return2ozmaRight-Wing Influencer Laura Loomer Testified Under Oath That Lindsey Graham Is Gay
manxuIn 2024, Loomer criticized Graham for having “never been loyal to President Trump” and followed up with, “When is Lindsey coming out of the closet? We all know you’re gay, Lindsey… and that’s ok.”
I sense there is a tinge of the "treacherous homosexual" trope coming up here, from the early 20th Century. Gay people can't be trusted because <insert pointless falsehood>.
While trans people are the focus of the administration's undoing of civil rights right now, my sixth sense tells me they are coming after all of the LGBTQ+ once they are done "fixing" immigration and lives don't actually improve as promised.
They've already started. Most recent is Kim Davis (remember the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue same sex marriage licenses) just filed a petition with The Supreme Court calling for them to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage)
I really, really hoped I'd never hear her name again... But how would she ever have standing to challenge the court decision? She's not county clerk anymore.
porksnort‘Standing’ is usually just a way for judges to block or promote hearing of cases. It is very arbitrary and squishy.
Due to her previous crimes and involvement in the justice system, followed by her ‘career’ as a ‘public figure’ centered around these issues, a judge can safely grant standing if they feel like doing so.
WesDym@manxu In her case, standing is not in dispute, I think, because she is personally subject to forfeiture if she loses. I think it doesn't get much more direct than that. That said, standing doesn't mean she has a legal basis for shooting the moon, either. "The laws of this country caused me harm" is only valid if those laws are found wanting, or incorrectly applied. She's basically saying, "The law is wrong." Okay, you're allowed to make that claim, and we'll see where it goes.
Thanks for the reply! Very informative and I agree. I point out, though, that she doesn't have beef with the law, per se, but with a prior SCOTUS ruling. That is, she doesn't seem to object to the law portion ("a county clerk has to fulfill the duties of their position") but to the idea that gay marriage is one of her duties, which came about because of Obergefell, right?
@manxu I honestly think she's just trying to evade responsibility, any way she can. I don't think she's got a sophisticated grasp of law, or much else. It's Liberty Counsel that wants the law reversed. They're using each other for their own goals. LC needs a test case, and she doesn't want to have to pay the fine. Her beef is that the law affected her personally, though that's as much due to choices she made, including running for that office in the first place, knowing this could happen.
/2
@manxu 2/ It was Obergefell which created the conflict for her, but she was aware that was possible when she ran, or at should have been. I'd say her main problem -- and LC's -- is a fundamental difference with the Constitution over separation of church and state. I happen to believe they're wrong.