this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2024
517 points (96.7% liked)

News

36233 readers
2452 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

In response to Donald Trump’s re-election, some same-sex couples, like Ben Nelson and Adam Weinberger, are accelerating plans to marry, fearing potential rollbacks of LGBTQ rights.

Concerns stem from the Supreme Court’s 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade and past statements from conservative justices suggesting interest in revisiting the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.

While the Respect for Marriage Act offers federal safeguards, uncertainty persists.

LGBTQ-friendly businesses are stepping up to support couples, but fears of broader restrictions, including on parenting options, remain widespread among the community.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jjagaimo@lemmy.ca 72 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

I wonder what the chances are that the coming administration invalidate such marriages, probably on some dumb Christian nationalist grounds

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 64 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Supreme Court has already signaled that gay marriage is on the chopping block.

[–] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I wonder how this would work with their anti-trans initiatives. If a transwoman tried to marry her girlfriend, would it technically be legal under their backwards laws?

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 38 points 1 year ago

Logically yes, but they are not bound by logic.

No, they see us as criminals and will deny every right they can, marriage, public service, equal treatment under the law, medical insurance/medication, freedom of association, speech, and even our right to exist. The point is to criminalize and erase our existence from public life.

[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

Transwomen aren't people, silly! /s

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Weren't they against sharia law?

[–] Yeller_king@reddthat.com 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] III@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Conservatives everywhere hoping for some religious issue to enter into legal dispute based on a woman named Sharia so they redefine that term just like they do with every word that describes their shit-baggery.

[–] tiramichu@lemm.ee 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Anything is possible, but it would be far more difficult to invalidate existing marriages than prevent new ones. Which is exactly why couples are rushing to get it done now.

[–] III@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

They are openly stating they will deport legal citizens... so, acting like their should be no concern might not be a great idea.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's already happening in Italy, so there's no reason to believe the GOP would hold back.

[–] whithom@discuss.online 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Italy has never recognized same-sex marriage.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sorry, Captain Pedantic — they have same-sex unions (and recently banned travel for surrogacy specifically for gay couples)

[–] whithom@discuss.online 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s not pedantic when it’s two different things.

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What legal differences are there between unions and marriages in Italy?

[–] whithom@discuss.online 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Eligibility:

• Marriage: Only for opposite-sex couples.

• Civil Unions: Only for same-sex couples.

Adoption Rights:

• Marriage: Opposite-sex couples can jointly adopt.

• Civil Unions: No joint adoption rights; stepchild adoption is possible but not explicitly protected by law.

Parental Recognition:

• Marriage: Both parents are recognized automatically.

• Civil Unions: Challenges in recognition, particularly for children born via surrogacy or assisted reproduction.

Surrogacy:

• Marriage: Not explicitly addressed for opposite-sex couples but may be permissible under specific conditions.

• Civil Unions: Surrogacy is explicitly prohibited for same-sex couples, and pursuing it abroad can lead to legal consequences in Italy.

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thank you, the recent surrogacy ban is taking a right away from unions, correct?

Which implies that before said ban, unions and marriages were one step closer to the same right.

You listed only differences. What are the similarities? Are taxation and inheritance significantly different? Are property and financial benefits different?

It sounds like the pedantic difference is that union is marriage for same sex couples, and that now they’ve stripped rights from same sex couples. (Which they could do either goddamn way, since these fascists can just redefine same-sex marriage at any time anyway).

[–] bitchkat@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

No one should bet against it.