#marriage rights

[animentality]

I don't wanna support gun rights but men in Texas have me thinking well...Texan women will probably need guns to even leave their state in the near future.

[amtrak-official]

Remember when they specifically said Obergefell was not in danger last year.

[onetimetwotimesthreetimess]

Absolutely heartbroken (but not surprised) about this.

The Supreme Court of India has refused to legalise same sex marriage in india on the basis that it should be up to the parliament to create laws and not the judiciary.

The parliament of the country comprises of the ruling and the opposing parties. For any bill to be passed, a majority members need to discuss and vote on it. Even if the ruling party is not in favour, the bill can be passed and turned into an act.

However, the current ruling party, does whatever the fuck it wants, surpassing the procedures mandated by the constitution to pass a law so it’s highly unlikely that the current government will be passing any laws for LGTBQIA+ marriages in India for the next few years.

This is a major setback for all of us as the Supreme Court is the highest court of law in the country and it has the rights and authority to make decisions that have to be adhered by the Parliament.

If the Supreme Court is not on our side, this is a losing battle for us all (for now). I had really high hopes from this judgement because Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud had raised some really valid points in our favor during the arguments.

I am deeply saddened by this.

To all my queer babies from India, I wish you all a kind day. We will not stop fighting. We will never quit.

Here’s to another day 🌻❤️

[beardedmrbean]

This is a good way to lead into pride month, much better than any of the angry stuff.

LINK

[queerplatonicpositivity]

"Same-sex marriage should be legal" and "Same-sex marriage does not fix many of the problems with legal rights and marriage" are two concepts that can coexist.

[profeminist]

"The House on Tuesday passed a bill codifying federal protections for same-sex marriage amid growing concern among some lawmakers and advocates that the Supreme Court could revisit its landmark 2015 decision.

After the Supreme Court’s decision to nullify federal abortion protections, House Democrats are pushing to protect other rights they believe were left vulnerable following the court's overturning of Roe v. Wade.

All 220 House Democrats voted in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act on Tuesday, with 47 Republicans also in support.

Because of the Senate's filibuster rules, 60 votes are needed to get the act through Congress. So far, though, no concurrent bill has been introduced in the Senate ." 

Read the full piece here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/19/house-codifies-same-sex-marriage/10099640002/

[hazellevessque]

THE HOMOPHOBIA IS REAL

[mckitterick]

Congress Passes the Respect for Marriage Act

Both the House and the Senate have passed the Respect for Marriage Act, which codifies same-sex and interracial marriages. The bill will head to President Joe Biden's desk to be signed into law, which is expected to happen soon.

The legislation passed 258-169 in the House Thursday with bipartisan support, after passing through the Senate last week with a 61-36 vote. Only 12 Republican senators voted in favor of the bill (none from my state of Kansas).

Mark Takano, a California Democrat and the first openly gay person of color in Congress, said, "This bill will pass today but it is a reminder of the necessity of our vigilance in the fight for the human rights and need to hold the judicial branch accountable. We must rise to the challenge and we will prevail."

The measure was first born in the House this summer following the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v Jackson, which reversed decades of precedent and ruled that access to abortion was not a constitutional right. Marriage rights advocates and Democrats expressed concern that the reversal could call other decisions regarding civil liberties into question, including marriage equality.

In his opinion of the Dobbs case, SCOTUS creep Clarence Thomas made a point to say that the landmark 2015 case legalizing same-sex marriage, Obergefell v Hodges, rests on the same legal principles that underscored Roe v Wade. Many feared Thomas was setting the stage for Obergefell's reversal.

President Biden said, "Today, Congress took a critical step to ensure that Americans have the right to marry the person they love. The House's bipartisan passage of the Respect for Marriage Act - by a significant margin - will give peace of mind to millions of LGBTQI+ and interracial couples who are now guaranteed the rights and protections to which they and their children are entitled. While we are one step closer on our long journey to build a more perfect union, we must never stop fighting for full equality for LGBTQI+ Americans and all Americans."

As vice president, Biden publicly broke with then-President Barack Obama to voice support for same-sex marriage rights in 2012. Obama ultimately joined him.

NPR source: X

Big good news!

[tippitv]

Cuba legalizes same-sex marriage in voting referendum:

[hang-on-lil-tomato]

if your religion teaches you to hate people….

Get another religion!

