Michigan, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota have all urged the US Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that federally legalized same-sex marriage. But this move isn’t as straightforward as many activists on both sides would have you believe. Even if Obergefell is ultimately overturned, other laws and rulings complicate things. The Respect for Marriage Act requires states to acknowledge the legal marriages of other states, and United States v. Windsor struck down key parts of the anti-LGBT Defense of Marriage Act. Should Obergefell fall while Windsor stands, same-sex marriages would still be recognized at the federal level, even if individual states banned them. Yet, the implications are deeply troubling. We could return to a system where some states honor same-sex marriages, while others don’t — a legal patchwork that could severely constrain LGBT rights and upend the decades of work leading up to Obergefell. As a 29-year-old lesbian engaged to be married, this turn of events is personal for me. And it may be one I helped contribute to.

When the “woke” mania swept the country in 2020, I took a step back and reevaluated where I stood and why I stood there. To my surprise, I found that I agreed with conservatives and libertarians on a number of issues. I opposed childhood gender transitions, unlawful and divisive DEI mandates, and the excesses of Critical Race Theory. I argued against biological males competing in women’s sports and being housed in women’s prisons. I did so loudly and publicly, losing many friends along the way. My stance wasn’t rooted in hate or fear but in a commitment to reason and fairness. My loyalty was to the truth, not to political tribes. Maintaining my integrity cost me greatly, but I believed it was worth it.

I went even further — I joined a nonpartisan organization as a legal analyst, advocating for parental rights in schools, against race-based affirmative action, and opposing radical gender ideology. I wrote legal letters, spoke at universities that plastered my face on fliers calling me a bigot, and partnered with conservative attorneys who, I believed, were fighting to preserve fundamental American values. I stood shoulder to shoulder with them on the cultural battlefield, committed to protecting gender-nonconforming children's welfare while still supporting trans adults who simply wanted to live their lives in peace. It was the most extreme activist voices — those who called lesbians transphobic for only wanting to sleep with women and who prioritized trans women’s feelings over the safety of cisgender women — that I opposed. I recognized that these excesses were not just putting trans adults’ rights in jeopardy, but the gay and bi communities’ as well. The fringe was threatening all of us. Acceptance of same-sex marriage began to decline for the first time in a decade. We needed to course correct, and fast.

I was aware of the ever-present elements of the far-right who have always opposed same-sex marriage and the existence of trans-identifying adults, but I didn’t expect the “reasonable” right to join their ranks so quickly once the power dynamic shifted.

Today, some of those same attorneys I worked with are advocating for my right to marry my fiancée to be stripped away. They are urging the Supreme Court to invalidate my engagement and to deny me the protections and benefits that heterosexual couples take for granted. Twitter is rife with homophobic posts calling gay and bi people demonic and disgusting, and attempting to oust us from the Republican Party. They blame us for the overreaches of trans activism, claiming that same-sex marriage was the “slippery slope” that preceded the extremes taking root. They argue that marriage should be between a man and a woman, period. Their legal briefs couch it in historical tradition, religious freedom, and states' rights, but the message is clear: my love, my commitment, and my family is not worthy of legal recognition. I’m a Christian woman. It took a long time for me to make my way back to the church after coming out, but my faith is now stronger than ever. My fiancée and I plan to be married in the church. Now it seems that even though our church is willing to marry us, the government might not recognize it.

This is a dangerous game right-wing culture warriors are playing. If Obergefell falls, it won’t just impact same-sex couples. It will set a precedent that fundamental rights can be granted and taken away by the shifting winds of political power. This should concern every American, regardless of their stance on same-sex marriage.

I can think of a hundred issues more pressing to the American public than the existence of same-sex marriage: inflation, the cost of healthcare, national security, the war in Gaza — the list goes on. But a growing faction of the right is drunk on power, using its current dominance to wage a culture war against its own citizens as retribution for the last number of years. “Owning the libs” is their preferred method of revenge. Instead of tackling inflation or healthcare, they are targeting millions like me who want nothing more than to live our lives freely and equally.

