The recent wave of GOP-led bills comes as Trump becomes emboldened in orders against LGBTQ+ communities
  • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlEnglish
    35·
    3 days ago

    First they came for the immigrants, but I was not an immigrant.

    Then they came for the trans folks, but I was not trans.

    Then they came for gay people, but I was not gay.

    …

    Edit:

    A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) unit has eliminated policies preventing staff from gathering intelligence on an individual or group based solely on their LGBTQ+ status

    DHS quietly eliminates ban on surveillance based on sexual orientation and gender identity

  • venotic@kbin.melroy.org
    303·
    3 days ago

    Yup, knew they were going to come for this. Should’ve fucking pushed to codify it, Obama! This is why codifying things is important! You codify something as LGBTQ rights, try as they might, no GOP piece of shit would be able to fuck with it. But because it wasn’t codified, we’ve got this shit going on. And of course they’ll win back their way which means we’ve got to get ANOTHER democrat in to fucking push it and make sure that fucker codifies it.

    • mindbleach
      2·
      3 days ago

      Oh like double-stamping it would make a fucking difference.

  • BoofStrokeEnglish
    275·
    3 days ago

    How about we remove marriage from all laws and make it household contracts instead? Why shouldn’t I be able to put my brother on my health insurance, for example?

    We are so focused on gay rights to marry that we are missing the actual problem which is simply the legal benefits a marriage provides.

    • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
      3·
      3 days ago

      Because it’s not about helping people. If it was, putting someone on your insurance wouldn’t be a thing in the first place. It’s about reinforcing a nuclear family. You and your brother (hopefully) aren’t planning on making babies, so the government isn’t getting anything from investing in you. I mean, we know they are, but that’s not how they think.

      For what it’s worth, I think marriage as an institution makes sense, seeing as it serves to predesignate a person as an emergency contact/inheritor. It also protects people that would otherwise need a bespoke contract for things like stay at home spouses.

      • BoofStrokeEnglish
        31·
        3 days ago

        That’s my point. It shouldn’t be tied to marriage, but should be a contract between anybody who needs it vs dealing with everything alone if single.

    • Noxy@pawb.socialEnglish
      1·
      3 days ago

      How about we remove marriage from all laws and make it household contracts instead?

      What is a “household contract”?

      Why shouldn’t I be able to put my brother on my health insurance, for example?

      How would eliminating the legal concept of marriage accomplish that?

      We are so focused on gay rights to marry that we are missing the actual problem which is simply the legal benefits a marriage provides.

      Why do you see “legal benefits a marriage provides” as a problem?