Like a Firebell in the Night...the beginning of the end for gay rights?

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

Although the gay marriage amendment was defeated, I think the new proposed bill to strip the Federal judiciary of the ability to hear gay-rights cases is a "like a firebell in the night".

This initiative, if sucessfull, would mean some pretty draconian antigay legislation would be possible in more conservative states, up to and including recriminalization of same-sex sex.

Im sort of wondering if we are going to see the steady rollback of gay rights?

[TrogL]

1. Last I heard it was just gay-marriage cases

SCOTUS is not going to put up with being muzzled.

[Rose Siding]

20. The example of 'under God' in the pledge was also used

as the kind of case the bug man wants to try to 'jurusdiction strip'

He'll do whatever he can get away with.

I just read a quote made by a repub running for Congress. He said he favored the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions. They've all gone nuts.

[Love Bug]

2. As far as that goes,

If they can strip the courts' jurisdiction in hearing gay rights cases what's to stop them from doing the same with other civil rights cases?

Good point. This is frightening.

[TexasSissy]

4. Gays are not included in the Civil Rights Act, are they?

I think this was tried, but it failed. So they are not included in the CRA and not entitled to the protections that it gives. It prohibits discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, I think.

[GOPisEvil]

7. Homosexuals are not a protected class.

1. Race
2. National Origin
3. Sex
4. Religion
5. Age
6. Disability
7. Creed
8. Veteran Status

Edit - added something

[Cats Against Frist]

11. Creed

So at what point to we "liberals" get protected from the rabid-right?

[Technowitch]

3. Doubtful

Congress can't just pass a law saying the judiciary can't rule on the Constitutionality of other laws.

Frankly, such a restriction would undoubtedly be struck down as unconstitutional itself.

These idiots would indeed make homosexuality illegal if they could get away with it -- but they also know damned well the difference between posturing for their hyper-religious fundamentalist "do as I say, not as I do" political base, and actually trying to pass legislation.

This is pure posturing, and attempting to save face after the humiliation of not even being able to muster enough votes to bring either measure to the floor for a vote.

There are still some decent people in the Senate -- and a few of them are even Republicans.

[Terran]

13. Congress cannot limit the SCOTUS' jurisdiction

but apparently it can limit the juridiction of the lower federal courts (appeals courts too? don't know). I don't think it matters, because the SCOTUS has already made the *definitive* ruling in the Texas sodomy law case. They've already clearly stated that you can't discriminate against homosexuals on the basis of sexual orientation.

The thing is, if federal jurisdiction becomes limited, *somebody* has to have that juridiction. You can't just set up a barrier to peoples' access to the court system. If a federal court can't hear a case, then a state court would have to, and it would eventually work it's way up to the Supreme Court anyway. It just might take longer, is all.

In any event...all this wacky inventiveness by the repugs surely shows where they're coming from. It has nothing to do with preservation of marriage, and it has everything to do with hate and homophobia.

[Gildor Inglorion]

5. Maybe...I think it's time to start some selective "outing"

to put the fear of God in some of these idiot legislators and their staffers. I know some closeted gay federal government employees. I'll bet lots of other people do, too. }(

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

6. What the fuck are you talking about?

In case you didnt know, "gay federal government employees"? does not equate to "right wing homophobic congresscritters and their staffs.

Big difference.

[candy]

8. Why on earth would you do that? It's their choice,not yours.

[xchrom]

9. oh it's very possible

while the scotus did the right thing in texas -- never forget they upheld georgia's{?} sodomy law.
in that case an off duty officer walked into somebody's house and arrested the two men engaging in oral sex.
it went all the way to the supremes and they upheld it.
every nation has the potential to turn violent on it's own citizens -- and in this country we get the people to sign on the dotted line as we go.{jim crow}

[Cats Against Frist]

15. Jesus -- on what grounds?

:)

Seriously -- do you have the case number? I need to do some serious reading on what the rationale was for this.

[DavidFL]

19. Yes, the GA case was Bowers v. Hardwick...

but fortunately, it was overruled by Lawrence. It's worth reading, though, for Justice Blackmun's dissent as it's probably one of the most eloquent statements on the right of privacy written by a Supreme Court justice.

[Walt Starr]

10. Not just gay rights

The judiciary is all that protects all of our rights. The legislature is too stupid to protect them and the executive is out to take them away.

And our judiciary is becoming willing accomplices in the stripping of rights! Now, the legislature wants to speed things along!

[tom_paine]

12. WHAT? You have a link to this alleged bill?

Back when we lived in the Old Republic and the Constitution meant something, you'd think it wouldn;t be possible to write a law denying a subset of people access to the law.

However, as has been made abundantly clear, there is NO LAW in Imperial Amerika, just the will of the Imperial Family and double-standards that would make a Soviet blush.

Thus I wouldn't find it in the least surprising.

Got a link or something to corroborate?

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

16. Heres a link to an article on the proposed bill.

http://www.thehill.com/news/071504/tactics.aspx

House GOP is rapidly developing its own tactics. Leaders will take their first step next week when they take up Rep. John Hostettler’s (R-Ind.) “jurisdiction stripping” bill. This would bar federal courts from hearing lawsuits related to gay sex and marriage.

[tom_paine]

18. I just saw that on another thread. My dear God in heaven

We are going to have to fight. They won't stop. Like Hitler before them, THEY WON'T stop.

Until we are silenced or dead. And, in case you are wondering, the 'we' doesn't refer only to homsexuals (I'm straight, but I will stand beside you when Crunch Time comes) but to ALL Liberty-Loving Free Americans who WILL NOT accept the Iron Boot of the Tyrant.

[geek tragedy]

14. It will die from a filibuster in the Senate, and if passed would

be struck down by the Supreme Court.

GOAL: Get the Repugs to appear on national television night after night talking about this bullshit. Swing voters will puke.

[Cats Against Frist]

17. I am optimistic

beyond the fact that this is just a political ploy -- (remember, there was no justification, including "will of the people," for the FMA) -- I think this just shows how desperate they are.

Sure, they want to put Dems on record -- but since the GOP has had 20 years to run and elect the new spawn of their bullshit dogma, the newer politicians ACTUALLY WANT these laws to be passed -- and not necessarily because of the typical "gay is gross," thing -- but the fundies are going to shit purple when they have to acquiesce that God wants their "shining city on the hill," to be the next Sodom and Gomorrah.

Do NOT assume that these people are dealing rationally with civil law, at this point. That will be your first big mistake.

And WORSE for the GOP is that their delusional constituency (and these ideological legislators) will have to come to terms with the fact that they didn't have the power to stop it. Meaning: God is not directing the affairs of this nation.

And that's truly huge for the fundamentalist movement in this nation.

So what the GOP is trying to do is remove the power from the judiciary -- in the hopes that a. they can use the "evidence" of Dems on the record to try to get them out of office, so they can get the 67 votes they need and b. they will throw any hurdle in the way to stop this thing from happening.

Because they're right about something: if the defense of marriage act gets challenged it is MORE THAN LIKELY (I dont put anything past anyone these days) that Gay marriage will be federally protected in all 50 states.

The fact that they're doing this re-assures me that for now, the law and the Constitution is on my side -- and I am not gay -- but as an above poster said -- if they manage to skirt this in any other way than amending the Constitution, MY OWN civil liberties are threatened.

And then I will summarily apply for refugee status and get the holy rolling fuck out of the U.S.A.