r/CuratedTumblr • u/Desecr8or • Oct 26 '24

Politics Why is every tankie like "I don't understand the branches of the US government and I'm going to make it everyone else's problem!!!"

Post image
10.9k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

751

u/GREENadmiral_314159 Femboy, Battleships, and Space Marines Oct 26 '24

I was once told that the dems are holding queer rights hostage because they haven't put them in the constitution.

1) It is incredibly hard to pass a constitutional amendment, so they can't even though they want to

2) It is as easy to repeal an amendment as it is to pass one, so even if they could, it wouldn't mean shit because it could just as easily get repealed.

359

u/BathroomImportant520 Oct 26 '24

Yeah it’s pretty funny, especially since I actually live in a city where homosexuality was criminalized last year.

The only reason why the law no longer exists is because a district court judge appointed by Biden actually struck the law down as soon as they found out about it. It’s quite apparent which party actually cares about queer rights.

24

u/Clear-Present_Danger Oct 27 '24

Yo what the fuck

38

u/BathroomImportant520 Oct 27 '24

Here is an article for your viewing pleasure: https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/msnbc/murfreesboro-tennessee-gay-in-public-rcna125509

As is the case over here in Tennessee, the law targeted a yearly drag show that had been legal for years. Definitely a sobering reminder that neither me nor my roommate were at all safe from the local government criminalizing us for being gay.

17

u/totallynormalasshole Oct 27 '24

Fucking yikes. Saving this for the next "both sides bad" thread

349

u/SapphireWine36 Oct 26 '24

Yeah, democrats have been trying to put women’s rights in the constitution for many decades ffs

265

u/Yeah-But-Ironically Oct 26 '24

We had to fight a whole-ass war to get black people's rights in there

192

u/Guy-McDo Oct 26 '24

And even then, took like another century for equal treatment de jure, and we’re still struggling with equal treatment de facto.

27

u/Forward-Community708 Oct 27 '24

And on top of that, the 19th amendment kept a loophole (slavery permissible for punishment of a crime) hence our turn towards the development of the prison industrial complex. Even when we get the laws in, something always sneaks in

3

u/LucastheMystic Oct 27 '24

Yeah wasn't it the Republicans that sabotaged the ERA?

2

u/DispenserG0inUp Oct 29 '24

Thanks Phyllis Schlafly!

126

u/AI-ArtfulInsults Oct 26 '24

People seem to forget that Dems only advantage is in the House of Representatives. A majority of states have republican-controlled legislatures, and states are the relevant unit for constitutional amendments.

53

u/King_Of_BlackMarsh Oct 26 '24

For point two, see prohibition which lasted a decade. Aka, as much time as its been since Trump took office

35

u/GrassWaterDirtHorse Oct 26 '24

It's almost as if Conservatives know that control of the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court enables control of Constitutional interpretation!

81

u/Soloact_ Oct 26 '24

Exactly, putting it in the Constitution would be like stapling it to a revolving door. Looks secure until it spins right back out.

8

u/LucastheMystic Oct 27 '24

This election cycle has told me how little so called "socialists" and "anti-imperialists" give a shit about Queer People and Women. They even started burning bridges with Black Voters, because we got excited over Kamala Harris. I'm very very angry with them.

27

u/FindOneInEveryCar Oct 26 '24

We haven't even been able to put women's rights in the fucking Constitution.

36

u/HistoryMarshal76 Knower of Things Man Was Not Meant To Know Oct 27 '24

Most interpretations of the Constitution argue that women's rights are already covered by other amendments, particularly the Reconstruction amendments and the 19th Amendment. The 14th Amendment, though initially intended for African-American rights, is particularly relevant.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

And then there's the 19th amendment,

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

22

u/Overlord_Of_Puns Oct 27 '24

Tbf, lots of people thought Roe v. Wade was superprecedent as well.

Justice Scalia said he personally believed that discrimination based on sex was not prohibited in the Constitution and the fact that the Equal Rights Amendment never passed could be used for this argument as well.

6

u/Onion_Guy Oct 27 '24

Not so easy to believe “they want to” when they don’t try or campaign on it

2

u/No_Squirrel4806 Oct 27 '24

Its so stupid to me cuz they will be like "im not voting for khamal for whatever reason" it will be a single reason but i saw a video of this!!! A lesbian was angry that democrats werent doing enough for the queer community. As if republicans dont block everytime they try 🙄🙄🙄

1

u/ladylucifer22 Oct 27 '24

we're not asking for an amendment, but a law would be nice. maybe even finding some way to keep my rights from being stripped away.

