What to call this thread?

And in Virginia

1793826792663.png

In 2006, Virginia voters wrote a gay marriage ban into their constitution.

Twenty years later, voters have chosen to replace it with marriage equality.

That’s a powerful anniversary present.

Virginians have approved Question 2, removing the old ban and adding constitutional protections for lawful marriages between two adults regardless of sex, gender or race.

Same-sex couples can already marry in Virginia.

But the language excluding them was still there in the state’s constitution, long after courts made it unenforceable.

Now it will be replaced with an explicit promise of equal treatment.

The amendment takes effect January 1, 2027, strengthening state protections amid concerns about the future of federal marriage rights.

For gay men who remember the marriage-ban campaigns of the 2000s, this is more than a change of wording.

It’s watching voters reconsider what families like theirs deserve.

Twenty years of husbands, anniversaries, shared homes and ordinary life.

And now a constitution that makes room for them.

SOURCE with comments

 
"Virginia Votes For Marriage Equality" #2,101
Atta girl Ginny !

note:
Seems sad in the 3rd millennium we're reduced to including these among our victories.
ARTICLE 6. 2
This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
And?
ARTICLE #14: Ratified July 9, 1868
SECTION1. No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Seems clear enough.
It knit?
 
CNN
Supreme Court prepared to rule that publicly funded religious schools can reject children of same-sex couples
John Fritze, CNN Tue, November 3, 2026 at 2:22 PM GMT-5
The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 25, 2026 - Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters
A majority of the Supreme Court signaled on Tuesday it would allow Catholic preschools receiving taxpayer money to deny enrollment to children of same-sex couples, potentially delivering another significant win for religious rights in schools.
Broadly, the case represents a clash between First Amendment religious protections and laws intended to protect gay and transgender Americans from discrimination. When those conflicts have come to the Supreme Court in recent years, religious claims have won time after time. And there was no indication over the course of two hours of an Election



PU !
 
"#2,103 - just another case of the Supremes ruling based on personal religious beliefs rather than the law." S2 #2,104
I consider it a conspicuous outright betrayal.

Such discrimination is obviously not permitted in U.S. "public" schools, "public" being a euphemism for "government".

Why?

Public schools, government schools are government funded.
If a school is "receiving taxpayer money" (the wording in #2,103) is it not obliged to conform to the same standards other publicly funded schools do?

:mad: S2 #2,103
☑️
If they've sworn to uphold the Constitution, such ruling perjures that oath. Right?
 
If they've sworn to uphold the Constitution, such ruling perjures that oath. Right?
They did the same with Roe v Wade - during their confirmation hearings they all said (under oath) that it was "settled law" and not up for debate but as soon as they had a chance .....
 
Re #2,107

That reminds me - when a neighbor asked how to keep the rabbits away from their tomato plants one of the solutions was "coyote pee" - you can find it in the sporting goods section where it's used as a lure.
 
Back
Top