Many will say I should have seen this coming — that the right has and always will be against LGBT rights. And maybe there’s some truth to that. But that just wasn’t my experience. I was met with open arms by this messy coalition of ex-Democrats and lifelong Republicans, many of whom still support me and my right to marry. I found a community committed to reason and truth. Perhaps I’m simply realizing that there are fewer of us than I originally thought. The radical right is on the warpath against liberalism, trampling centrists, libertarians, and reasonable ring-wingers in the process. Ultimately, I don’t regret my decision. I worked toward what I believed — and still believe — to be true. I still oppose radical gender ideology and Critical Race Theory in schools. I still believe that biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports or be housed in women’s prisons. But I will not stand by while LGBT rights are legislated away.

Consider the recent controversy surrounding the gay journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has become a popular figure in right-populist circles in the past few years. When explicit videos from his private life were leaked — depicting consensual, fetishistic encounters and possible drug use — the right-wing response fractured. Some, like Megyn Kelly, defended him, calling the leak an irrelevant “attempt to embarrass him.” But the backlash was fierce and disturbing. A vocal contingent of the right, including pundits with large platforms and significant influence, seized the moment to denounce gay people writ large. Never mind the fact that fetish and kink are widespread among straight people as well. Conservative author and podcaster Allie Beth Stuckey, for example, used the occasion to argue that same-sex marriage had paved the way for child genital mutilation and drag queens reading to kids, suggesting that gay couples should never have been granted marriage or adoption rights in the first place. Others implied that Greenwald had “bought” his adopted children and needed to be “delivered” from homosexuality.

The whole affair made something clear: for many on the right, their past tolerance of gay and bi people who aligned with them on a few pet issues was never rooted in principle. It was always about convenience. We were never truly accepted — just temporarily useful. And now that some of us have outlived our political utility, they’re more than happy to throw us to the wolves the moment the opportunity arises. 

The conservative movement has a choice to make: will they stay true to their promises of liberty and limited government, or will they use the levers of power to impose their preferred moral order? I joined forces with them because I believed in the former. I fear they are choosing the latter.

Many on the cultural right are forgetting something critical: same-sex marriage doesn’t infringe upon anyone else’s rights. A crucial argument against gender ideology was the infringement on women’s rights. But unlike trans edge cases such as women’s sports or prisons, marriage isn’t a zero-sum issue. There isn’t a finite number of spots on the “marriage team.” My getting married takes nothing away from straight couples. And I will fight for my right to do so just as fiercely as I fought against radical ideologies that threatened other American values.

Conservatives can either stand for freedom, or they can stand for oppression — but they cannot do both. If they truly value individual liberty, they should defend our right to marry. If they turn on us now, they reveal who they really are. 

Trump won in 2024 in part due to the left’s overreach. If the right continues down this path, they could meet a similar fate in future elections. As more people come out as LGBT, and as more LGBT people voice concerns with far-left activist orthodoxies, Republicans should be broadening the tent, not excluding these people and pushing them away. Hemorrhaging potential voters to get your druthers isn’t a winning political strategy. The pendulum from hell will just keep swinging back and forth until we all decide we’ve had enough.

/- By Reid Newton

22:00 bedtime / 06:00 wake-up time daily, 1h of screen-time per day, no smartphone. Son is 15.

Those guys know a thing or two about distribution. They could get blue sky in every Walmart in the country

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31153225

Generated Summary below:

Video Description:

[EU S15 E23] Analyzing Trump's Mass Support

On this week’s episode of Economic Update, Professor Wolff delivers updates on the blow back to Iowa Senator Joni Ernst’s rationalization of budget cuts to Medicaid to help fund tax cuts for corporations and the rich, 8,000 Connecticut healthcare workers win contract gains by threatening to strike, and how the advertising industry spawned by capitalism distorts and corrupts human communication. The show's second half features an interview with UC-Berkeley Professor Arlie Hochschild on the reasons why Trump's political base continues to support him.

www.democracyatwork.info

As always, we thank you for your attention, support, and solidarity.

Generated Summary:

Main Topic

The video discusses current economic issues, including healthcare cuts, labor struggles, and advertising practices, and features an interview with Professor Arlie Hochschild about the enduring support for Donald Trump among his base.

