• snooggums@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    But Barrett has suggested recently that same-sex marriage might be in a different category than abortion because people have relied on the decision when they married and had children.

    Or, you know, because people should be able to choose who they marry. Wait, that actually applies to deciding whether to have children too!

    They are similar, but she has the logic backwards. People should be able to marry who they want and have abortions because people should be able to choose for themselves.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      That aside, there are SO MANY RIGHTS that come with being married that you actively deny LGBTQ couples when you deny them marriage.

      For example:

      Did you know that in a court case, your spouse cannot be compelled to testify against you? Speech between spouses is protected at the same level as lawyer/client or priest/penitent.

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

      • snooggums@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        I am 100% aware of all the benefits.

        Also, like the priest/lawyer/etc. there is an exception to the privilege if the spouse is an participant in crime.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I wonder if they used this logic, if people who wanted an abortion within the time frame of the ruling and finding out they were pregnant could sue.

      Like - I had already conceived before your ruling on Roe vs Wade, so that decision was made based off existing laws, so I should have been allowed the abortion.

      Sue for the entire cost of raising those children.