homosexuality contraceptkon and abortion remain illegal.

[usertron2020]

Um, putting aside all these apocalyptic scenarios, how about something simpler, at least for the USA? Homosexuals were being arrested under state anti-sodomy laws only until the last decade and a half or so (Texas, of course). Abortion was legalized in 1973 but has been driven back on a state-by-state basis ever since.

All you need is for some critical Democratic appointees to the US Supreme Court to be butterflied to other candidates who will be disappointments to those who named them. Think Byron White, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter.

If critical appointees like Thurgood Marshall don't get on the Court, and none of Eisenhower's appointments turn out to be "mistakes", you could easily see Roe v. Wade being decided on a strict anti-abortion basis, which as politics would have things in the USA ever since that decision would likely stand.

Homosexuality is tougher, as I can't quite see any SCOTUS making a nationwide ban possible. Then again, I'm old enough to remember when police regularly raided gay bars and setup "sting" operations to catch homosexuals looking to hook up. So who knows?

As to contraception and the Supreme Court, I could only see that as "leaving it to the states", as I don't imagine even a SCOTUS of nine Antonin Scalia's telling the US military that they can't issue condoms!

 

[RGB]

Communists weren't exactly fans of homosexuality, either, and they didn't have any Ernst Roehms

It might surprise you but most eastern block countries decriminalised it before or at the same time at their western counterparts.

Not to say that there were genuine gay rights advances there, only that there wasn't a universal imperative to homophobia beyond cultural standards even in repressive one-party states.

If anything I suspect that with the rebirth of religion in politics in the Eastern Block, the newly democratic countries are actually lagging where they would have been in an ATL where some kind of communism is continuing.

 

[Thesaurus Rex]

...would there be a sort of Vlad Tepes-ish award for this?

 

[Dr. No]

Stop the path to prosperity that the West experienced after World War II.
It's sociology 101 about change in culture (Ronald Inglehart to be exact): If people experience material security in their formative years, they grow to develop post-materialist attitudes and this means, among other, a higher desire for own lifestyle choices and higher tolerance for members of outgroups.

As long as people believe to be at peril, they need these anti-tolerant value to cope with their eternal strive for survival.
We know too well that a victorious Nazi Germany would've lived on borrowed time and that some kind of reform à la Franco Spain would've had to eventually happen. After that and a new generation growing up, it's all up in the air. Let's just say that an OTL-esque development may have happen with one or two generations delay. TTL's 2015 wouldn't be worse for gays in the imploded Reich than Putinist Russia.

 

[Juumanistra]

As a practical matter -- at least for the United States -- the legal regime of enforced Victorian mores began crumbling with the Supreme Court's decision in Griswald v. Connecticut, which invented out of the ether a constitutional right to contraception. Having the Supremes recognize that there is no such constitutional right and that the regulation of contraception is a state matter goes a long way towards butterflying away Roe and most of the cultural wars/balkanization of the past three decades. There're plenty of non-cultural grounds for such a holding, as Griswald contrived to have herself arrested and prosecuted under a law that hadn't produced a conviction since the 1880s, IIRC. A simple slap on the wrist that the vehicle she was using to overturn the law was inappropriate would've done wonders for Twentieth Century jurisprudence.

If Griswald is butterflied away, that almost certainly takes Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Pennsylvania with it, as Griswald's principles were applied in Roe. (And Casey tried to ground Roe's holding in actual legal thinking instead of it just being what the majority wanted, which just made everything worse.) Homosexuality's harder, given the deeper and more visceral social taboo, but Lawrence v. Texas is probably butterflied away in a world where there's a constrained reading Equal Protection Clause and 14th Amendment Dues Process Clause as applied to protect social rights. Or at least where the states retain most of their traditional prerogatives in determining social policy: Some states -- probably most -- will decriminalize sodomy, while some will retain it as being a crime. (Of course, the great wave of social justice crusading which pursued Lawrence and other actions as a continuation of the civil rights fights of the Sixties and Seventies could well be butterflied away too, as the nature of the civil rights movement changes a lot if there's a more circumspect Supreme Court than the one Earl Warren led.)

 

[jahenders]

Good analysis and good points. This shows how once you get the courts rolling on a certain pathway of interpretation (or invention) they feed upon themselves to expand that.

There's a fair amount of truth to your point about the cultural wars of that last several decades. Roe became a focal point for cultural warfare, rallying forces on both sides.

If, instead, the courts had decided there was no (Federal) constitutional right (but also no constitutional prohibition) and left it to the states, things would have evolved quite differently. Some liberal states would legalize, some states would legalize in limited form, and some would remain staunchly illegal. While there would be agitation for change in all states (for an against), there would be more of a regional aspect. People who lived in regions where it remained illegal would say, "We don't murder like those freaks out in California do" and places where it was legal would say, "We're sophisticated, unlike those barbarians in the South and so forth." This might be more pronounced regional/societal view than IOTL and might tend to keep societal evolution/devolution more local. A place like San Francisco or Massachusetts could adopt every avant garde thing, but other places retain their views.