Key Points

• Medicaid Cuts: Senator Joni Ernst's support for Medicaid cuts in Iowa sparked outrage, with critics arguing it would harm vulnerable populations. The speaker criticizes the hypocrisy of politicians with excellent healthcare supporting cuts to programs for the poor.
• Healthcare Workers in Connecticut: 8,000 healthcare workers reached a settlement after threatening to strike, highlighting a collaborative effort between the union and employers to pressure the government for funding to increase wages.
• Advertising Critique: Advertising is criticized for its dishonesty, hyping positives while hiding negatives to manipulate consumers.
• Interview with Arlie Hochschild:
  • Hochschild's research indicates that Trump's support base is even more entrenched than before, feeling unrepresented by the Democratic party.
  • Despite budget cuts affecting them, Trump supporters view him as a "tariff doctor" administering painful but necessary medicine to heal the country.
  • A pastor suggests that the Democrats need to focus on social repair in rural areas, which have become "social deserts" vulnerable to charismatic leaders.
  • There is potential for Democrats to connect with Trump supporters through local initiatives and a green agenda, as even in coal-dependent areas, there is support for renewable energy.
  • Hochschild found no evidence of the Trump supporters reaching a tipping point where they would withdraw their support.
  • Trump supporters are afraid of China and feel they are being overtaken.
  • Hochschild is continuing her research and will be revisiting the people she interviewed.

Highlights

• Senator Ernst's dismissive response to concerns about Medicaid cuts: "We're all going to die someday."
• The unusual collaboration between employers and a union in Connecticut to advocate for government funding for healthcare worker wage increases.
• The characterization of advertising as inherently dishonest and manipulative.
• Hochschild's finding that Trump's base is more dug in than before.
• The metaphor of Trump as a "tariff doctor" administering painful chemo to a sick United States.
• The pastor's description of rural America as a "social desert" vulnerable to radical groups.
• The surprising level of support for renewable energy, even in coal-dependent regions.

About Channel:

Democracy at Work is a non-profit 501(c)3 that produces media and live events. Our work analyzes capitalism critically as a systemic problem and advocates for democratizing workplaces as part of a systemic solution. We seek a stronger, fuller democracy – in our politics and culture as well as in our economy - based on workers’ equal collaboration and shared leadership inside enterprises and throughout society.

This is not just a political or moral issue – it’s a legal one. International law lays out clear rules for when and how a country can enforce blockades, intercept vessels and treat civilians.

What is stunning about the video is the 120 year old motion picture in a city still without cars, side by side showing the same route with modern traffic (the modern version was edited to match speed).

Here an article about it from The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2025/jun/09/riding-high-in-germany-on-the-worlds-oldest-suspended-railway

"It looks like something imagined by Jules Verne"

True. And somehow this sentence makes me cry. What if we used technology only to make peoples lives happier and better?

And here wiki with many technical details:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuppertal_Schwebebahn

It's unique as it was a special solution to build an urban railway in a narrow valley.

In all the time, it had a single serious accident, in 1999. So comparatively, it is a very safe means of transport.

I have never used it but I remember be riding in an electric trolley bus as a child in Duisburg with my mother ...

Demo is steam only.

Coming September 18

I have dark thoughts. Is it okay to steal cookies from the cookie jar while mom is not at home ? Is it morally justified ? Can I commit such an act some would consider disturbing ? or should I continue to live a life of being cookieless. Is it worth it to live if I cant know the thrill of stealing moms freshly baked cookies? Are we here just to suffer ?

Archived version

Russia's budget deficit rose by 168 billion rubles ($2.18 billion) in May, bringing the total for the first five months of 2025 to 3.4 trillion rubles ($44.2 billion), or 1.5% of GDP, according to the Finance Ministry.

That is nearly five times higher than the same period of 2024 and nearly equal to the entire deficit planned for the full year — 3.8 trillion rubles ($49.4 billion), or 1.7% of GDP.

Initially, the Finance Ministry had aimed to keep the deficit three times smaller: 1.2 trillion rubles ($15.6 billion), or 0.5% of GDP.

May’s budget results were somewhat worse than expected, economist Yegor Susin said. Revenue growth has slowed, and while spending has eased somewhat after the early-year advance payments, it hasn’t dropped as much as hoped.

Susin estimates that the current deficit trajectory is running at about 1% of GDP higher than planned, which translates to nearly 6 trillion rubles ($78 billion).

...

The main factors are low oil prices and a strong ruble. The ruble appreciated for a sixth consecutive month in May, while oil and gas revenues fell to just 513 billion rubles ($6.67 billion), their lowest point in two and a half years.

