Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
25. A minority, especially one like our LGBT minority
Fri May 11, 2012, 09:15 AM
May 2012

that has experienced centuries of institutionalized bigotry towards it, should not be subject to the whims of a majority culture that has already been persecuting LGBT persons for centuries. We're sitting ducks for the bigots that infest most states.

President Obama has unquestionably, hands down, been the most LGBT friendly President in history by a country mile. And this was only one term. Given this trajectory, it seems probable that we may finally be recognized as first class citizens with legally protected equal rights by the end of his second term.

Two of the fascist justices on the SCOTUS are in their mid-70's. Scalia is 76, and Kennedy is 75. With any luck, one or both will be forced to leave the bench due to "personal reasons" during Obama's 2nd term. (If I were a praying woman, I'd be on me knees nightly asking for these "personal reasons" to occur). If just one of them goes, we get a SCOTUS majority, 5-4. If both of them go, we hit the jackpot, a 6 liberals to 3 conservatives bench. Justice Ginsburg is 79. I suspect she may retire soon, paving the way for Obama to appoint her replacement. Justice Breyer is 73, and may wish to retire by the end of Obama's second term.

Theoretically, we could have a 6-3 bench at the end of Obama's 2nd term. As a bonus, 5 of these liberal justices could be under 60 yrs old when Obama's 2nd term ends if he wisely appoints younger talent. And Justice Sotomayor would be 61. This would give us a SCOTUS majority for many years, barring tragedy.

The point is, the importance of obtaining a liberal majority in the SCOTUS sometime during Obama's 2nd term, with regard to our situation, cannot be overstated.

With a SCOTUS majority and a Democratic President, the odds of our winning the rights lottery during Obama's 2nd term are extremely good. Another Dem President and a SCOTUS majority in 2016 puts a lock on our rights forever.

So, these scenarios are one way we can overcome the states rights problem we now face. But we must re-elect Obama, despite the misgivings some of us have had, and then hope that nature acts in our interests, in a kind, but effective, way, with regard to fascist SCOTUS justices leaving the bench.

So the moral of this tale is, if Obama is not re-elected, then...we all have a very serious problem to deal with. If he is re-elected, every citizen of the US could be impervious to state legislated legalized bigotry forever.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

du rec. nt xchrom May 2012 #1
I think I get it. vaberella May 2012 #2
Great if you spend the rest of your life in that state that recognizes you marriage HockeyMom May 2012 #5
I know. vaberella May 2012 #8
Bipartisanship? mmonk May 2012 #3
when ANYONE says "leave it to the states" they almost always mean "we'd lose at the federal level." unblock May 2012 #4
Stare Decisis HockeyMom May 2012 #12
that's true, but saying that it should be enforced through the courts cali May 2012 #6
It's the Constitution that did that, not the President. n/t pnwmom May 2012 #7
Exactly. Historically, it's been viewed as a power reserved to the states. pinboy3niner May 2012 #10
That decision already happened: Loving v. Virginia. Pab Sungenis May 2012 #11
You misunderstand his point. Skinner May 2012 #17
They don't need to. Pab Sungenis May 2012 #18
I agree. hack89 May 2012 #20
I don't understand your point. Skinner May 2012 #24
Congress has nothing to do with it. Pab Sungenis May 2012 #26
Ok, then. I agree. Skinner May 2012 #28
Religion should be taken out of marriage. LiberalFighter May 2012 #22
AMEN ! SoCalDem May 2012 #30
Maybe this is what he has to do... Zorra May 2012 #9
So we would have marriage equality but also military dictatorship? EFerrari May 2012 #27
Thanks. Yes, there is, however Zorra May 2012 #29
my two cents Ship of Fools May 2012 #13
Because, as the law now stands, it IS The Velveteen Ocelot May 2012 #14
Barney Frank... SidDithers May 2012 #15
Here is why: Because marriage has always been a state issue. Skinner May 2012 #16
I would think that the protection of civil rights would trump any claim that states have Bonobo May 2012 #19
Some day, the protection of civil rights WILL trump any claim that states have. Skinner May 2012 #23
Some federal laws are more about what states can't do loyalsister May 2012 #21
A minority, especially one like our LGBT minority Zorra May 2012 #25
I think the issue is two fold.......... mrmpa May 2012 #31
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If marriage is a civil ri...»Reply #25