[mylasttwobraincellsandi]

I felt like Tumblr should know this but in just about 30 minutes the Indian Supreme court will give it's judgement regarding same sex marriage.

We are literally this 🤏 close to winning.

[blueguyorgirl]

If the verdict doesn't pass as it rightfully should today, I'll remove the wedding rings.

[lady-griffin]

Shocking. Just shocking. Completely out of nowhere. What a shocking twist that none of us were concerned about or even saw coming.

I hate it here.

[elfwreck]

Hey! There’s a lawyer who does polyamarous “””marriages””” and like, it doesn’t cover everything, children being a big huge honking glaring one, but she sets up an incorporated business. For the polyamorous throuple, quintuple, whatever. The ‘cule. It’s not perfect but entirely customizable for the relationship in question’s needs

You can set up a polyamorous committed relationship as a corporation, and tie that in with power-of-attorney and medical proxies and banking rights.

But you can't get marriage rights out of that. You can't get the right not to testify against your partners. You can't get the right to file taxes jointly. Employers are not required to extend health care coverage to your contracted polycule.

You can have a medical proxy, but that's not legally the same as next-of-kin... and in some places, that means your wishes can be overruled by birth family. (A court might clear that up, but that won't fix the hospital visit.) You can't use a polycule to sponsor someone for immigration. Can't get Social Security survivor's benefits. Campus housing for married students; non-student housing rights - discrimination by "familial status" is illegal, but a contracted polycule is not recognized as a family. And so on.

You can have a contract set up that arranges many of the rights of marriage for a polycule, but like domestic partnerships before Ogberfell, it can't grant a lot of the rights that are built into the law for spouses alone.

You can contract for a lot of the ways you treat each other: joint assets, decision-making, even something close to shared custody, with the right permissions documents. You can't contract for how businesses and the government treat you.

(I wish that were different. One of the hardest parts of fixing that, is identifying the rights of marriage. And they are damned hard to pin down. I strongly suspect part of how we got same-sex marriages, is that as much as the conservatives hate us... wow do they NOT want to deal with questions about "what is marriage, really?" They'd wind up discovering a whole bunch of cis het marriages don't qualify.)

[savnofilter]

TW: ROE V WADE, MENTIONS OF SA.

-

-

-

i remember learning about roe v wade in class. i so hoped and wished that it would not come to fruition, but it did. there is no way i can shake the despair of what it will be like for the women who have been sexually violated, simply cannot afford having a child, or even with the case of just not being ready to have one. there are medical practices that need abortions in order for women to live.

not only does this cut off access to safe abortions, but it opens up violations to our privacy as americans. roe v wade case indirectly is in comparison to interracial couples (plessy v ferguson, brown v board of ed) and lgbtq+ laws on the basis of our right to privacy. our 14th amendment is at stake.

here is an article that gives a proper summary and context of the situation. ive listed some organizations that you can donate to help fund clinics that help women.

abortion access fund (nebraska): link

access reproductive care-southeast (arc southeast): link

center for reproductive rights: link

guttmacher institute: link

ipas: link

indigenous women rising: link

iowa abortion access fund: link

planned parenthood: one | two

national abortion federation: link

national black women's reproductive agenda: link

national network of abortion funds: link

national women's law center: link

naral pro-choice america: link

northwest abortion access fund: link

rape, abuse & incest national network (rainn): link

reclaim mi win fund: link

reproductive freedom fund of new hampshire: link

western pennsylvania fund for choice: link

whole woman's health alliance - stigma relief fund: link

cant donate? sharing helps spread the word!

source: @/forwardmidwifery and @/so.informed on instagram.

[behindmykeyboard]

Equal Marriage Rights

Do you know what bothers me the most? It's the fact that equal marriage rights in the Czech Republic are a political discussion based on subjective conviction. What's missing is argumentation and professional discussions. I honestly do not care which party views equal marriage rights as normal and which doesn't. That does not help, the issue is the fact that it is not discussed objectively at all, with religious bias always being at the front of the discussion.

Until politics in the Czech Republic get to a point where this topic can be discussed objectively with factual argumentation and professional analysis, I see no worth going back and forth as things will simply not progress. I guess I'd just like to say, keep my sexuality and gender out of your religious views. I know this is an issue for a specific country, but do not fret, I drink a lot of coffee and have the time to think deeply over everything and anything, stay tuned.