protection.

As much as I’m against Roe v Wade being abolished, I respect that Kansas, a red state, still left the decision up to its people.

They didn't have a choice. Any amendments to Kansas's state constitution are required to go on the public ballot.

[s_bushido]

What possible argument could there be to deny people the ability to voluntarily exit from a contractual obligation?

It was made pretty clear through the fuckers they chose to quote in that article: "Sluts are marrying men just to take their money!"

[Captain N]

It's good to see the Kansas voters saving women's rights, but what's to stop their legislature for doing the same thing that Florida did with allowing released felons to vote?

[gondrin]

What possible argument could there be to deny people the ability to voluntarily exit from a contractual obligation?

Note that nobody's letting them out without potential penalty, we're just literally talking about being able to end the contract at all.

They want to take the vows literally so when they say "Till death do you part.", they mean death.

I mean, in some societies, divorces aren't even allowed. Take the Philippines. Divorce isn't allowed outside of specific exceptions for Muslims living there. Ireland is another. Divorce there is only allowed under very specific circumstances.

Not sure why either of them do this but there is precedent in other countries that do this. Not that it is right(it isn't) or should be allowed but it is a thing.

[s_bushido]

Not sure why either of them do this but there is precedent in other countries that do this.

Religion.

I would be incredibly surprised if there was any other justification.

[gondrin]

They called it already. Not even close. The urban voters totally dominated the rural voters.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/poli...263823143.html

Kentucky next in Nov.

- - - Updated - - -



They have no choice. Without the state constitutional amendment, Kentucky GOP legislators can't pass laws banning abortion.

Eh, much like other places, it won't stop them regardless if it is in their or the US constitution. The GQP has shown quite often they will go against the will of the people if they feel like it.

[Pannonian]

As much as I’m against Roe v Wade being abolished, I respect that Kansas, a red state, still left the decision up to its people.

i don't think that basic human rights (like the right to get a medical procedure for my health) should be subject to popular votes, but you do you...

I mean that's basically the talking point of the GOP: This shouldn't be decided federally but each state on their own.

P.S.: They don't leave the decision to the people. Legislators want to get rid of it, but they HAVE to ask first. Do you really think there would have been a vote if it wasn't required?

[s_bushido]

i don't think that basic human rights (like the right to get a medical procedure for my health) should be subject to popular votes, but you do you...

Unfortunately, the alternative in this case seems to be to let old white theocrats make the decision unilaterally. So given that the majority of the population disagrees with their dogshit ideas, leaving it up to a vote is preferable.

[Pannonian]

Unfortunately, the alternative in this case seems to be to let old white theocrats make the decision unilaterally. So given that the majority of the population disagrees with their dogshit ideas, leaving it up to a vote is preferable.

As i edited - do you really think there would have been a vote if they weren't required to?

[s_bushido]

As i edited - do you really think there would have been a vote if they weren't required to?

No. Of course not.

[Pannonian]

No. Of course not.

So, what is there to celebrate? I mean i know there is some illogical quasi-religious sentiment in the US regarding states votes, but "i'm glad they let the people in the state vote" is 1:1 the talking point of the GQP. Sure the RESULT of the vote is great, but that the vote happened in the first place is not something to celebrate imho.

I mean lets say interracial marriage protection is abolished to (taking you bets now!), do you think it is a good idea to let the people decide "Should interracial marriages be illegal again"?

Or, because we're at the topic of amendments

"Should we abolish the amendment against enslaving people?" - women voting? Hey as long as states can decide everything is fine.

I just think its a particular undemocratic sentiment showing a very childish understanding of politics/democracy.

[Nymrohd]

Religion.

I would be incredibly surprised if there was any other justification.

Always thought that all the legal rights that have to do with a partnership between two (or more) people should be moved to civil partnerships and marriage should be left as a strictly religious concept.

[Endus]

Always thought that all the legal rights that have to do with a partnership between two (or more) people should be moved to civil partnerships and marriage should be left as a strictly religious concept.

That would be a massive seizure of power by religious groups. Marriage has always been primarily a legal structure, first and foremost, not a religious one. Where religions have had strong influence and control over it have been in times and regions where the local religious power had strong control over legal systems, like the ecclesiastical law codes of medieval Europe that existed alongside secular laws, or in Sharia law systems. It's still, always, a legal structure first and foremost, the question is if your laws are based on religion. If they aren't, religion has no business being involved in marriage whatsoever.

Which is the status quo in the Western world. If your faith group holds a marriage ceremony, it doesn't mean dick unless you fill out the appropriate legal document and file it with the government with the appropriate signatures. You can get married with that document alone. None of the religious trappings matter. They might have personal meaning, but they're like a birthday party; you might enjoy that celebration, but it isn't a requirement of your age advancing another year legally speaking. Which is all that matters.

Not to mention, trying to make marriage religious means you're going to run into chaos when people who were married in other societies want their marriages recognized, legally speaking. Because without that legal recognition, marriages matter about as much as communion does. In other words, not at all. You could marry a child, you could divorce anyone just by saying so and without any penalty unless your faith enforces such, and even then, only by the loose enforcement methods of your faith group. You know those scenes where someone "marries" a tree or something? That's what you're turning all marriage into.

Thanks, but the rest of us are fine with marriage being a foundational and internationally-recognized legal arrangement.

[Ghost of Cow]

I mean lets say interracial marriage protection is abolished to (taking you bets now!), do you think it is a good idea to let the people decide "Should interracial marriages be illegal again"?

To some extent, yes.

I like to believe that MOST people in the US actually think along fairly reasonable lines. The majority of them - by a wide margin - are fine with abortion, interracial marriage, LGBTQ rights and so on.

The only real issue is the silly tribal nonsense between parties. Take that away and we'd find that we actually aren't all that "fractured" and "divided" as people would like us to think.

So in some way, letting the people show that through a vote like this wasn't such a terrible thing. Not that I really want big issues all up to a majority vote all the time, but I'm really glad this happened to show the nation what people really think on this issue.

[Pannonian]

To some extent, yes.

I like to believe that MOST people in the US actually think along fairly reasonable lines. The majority of them - by a wide margin - are fine with abortion, interracial marriage, LGBTQ rights and so on.

The only real issue is the silly tribal nonsense between parties. Take that away and we'd find that we actually aren't all that "fractured" and "divided" as people would like us to think.

So in some way, letting the people show that through a vote like this wasn't such a terrible thing. Not that I really want big issues all up to a majority vote all the time, but I'm really glad this happened to show the nation what people really think on this issue.

Minority rights should never be subject to popular votes. This is a principle of (modern) democracy, but i get that for some people democracy is waving and saluting a flag, and to beat up/imprison everyone not showing devotion to aforementioned flag. So my expectations aren't that high to begin with...

[Draco-Onis]

To some extent, yes.

I like to believe that MOST people in the US actually think along fairly reasonable lines. The majority of them - by a wide margin - are fine with abortion, interracial marriage, LGBTQ rights and so on.

The only real issue is the silly tribal nonsense between parties. Take that away and we'd find that we actually aren't all that "fractured" and "divided" as people would like us to think.

So in some way, letting the people show that through a vote like this wasn't such a terrible thing. Not that I really want big issues all up to a majority vote all the time, but I'm really glad this happened to show the nation what people really think on this issue.

A few problems we aren't really a democracy so our votes don't all count the same, that's how the GOP is able to wield power even though they haven't won an election by popular vote in decades. We have a system that enables powerful minorities like the religious right and GOP to dictate policy. I am not even going into the whole minority rights shouldn't be up for a vote from the majority. We just aren't in a system where your reasoning makes any sense or would play out as you think.