RybenZ999
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2022
This is such an excellent comment and it is unfortunate it has not been discussed more than it is. This is particularly relevant by way of SCOTUS decisions that are based on shaky legal reasoning. When ROE was decided, it was very unpopular. But, once SCOTUS declared abortion to somehow be a constitutional right, a lot of lemmings just concluded, oh well, yeah, it is a constitutional, inalienable right. And they did so without reading or understanding ROE, a decision so poorly reasoned the lefty hero RBG had grave concerns about. Same thing happend with Obergefell. Before that decision, most Americans were adamantly opposed to gay marriage. So much so an intiative in California failed by a pretty wide marriage. Scotus intervenes, conjures up some phantom right for gays to marriage, and boom, majority now support, so much so I am not sure it will be possible for quite a long time to put that genie back in the bottle. Ditto with miscegenation before Loving v Virginia. Even Brown v Board of Education was wildly unpopular in its day, but it was not long until that exercise of power convinced the lemmings and normies to fall in line.
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." -- California Constitution, Article 1, Sec 7.5Again, obviously proven false by the tiniest most cursory glance at how much state action has moved the needle on attitudes about race, gender, etc. People respond to power and their behavior can clearly be shaped accordingly. Not with 100% perfection, in the sense that making murder illegal doesn't prevent any murders from ever happening at all, but it sure does lower the amount of them.
Say, is it possible to invoke this and literally change every single gay marriage in California to a civil-union? It'd just be a name change, but still the fallout would be hilarious and may play a role in slightly pushing the needle in the other direction.