As a practical matter -- at least for the United States -- the legal regime of enforced Victorian mores began crumbling with the Supreme Court's decision in Griswald v. Connecticut, which invented out of the ether a constitutional right to contraception. Having the Supremes recognize that there is no such constitutional right and that the regulation of contraception is a state matter goes a long way towards butterflying away Roe and most of the cultural wars/balkanization of the past three decades. There're plenty of non-cultural grounds for such a holding, as Griswald contrived to have herself arrested and prosecuted under a law that hadn't produced a conviction since the 1880s, IIRC. A simple slap on the wrist that the vehicle she was using to overturn the law was inappropriate would've done wonders for Twentieth Century jurisprudence.

If Griswald is butterflied away, that almost certainly takes Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Pennsylvania with it, as Griswald's principles were applied in Roe. (And Casey tried to ground Roe's holding in actual legal thinking instead of it just being what the majority wanted, which just made everything worse.) Homosexuality's harder, given the deeper and more visceral social taboo, but Lawrence v. Texas is probably butterflied away in a world where there's a constrained reading Equal Protection Clause and 14th Amendment Dues Process Clause as applied to protect social rights. Or at least where the states retain most of their traditional prerogatives in determining social policy: Some states -- probably most -- will decriminalize sodomy, while some will retain it as being a crime. (Of course, the great wave of social justice crusading which pursued Lawrence and other actions as a continuation of the civil rights fights of the Sixties and Seventies could well be butterflied away too, as the nature of the civil rights movement changes a lot if there's a more circumspect Supreme Court than the one Earl Warren led.)

 

[Juumanistra]

If, instead, the courts had decided there was no (Federal) constitutional right (but also no constitutional prohibition) and left it to the states, things would have evolved quite differently. Some liberal states would legalize, some states would legalize in limited form, and some would remain staunchly illegal. While there would be agitation for change in all states (for an against), there would be more of a regional aspect. People who lived in regions where it remained illegal would say, "We don't murder like those freaks out in California do" and places where it was legal would say, "We're sophisticated, unlike those barbarians in the South and so forth." This might be more pronounced regional/societal view than IOTL and might tend to keep societal evolution/devolution more local. A place like San Francisco or Massachusetts could adopt every avant garde thing, but other places retain their views.

The best modern comparable is the death penalty. Some states have it and have their legitimate reasons for such, others don't (and have their own legitimate reasons for banning it), and while its opposition is a political cause that will always have its stalwarts, it doesn't generate nearly the kind of friction which abortion does.

But it cannot be stated just how many butterflies are created by a Supreme Court that is more circumspect from 1950 to 1980. There's a fascinating timeline to be done about such, as a more circumspect Supreme Court would -- beyond butterflying Griswald and Roe -- likely refuse to be the arbiter of school integration after Brown II (butterflying much of the subsequent school integration litigation, which was a major contributor to the white flight phenomenon), would probably be less enabling of blatant infringements upon state sovereignty like Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and might actually be able to promulgate a coherent 4th and 5th Amendment jurisprudence. All hopefully without eroding the foundations of an independent judiciary by allowing the courts to be turned into an arena for politics by other means.

Of course, there's plenty of debate that can be had as to whether a more methodical (or, less charitably, markedly slower) deconstruction of legal system sanctioned by Plessey v. Ferguson would be a good thing. I tend to be of the opinion that most of the U.S.'s political ills can, in one way or another, be traced to the Supreme Court trying to cram a half-century's worth of social evolution into a decade or so and the federal government enforcing it at the point of a gun, so allowing more breathing room for solutions to the disruptions and dislocations of integration to organically develop is a good thing. It also means Jim Crow's death is a generational one rather than a series of body blows, so there's a good deal of injustice which continues to be perpetrated if its death drags on for 20 or 30 years.

 

[jahenders]

I think you're right about the courts cramming a lot of social evolution (some might say devolution, in some cases) into a single judicial event. Some time after the "avant garde" states legalized abortion there would likely be a trend toward SOME DEGREE of legalization in other states (or even portions of some states), then others, etc. Eventually, it would likely be legalized (within constraints) in most states. Instead, the courts took that decision out of the hands of the people/states and out of the elected representatives of the people and said, "We know better than the unwashed masses -- deal with it."

While, certainly, sometimes the courts must step in to overrule gross injustice, sometimes they're just pushing a political agenda from the bench that would be better pursued through legislation.

The best modern comparable is the death penalty. Some states have it and have their legitimate reasons for such, others don't (and have their own legitimate reasons for banning it), and while its opposition is a political cause that will always have its stalwarts, it doesn't generate nearly the kind of friction which abortion does.

But it cannot be stated just how many butterflies are created by a Supreme Court that is more circumspect from 1950 to 1980. There's a fascinating timeline to be done about such, as a more circumspect Supreme Court would -- beyond butterflying Griswald and Roe -- likely refuse to be the arbiter of school integration after Brown II (butterflying much of the subsequent school integration litigation, which was a major contributor to the white flight phenomenon), would probably be less enabling of blatant infringements upon state sovereignty like Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and might actually be able to promulgate a coherent 4th and 5th Amendment jurisprudence. All hopefully without eroding the foundations of an independent judiciary by allowing the courts to be turned into an arena for politics by other means.

