https://www.advocate.com/politics/kansas-veto-age-verification-gender-affirming-care-abortion
Kansas will require state-issued ID to view "acts of homosexuality" beginning July 1, which is considered "harmful to minors" under state law.
It goes without saying that this absolutely will not pass constitutional muster.
You can categorically try to ban pornography but the second you try to ban it based on its content and not based on it being pornography you no longer have a leg to stand on.
I wish there were some way to have criminal consequences for deliberately passing unconstitutional laws. It definitely feels like it's some kind of sedition, violating your implicit or explicit oath of office so profoundly.
That's why it's a civil matter. They ruled that civil suits don't have to follow the Constitution.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard from them and they’re the current Supreme Court, I’ve heard a lot of dumb things from those motherfuckers
IMO, as depressing as the thought is, we are rapidly transitioning/declining to a post-Constitution America. It makes sense, because conservatives have never really embraced the notion of a secular document as the law of the land, which can be used to shield individuals and minorities from their abusive moralistic patriarchal regimes. Now they have a chance, many chances in fact, to "right the wrongs" they suffered as a matter of enlightened compromise made in good faith. And we are seeing it everywhere.
Trump is going to be a presidential candidate and more than likely win, and you’re talking about constitutional muster.
Turning the kids gay obviously, and having a gay kid causes at least 50k in emotional damage to their parents. Or was that the parents emotionally damaging their children they don't even try to understand?
The language is so broad that a majority of popular internet media should just block out Kansas. It wouldn't be long before the shit heads back track. Unfortunately, major media will probably just cater to the censorship like the cretins they are.
Yeah. Every streaming company should instantly do it to avoid lawsuits. Then they VPN company should block Kansas because they could be held liable.
Imagine being the first teenager whose parents sue Pornhub because they walked in on you jerking off. The other high school kids would never stop razzing you over it.
It's irritating how these articles always choose such misleading clickbait headlines.
First, a governor does not "pass laws". The legislature does that. Then the governor can veto, sign, or do neither--in which case it passes by default. Our (KS) governor is a Democrat and has vetoed so many anti-LGBTQ+ and abortion restriction bills I've lost count. Unfortunately, the supermajority republican legislature has managed to override a bunch of her vetoes.
The other bill, the "ID required to view porn" bill is making the rounds through most red states. It's not specifically about "acts of homosexuality"--that is one item in the list of what is considered "sexual content" in the bill. She did not sign that bill, but it will pass because she didn't veto it either. It'll be interesting to see (here and in the other states that passed this) what kind of "feedback" these legislators hear from their constituents who can no longer view their porn anonymously--or at all, if the sites stop operating in these states.
Sorry, wasn't aware. 😳 Seemed more like an abbreviation for people too lazy to type transsexual or transgender.
It tends to get shortened to "Trans", though I could see specifying shortly with something like "Transsex" or "Transgen" for more precise abbreviation.
Well, as a nonsexual person, I've been pretty shocked to see that the allosexuals have been pretty much taking this porn ID stuff lying down.
It's interesting seeing "nonsexual" as opposed to "Asexual" or something like "Asexual Spectrum", followed by "allosexual".
No offense intended or anything, just making mention for visibility.
Eh, plenty of ace people will engage in sexual activity, often for the sake of a romantic partner.
I don't/haven't, so it seems easier to specify the one relevant label. You're right in reading between the lines that I am ace.
It's quite nice seeing other Ace people around, AroAce myself.
Also, that does make sense, I've just not really seen anyone use that term for it before now that I can recall.
There’s a term for it. I can only think of “pocket veto,” but that’s the opposite. It’s still allowing the bill to become law though
This could theoretically apply to family-friendly media with queer characters, LGBTQ+ charities and community resources, or even medical websites that include information on gender and sexuality.
All sexual conduct is covered under this law. The issue is they broadly defined “homosexuality” as sexual conduct
Well obviously... and by heterosexual sodomy I assume you're talking about the kind involving strap-ons.
Okay, so it needs to be a threesome? One to peg, the other to "receive"? One person to bring them all and in the darkness bind them (for a BDSM foursome)?
Whatever make people have more kids for the great meat grinder.. this include trying to avoid people being gay.