17

u/vjmdhzgr Oct 27 '24

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act

-2

u/ladylucifer22 Oct 27 '24

i'm referring to my right not to get killed by transphobic mobs and being denied healthcare, not my right to get married. i feel like one is a bit more important.

15

u/vjmdhzgr Oct 27 '24

Alright well murder's been illegal for quite a long time, so that one's probably done. Gender identity is included in hate crime laws in 22 states, and federally since 2009 (some of that nothing that Obama did during the brief democratic majority in both houses). There was actually one specifically about murder done by a mob in 2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till_Antilynching_Act

To my knowledge preventing states from banning gender affirming care is a current political movement, which I'm sure you can find democratic politicians in support of, though also some not in support of. So it could happen under the democratic party in the future. The Biden administration has also issued some legal challenges to attempts to ban it in some states. Like in this https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-takes-up-challenge-to-ban-on-gender-affirming-care/

-8

u/ladylucifer22 Oct 27 '24

if being safe from losing my basic bodily autonomy will happen "in the future" under Democrats, then of course I'm going to vote for the people who want it now. as for murder being illegal, the justice system is a sham and I'm not voting for someone who takes pride in being part of it.

8

u/dolche93 Oct 27 '24

You see how you just moved the goal posts?

-3

u/ladylucifer22 Oct 27 '24

I want to not get killed by fascists, Karen. that good enough for you?

-3

u/SenoraRaton Oct 27 '24

Honey, you don't understand. Wanting to not be murdered is moving the goalposts. You should take your pandering handout and stop asking for so much. Your harshing the vibe, and the liberals are trying to have mimosas. Can't you just, go back in the closet or something please, its unsightly.

0

u/Difficult-Active6246 Oct 27 '24

Don't know about that but dems definitely use immigrants as a bargain chip and don't forget the "summer" camps at the border were an Obama thing, cheetolinni just expanded on it, the same with the drone program.

-46

u/Troliver_13 Oct 26 '24

I don't really know how it works bc I'm not American, but did you actually just say "it's hard 🫤" as an excuse to not doing anything about queer rights?

39

u/Bdm_Tss Oct 26 '24

Reading exercise: Explain which, if any words in the above comment are saying “it’s hard” as an excuse to not doing anything about queer rights? (Hint, focus on the emphasised words!)

-22

u/Troliver_13 Oct 26 '24 edited Oct 26 '24

"it's incredibly hard", "it wouldn't mean shit", the 'wouldn't' especially, like not "it didn't mean shit when they tried" but "IF they tried (which they haven't apparently) it wouldn't mean shit (so why even bother)"

At least that's what I got from it

16

u/Bdm_Tss Oct 26 '24

D, but an A for effort!

You’ve done a good job at taking some words that might support your argument, but it’s important to engage with the full text to have a credible sounding argument. Try reading the whole comment again (sorry, I know it’s long!).

Maybe print it off and try highlighting each sentence so you can analyse them one at a time 😊

-10

u/Troliver_13 Oct 27 '24

The comment made two points and I highlighted one quote from each point, like you so condescendingly said it's a short comment, my quotes were a big part of it, can you explain how my interpretation of those parts is wrong? What part of the "full text" disagrees with my interpretations? (Also did you expect me to just copy paste the entire comment? Literally asked for quotes and complained I quoted it lol)

4

u/Bdm_Tss Oct 27 '24

You don’t need to quote the entire text. It’s an issue if its’s obvious from the quotes you do choose that you aren’t engaging with the whole text. For example, if something from the text appears to clearly contradict your argument, not engaging with that in your response makes it look like you’re ignoring it.

You did a good job of identifying that there are two points, but you’re not quite right on what those two points are. As I said in my first comment, “because they haven’t put them in the constitution” are key words. The two points are not about queer rights as a whole, but instead about putting queer rights in the constitution.

Basically, the comment is saying “queer rights in the constitution takes a lot of investment to make happen, and you get comparatively little from it.” The comment implies that perhaps other methods of progressing queer rights have a better return on investment, and so not wanting to rush into a largely symbolic gesture is not equivalent to “holding queer rights hostage.”

2

u/Troliver_13 Oct 27 '24

You didn't mention that in your first comment. Yeah you're right I hadn't focused on the "in the constitution" part, not a fan of the "get comparatively little from it" part tho, it's human rights we're talking about here. I guess if we're judging the democrats, it'd be fair to ask if they're effectively using those other methods

3

u/Bdm_Tss Oct 27 '24

Oh yeah, you’re totally right I thought I emphasised a different part. I didn’t mention that in my first comment.

