whatever the stakes, these are not they
I am reading an editorial on the state of things in Honduras in presenting a bleak fore-ringer on life in a post Roe v Wade America. I await the autonomously governed war zones that allows for the level of devastation wrought in institutionalized rape and plunder. I am thinking there is some other problem here that has nothing to do with frantic shouting of definitions of “ensoulment”.
It takes a few and a few more paragraphs in this CNN article to explain why Loving cannot possibly fall — presenting the question — Why bring it up then? But a second not provided answer…
Because unlike that which exists for any restrictions of abortion, there is no popular support for banning interracial marriage. On removing gay marriage, there is probably a tad more, but only a tad. There we see Donald Trump the first president to come into office supporting such a thing, and there I imagine whatever cracks at the local level will get codified away at a national level in midrange order. Laws on contraceptions may bring into the fore issues on whether a Sisters of the Poor or Catholic Charities has to provide such things, or if we should provide condoms in middle school health centers and what needs to be provided in health care plans, but beyond that there is no popular support for banning contraceptives…
… Unlike there is, has been, and remains for limiting or restricting Abortion.
The total effect is one where where confronted with the hysterical premise of headlines alerting us to the history of the Loving decision — I have a hard time seeing how precedents will be challenged, new segregating marriage laws will get enacted and codified, and the measure will move up the court system.
But everything just gets thrown into a mix, a tossed salad of repression defined with Matt Gaetz a poster child of horrors. Draw up a historical record which affixes one historical stream of manichean good and evil.