Over the first five months of 2025, these revenues totaled 4.24 trillion rubles ($55.1 billion), down 14.4% from a year earlier (after four months, the shortfall was 10.3%). The 2.6 trillion ruble ($33.8 billion) decline in oil and gas revenues is the main reason for the budget revision.

While these revenues still exceed the baseline level, the Finance Ministry warns of risks due to weakening price conditions.

...

Gaidar Institute experts predicted the budget deficit would improve after peaking in May-June. But they noted that economic slowdown, worsening trade conditions, high interest rates and geopolitical challenges are all putting pressure on the budget and worsening existing imbalances.

Still, they believe borrowing and the use of liquid assets from the National Welfare Fund could cover the shortfall.

The liquid portion of the fund had fallen to 2.8 trillion rubles ($36.4 billion) by the end of May, with 447 billion ($5.81 billion) allocated to cover the oil and gas revenue shortfall.

[As an addition, the liquid portion of Russia National Wealth Fund has almost halved since the start of Russia's war against Ukraine.]

Russian forces have used more than a dozen types of antipersonnel mines since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022, causing thousands of civilian casualties and contaminating vast tracts of agricultural land. The antipersonnel mines have been emplaced by hand, delivered by rockets, and—as a report from my colleagues at Human Rights Watch has documented—dropped from drones.

Now some neighboring countries, concerned about Russian aggression, are moving to withdraw from the international treaty ratified by 165 countries that comprehensively bans antipersonnel mines. Russia, China, the United States, and several other countries, are not party to the treaty, but most of Russia’s European neighbors are, including Ukraine.

As documented in the report, Russian forces are modifying commercial quadcopter drones to scatter antipersonnel mines in and around the city of Kherson, as part of a campaign that has killed dozens of civilians and injured hundreds. Russian military-affiliated Telegram channels show PFM-series antipersonnel mines—also known as “petal” or “butterfly” mines—being fitted onto the drones with a mechanism to allow them to be dropped from the drone.

The Russian drone campaign has prevented residents from moving around safely and from accessing essential goods and services. The attacks represent serious violations of the laws of war and have the overwhelming impact of spreading terror among the civilian population and forcing residents to leave Kherson.

[...]

I mean, what's something you can do that people are like, "really? You know how to do that?"

Syria issued a conservative new dress code Tuesday requiring women to wear burkinis or full-body swimwear on all public beaches, the latest cultural shift since Islamist-led rebels toppled dictator Bashar al-Assad’s regime last December.

The Tourism Ministry said the new guidelines were made in “the requirements of public interest.”

“Visitors to public beaches and pools, whether tourists or locals, are required to wear appropriate swimwear that takes into account public taste and the sensibilities of various segments of society,” Tourism Minister Mazen al-Salhani said in a directive posted to Facebook.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31160697

Skip Timestamps and Generated Summary below:

Skip Timestamps:

1. 0:00.000 - 0:07.000 Intermission
2. 25:24.000 - 27:27.022 Sponsor

Generated Summary:

• Main Topic: The video discusses Palantir Technologies and its increasing role in centralizing and managing US government data, raising concerns about privacy and potential abuse of power.

• Key Points:

  • An executive order in 2025 aimed to eliminate information silos within the government, centralizing data access.
  • Palantir is heavily involved in building databases for government agencies, including immigration enforcement (Doge project), the IRS, CDC and Homeland Security.
  • The speaker draws parallels to the Patriot Act and post-9/11 surveillance expansions, arguing that justifications for data collection often lead to broader applications beyond the initial stated purpose.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of oversight and potential for misuse of centralized data by Palantir, a private company.
  • The video highlights the historical context of Palantir's founding, linking it to the "Total Information Awareness" initiative and figures like John Poindexter.
  • The speaker emphasizes the irony of a private company now holding the kind of data that caused public outcry when the NSA was revealed to be collecting it.

• Highlights:

  • The Trump administration's motto: "Everyone is converting to Palantir."
  • Palantir's involvement in managing sensitive data across multiple federal agencies, including health and financial information.
  • The connection between Palantir's founders and the "Total Information Awareness" program.
  • The comparison of Palantir's current role to the NSA's controversial data collection practices revealed by Edward Snowden.
  • The video ends with a call for more attention to Palantir's activities and its potential impact on civil liberties.

---

About Channel:

Independent, Unencumbered Analysis and Investigative Reporting, Captive to No Dogma or Faction.