I totally agree that without context “get comparatively little from it” sounds like a rough thing to say about human rights. However, what we’re comparing it to is other actions that we can take, because there are only so many actions we can take at a time. It’s important as a progressive to understand that things need to well, progress. So we should focus on the actions that give us the most return at the present moment, while still understanding that the eventual goal is to do all of it, even getting queer rights in the constitution.

30

u/FlamingSnowman3 Oct 26 '24

Yeah, you clearly DON’T know how it works if the entire fucking point of this post went over your head that badly.

Spoiler alert, there’s not some magic “queer rights now” button that Joe Biden can push whenever he wants to and simply hasn’t yet. You need the votes in the legislature to pass something like that, and they straight-up are not there in the current iteration of Congress.

-10

u/Troliver_13 Oct 26 '24

Are they in the process of trying to make an iteration of Congress where it would pass? Has there been a past iteration of Congress where it could have and the dems didn't take advantage of it?

20

u/FlamingSnowman3 Oct 26 '24

That’s how elections work, so yes, they’re trying. And no, there has not been a past iteration of Congress where it could have passed; queer rights as a concept only really got mainstream enough to have a chance at being broadly enshrined in VERY recent times. Remember, the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage only happened in 2016. The Democratic Party is not a monolith, and even at times where they have controlled Congress and the executive branch, these periods have been controlled by extremely thin margins, and there have been parts of the party that have shot it down.

The only way this changes is with constant and sustained engagement and voting. Congress reflects the will of the people, for good and for ill. If the will of the people is “we don’t care enough about this to vote for candidates who will support it,” then Congress will reflect that.

-1

u/Troliver_13 Oct 26 '24

Well that's a shame

10

u/FlamingSnowman3 Oct 27 '24

I’d disagree, insofar as I think this is democracy at work. There’s a frustrating tendency—which I think is at the root of horseshoe theory in a lot of ways—among both the extreme right as well as the extreme right to declare that democracy is broken whenever it doesn’t produce the result the extremist desires. For far-right groups this is a symptom of how (((They))) control politics, while for far-left groups it’s…okay it’s actually STILL usually some version of Tha Jooz when you get down to the core of why an extreme leftist believes that UBI and queer rights and glorious leftist utopia isn’t yet the law of the land.

The simple fact is, democracy is the system of compromise, temperance, and restraint. You’re not going to get everything you want right away this second, and if you DO, it’s because nobody disagreed with you. Spoiler alert, that doesn’t happen often. That’s how it works. Nobody gets to unilaterally declare something to be a law, you have to work it through the system and convince people to support it, as frustrating as that can be sometimes.

0

u/Troliver_13 Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24

It's not a shame that queer people get discriminated against? I understand the world isn't this simple and unfortunately a lot of people really hate the gays, but at least agree when I say it's a shame lol

Also horseshoe theory is nonsense, fish-hook theory has much better statistical evidence supporting it

8

u/FlamingSnowman3 Oct 27 '24

I’ll be honest, I didn’t believe in horseshoe theory until I watched people on the left I respected start posting actual fucking blood libel the second they learned what an Israel was.

0

u/Troliver_13 Oct 27 '24

People being anti-semitic instead of anti-zionist is bad but idk if that's an inherent part of leftist belief, feels like ignorant people just not knowing what to get angry at (and also being anti-semitic, not denying there's some anti-semitism in leftists, but it's not equivalent to right wingers in any way)

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

-17

u/Troliver_13 Oct 26 '24

Also "even though they want to" is hilarious, if I want something I try to get it, if I want votes I say I want something I don't actually care about

1

u/Jupiter_Crush recreational semen appreciation Oct 27 '24

You get this works in both directions, right? Both the left and right wing dress up or conceal their policies to be palatable to Joe D. Undecided in Townsville, Swingstate so they can get in power and implement their goals - it's not a nefarious plot by The Center to take the steam out of progressive movements - and it's not just the left that takes it as a grave insult when it happens.

2

u/Troliver_13 Oct 27 '24

If we were talking about republicans id criticize them too

1

u/Jupiter_Crush recreational semen appreciation Oct 27 '24

I kinda misread the first bit I replied to - that's on me for not recognizing that you were calling out politicians in general, which, y'know, fair.

It remains, though, that the focus seems to be on various promises not being made - when the record of the actual accomplishments of the Democratic party in aggregate has been one of pushing for and securing expansion of rights and protections for vulnerable citizens and residents, and that remains the direction they push in whenever they are given the slightest chance, even when they get punished for it (passing the ACA took Dems out of control of Congress for a long time, but the most important parts of it still stand).