![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
yakov_a_jerkovTrump administration lifts transgender bathroom guidance
Майло Янопулос бы порадовался, но, возможно, ему сейчас не до того.
Майло Янопулос бы порадовался, но, возможно, ему сейчас не до того.
yakov_a_jerkovyakov_a_jerkov
Page Summary
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by timeasmymeasure
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2017-02-23 04:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-23 04:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-23 04:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-23 05:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-23 05:10 am (UTC)"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Obergefell v. Hodges - justice Roberts, dissenting
"Removing racial barriers to marriage therefore did not change what a marriage was any more than integrating schools changed what a school was."
no subject
Date: 2017-02-23 06:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-23 09:44 am (UTC)As the majority acknowledges, marriage “has existed for millennia and across civilizations.”
The majority accepts that at “the time of the Nation’s founding [marriage] was understood to be a voluntary contract between a man and a woman.” There is no dispute that every State at the founding—and every State throughout our history until a dozen years ago—defined marriage in the traditional, biologically rooted way. Even when state laws did not specify this definition expressly, no one doubted what they meant.
This Court’s precedents have repeatedly described marriage in ways that are consistent only with its traditional meaning.
As the majority notes, some aspects of marriage havechanged over time. Arranged marriages have largely given way to pairings based on romantic love. States have replaced coverture, the doctrine by which a married man and woman became a single legal entity, with laws thatrespect each participant’s separate status. Racial re-strictions on marriage, which “arose as an incident to slavery” to promote “White Supremacy,” were repealed by many States and ultimately struck down by this Court.
The majority observes that these developments “were not mere superficial changes” in marriage, but rather “worked deep transformations in its structure.” They did not, however, work any transformation in the core structure of marriage as the union between a man and a woman. If you had asked a person on the street how marriage was defined, no one would ever have said, “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, where the woman is subject to coverture.” The majority may be right that the “history of marriage is one of both continuity and change,” but the core meaning of marriage has endured.
In Loving, the Court held that racial restrictions on the right to marry lacked a compelling justification. In Zablocki, restrictions based on child support debts did not suffice. In Turner, restrictions based on status as a prisoner were deemed impermissible.
None of the laws at issue in those cases purported to change the core definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The laws challenged in Zablocki and Turner did not define marriage as “the union of a man and a woman, where neither party owes child support or is in prison.” Nor did the interracial marriage ban at issue in Loving define marriage as “the union of a man and a woman of the same race.” Removing racial barriers to marriage therefore did not change what a marriage was any more than integrating schools changed what a school was. As the majority admits, the institution of “marriage” discussed in every one of these cases “presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners.”
In short, the “right to marry” cases stand for the important but limited proposition that particular restrictions on access to marriage as traditionally defined violate due process. These precedents say nothing at all about a right to make a State change its definition of marriage, which is the right petitioners actually seek here.
no subject
Date: 2017-02-23 05:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-23 06:28 pm (UTC)А уж transgender bathroom guidance тем более не меняет what a bathroom or a locker-room was.
Но, по-моему, эта аргументация несерьезна. One may argue и что integrating schools поменяло what a school was; и что removing racial barriers to marriage изменило marriage; и в противоположную сторону можно аргументация приводить.
И понятно, что если приходится ссылаться на "a person on the street", то договориться не получится.
no subject
Date: 2017-02-23 07:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-23 07:56 pm (UTC)Если бога нетесли эта аргументация несерьезна, то все дозволено что ли? :)Но, вообще, как раз эта аргументация поддерживает "transgender bathroom guidance", так как " there is no serious dispute" о том, что пол посетителей туалета влияет на what a bathroom is. Я с этого как раз и начал.
no subject
Date: 2017-02-24 03:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-23 05:44 am (UTC)Скажем, аборты -- нормально? Запрет на дискриминацию разных групп? И т.п.
no subject
Date: 2017-02-23 02:15 pm (UTC)Ничего конкретного в голову не приходит.
no subject
Date: 2017-02-23 05:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-23 09:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-23 09:52 pm (UTC)Ну, ладно думаю, пусть в одних штатах будет расовая сегрегация, а в других "мужики в женских туалетах". Гулять так гулять, в конце концов.
no subject
Date: 2017-02-23 10:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-23 07:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-23 09:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-23 09:59 pm (UTC)Ну трансгендеры же, ну какие у них могут быть проблемы, они-то точно же сами виноваты (а с нами такого случиться не может). Бабы ладно еще, цветные, геи там всякие, противно, но ладно, ну пусть на парад сходят, или даже брак где-нибудь заключат, лучше подальше. Но не трансы же.
no subject
Date: 2017-02-24 01:16 pm (UTC)The White House said Thursday it expects law enforcement agents to enforce federal marijuana laws when they come into conflict with states where recreational use of the drug is permitted. "I do believe you will see greater enforcement of it," White House press secretary Sean Spicer said regarding federal drug laws, which still list marijuana as an illegal substance. That's a reversal from the Obama administration's stance, which laid out in an official memo that the federal government wouldn't interfere in states where nonmedical use of marijuana is allowed.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/white-house-marijuana-donald-trump-pot/index.html
Будет уроком Вашингтону и Колорадо, чтобы знали, как голосовать против Трампа.