Seize the Memes of Production
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
And fuck all the people who have worked peacefully for it in the ensuing over half a century?
We owe Stonewall a lot - birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement - but this is the second time I've seen it equated with marriage equality, which... yeah you're erasing a LOT of advocates lives and work, a lot of queer history.
Yeah the right to marry came from decades of fighting by a lot of activists and a sweet old man from Ohio who was willing to go to the supreme court about how his relationship was treated unfairly.
The riots were how we stopped bar raids.
Diversity of tactics is how we won and how we win
Thank you. This is the real shit. Let's spend a lot less time policing other people on our side and a lot more time getting more people to do literally anything. Wear every silly hat, write every Congress-critter, throw every brick. Fire everything!
If you’re an American in February 2026 who isn’t throwing bricks, and you aren’t MAGA, you haven’t taken a side. Get off the fence.
peacefully
Which made graceful capitulation to the motive force much driving our rights more palatable as it allowed the powerful to save face. Nonviolemt action in the context of a larger movement is not useless.
But without a violent wing nonviolent action is worth less than nothing. Straight masochism.
I've grown to hate the word "erasing" because it gets misused by people overreacting far more often than it's used reasonably.
It's a single photo and you're criticising it for not being a comprehensive detailed history of everyone who ever did anything. Can you just let one thing not be about you.
And fuck all the people who have worked peacefully for it in the ensuing over half a century?
and pointlessly so, biden has given anyone permission for any gov't official to refusal to certify or recognize a marriage by simply saying that it's against their religion.
and it will be reversed without more bricks.
and pointlessly so, biden has given anyone permission for any gov’t official to refusal to certify or recognize a marriage by simply saying that it’s against their religion.
I love that you combine the assertion of pointlessness of basic human fucking rights with outright misinformation.
But if you had to rely solely on facts and morally sound arguments, you wouldn't have anything.
please identify where the misinformation is
biden has given anyone permission for any gov’t official to refusal to certify or recognize a marriage by simply saying that it’s against their religion.
100% true; no misinformation there.
I'm sure you have a source, then, considering the pre-Biden standing legal precedent that a government official can't refuse to certify or recognize a marriage on religious grounds, and the Respect of Marriage Act signed into law by Biden forbidding any state or territory of the US from refusing to recognize lawful marriages.
the source is the act itself; dig deeper into it:
“Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect.”
-- The Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 8404) Section 2
“shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection...shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.”
-- The Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 8404) Section 6(b)
“Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect.”
"Due proper respect" here apparently being interpreted, by you, to mean "allowed to break established law and violate this very bill"?
“shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection…shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.”
– The Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 8404) Section 6(b)
Oh? Let's check that actual section and see what it says
(b) Goods or Services.— Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.
So your line about officials being able to refuse to certify marriages was, predictably, misinformation and bullshit. But I'm sure you already knew that. Either that or your reading comprehension is as bad as the average fascist.
you’re doing a lot of heavy lifting to avoid admitting you were wrong.
first off, my claim wasn’t “section 6(b) applies to gov’t officials.” i said biden has given permission for officials to refuse. you read “the act itself” as my only source, but i never said that was the sole source. you filled in the blank, then called me a fascist for it. solid work.
second, this idea that pre-biden precedent “forbade” gov’t officials from refusing to certify marriages? cute. ask kim davis how that ironclad precedent worked out. she straight-up refused, kept her job, and became a folk hero. so no, it wasn’t some pristine rule you’re pretending it was.
third, you breeze right past the part where i was right about the act expanding religious refusal rights for nonprofits, then pivot like that’s irrelevant. it’s not. because the logic doesn’t stay neatly in its lane. you carve out explicit statutory protection for one group’s “sincere beliefs,” and you think gov’t officials won’t notice? states will run with it, and they already are.
so no, it wasn’t “misinformation.” it was a prediction. and you still haven’t shown it’s false—just that you don’t like the delivery.
Pushing the old Nazi line of repeating an idiotic lie in the hopes that it will be believed. Have you considered a job in the current fascist administration? I'm sure they'd love to have you.
first off, my claim wasn’t “section 6(b) applies to gov’t officials.” i said biden has given permission for officials to refuse. you read “the act itself” as my only source, but i never said that was the sole source. you filled in the blank, then called me a fascist for it. solid work.
"Biden has given permission for government officials to refuse."
"I'm sure you have a source."
"Section 6(b) of the Respect of Marriage Act."
"That says nothing of the sort, and you literally had to chop off the quote mid-sentence to avoid stating as much."
"HA! You thought THAT was my SOURCE?"
Here, I'll say it again - this is the moronic dribble of a dyed-in-the-wool fascist who cares about nothing except totalitarian cacophony.
cute. ask kim davis how that ironclad precedent worked out. she straight-up refused, kept her job, and became a folk hero. so no, it wasn’t some pristine rule you’re pretending it was.
What years was Kim Davis in office, and what was the result of the hubub? Remind me.
Additionally, just for kicks, what years was Biden in office?
third, you breeze right past the part where i was right about the act expanding religious refusal rights for nonprofits,
That was never a point you made or a point in dispute. Since your memory and reading comprehension, typical of fascists, is so meagre, let me remind you of the totality of your claims before that point:
and pointlessly so, biden has given anyone permission for any gov’t official to refusal to certify or recognize a marriage by simply saying that it’s against their religion.
and it will be reversed without more bricks.
please identify where the misinformation is
[incorrect citation of the Respect of Marriage Act]
you keep demanding a fucking statute that says “gov’t officials may refuse,” then act like you won when you don’t see it. that’s not how this works.
kim davis literally refused, stayed in office, and precedent did jack shit to stop her. the act didn’t close that loophole. it actually affirmed anti-marriage beliefs as “reasonable” and “due respect.” you think officials won’t notice that?
you also keep pretending section 6(b) is irrelevant because it says “nonprofits.” cute. but the point isn’t that it covers officials directly—it’s that the law carves out explicit refusal rights for one group based on “sincere belief,” and there’s nothing in the text stopping courts from extending that logic to the next one. that’s not misinformation. that’s a prediction. and you still haven’t shown it’s false.
calling someone a fascist because they quoted a law correctly and drew a conclusion you don’t like isn’t an argument. it’s a tantrum and your unhinged response is proof of it. you’re so busy screaming “bullshit” that you never actually proved it’s bullshit.
so no, i wasn’t wrong and you’re still pretending the fire isn’t real because the match hasn’t been entered into evidence.
Here, I’ll say it again - this is the moronic dribble of a dyed-in-the-wool fascist who cares about nothing except totalitarian cacophony.
tantrums don't help anything.
i stand corrected.
The fuckers have taken down the rainbow flag at The Stonewall. The Stonewall, historic site had to remove its pride flag. Fuck.
And to quote the movie directly:
“Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses!”
Not some moistened bint distributing swords from a pond? No watery tart and farcical aquatic ceremony?
The illegitimate tRump court is not supreme - there is a process and they've skipped some important parts - impeachment, removal, and prosecution should help!
Here's the story of Stonewall from the people who were there:
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords may not be a basis for a system of government, but trans women distributing bricks may be.