Of course, there's plenty of debate that can be had as to whether a more methodical (or, less charitably, markedly slower) deconstruction of legal system sanctioned by Plessey v. Ferguson would be a good thing. I tend to be of the opinion that most of the U.S.'s political ills can, in one way or another, be traced to the Supreme Court trying to cram a half-century's worth of social evolution into a decade or so and the federal government enforcing it at the point of a gun, so allowing more breathing room for solutions to the disruptions and dislocations of integration to organically develop is a good thing. It also means Jim Crow's death is a generational one rather than a series of body blows, so there's a good deal of injustice which continues to be perpetrated if its death drags on for 20 or 30 years.

 

[Gigachad3k]

Prevent Russian Revolution of 1917 and so the Sodomy never Decriminalized

Soviet Russia is the First Country too Decriminalize Sodomy and Abortion

But No Offense

 

[Lost Freeway]

Communists weren't exactly fans of homosexuality, either, and they didn't have any Ernst Roehms

And, though it might be even more unpalatable to some of the contributors to this site, soviet culture wasn't particularly feminist either- "barefoot, pregnant AND in the factory" was how one female journalist described it.

Those are all bourgeois lies! Only a capitalist pig-dog would question Marxism's commitment to social progress!

 

[VVD0D95]

The world would be even more screwed up.

Definitely a Nazi thing.

 

[Daniwani]

And, though it might be even more unpalatable to some of the contributors to this site, soviet culture wasn't particularly feminist either- "barefoot, pregnant AND in the factory" was how one female journalist described it.

This is testament to faith shown by Communist Party in strength of powerful Soviet women! no bourgeois attitudes of feminine fragility to be seen!

Well.....TBH, it *will* be *really* tough to pull off, even if the POD is at 1800, let alone damn near impossible after 1900: It's actually a lot more likely to see gay marriage and abortion *totally legal* everywhere, or almost everywhere, by 2015, than the opposite.

You really think? honestly that seems like a considerable stretch; I'd be very interested to hear your reasoning however (on the idea that after 1900 it's possibly for full legalization, and of marriage at that as well).

 

[Blurgle]

And, though it might be even more unpalatable to some of the contributors to this site, soviet culture wasn't particularly feminist either- "barefoot, pregnant AND in the factory" was how one female journalist described it.

Barefoot, pregnant, in the factory, and dressed to the nines.

I was astounded by some Russian guy bragging - bragging!!!!! - that Russian women dressed up to go out to get gas. I didn't have the heart to point out that they weren't wasting all that time and money dressing up, putting makeup on, etc. to pump gas because they wanted to; they did it because they knew they'd be endlessly belittled and ridiculed and demeaned and even spat on if they didn't. That's something he should have been intensely ashamed of - and yet he bragged!!!!

 

[TimeMeddler]

Those are all bourgeois lies! Only a capitalist pig-dog would question Marxism's commitment to social progress!

Actually Marxism / Communism the intellectual tradition generally is committed to social progress and feminism - it sees it as secondary or subordinate to the working class struggle, but you will find Marxists amongst the first people writing in favour of legalised homosexuality, contraception, abortion ect...

The Soviet Union is still basically the Russian Empire however, it's still a very patriarchal and homophobic culture, and the leaders of the Soviet Union did not generally have the means or inclination to change that.

 

[Caramelcorn]

Prevent Russian Revolution of 1917 and so the Sodomy never Decriminalized

Soviet Russia is the First Country too Decriminalize Sodomy and Abortion

But No Offense

No, France was in 1813 (Sodomy, not abortion). This is really the first major change.

I think if we can make the Protestant Reformation somehow fail or have its effects be trivial, and then put down the French Revolution in its infancy, the Catholic Church could remain in power for longer.

I do think both of those events would eventually occur in some form, but if you stop the French Revolution when it happens, you could push back the date the inevitable anti-Church revolution actually succeeds by quite a bit. That could land us with a 2015 in which homosexuality and abortion are still illegal.

 

[LeX]

Some kind of clerical, pan-Slavic fascism takes root in Russia towards the end of the Tsarist era following catastrophic collapse of the empire. Wars between Western European countries over fears about communism lead governments to to overlook the resurgent Orthodox regime, which first takes over Eastern Europe then neuters Germany, France, and other countries. The result is something that looks like Stalinism but is hardcoded into TTL's Russian culture by way of hardcore state religion. On the other side of the world you have America, which, far from becoming some bastion of freedom, develops its own version of ultra-nationalism and cemented racial hierarchy all across the Union. Like IOTL's cold war, it's the US against Russia again, but this time they are just two sides of the same coin, rather than truly opposing ideologies.

There you have it, all three things are banned across the northern hemisphere.

 

[Gigachad3k]

No, France was in 1813 (Sodomy, not abortion). This is really the first major change.

I think if we can make the Protestant Reformation somehow fail or have its effects be trivial, and then put down the French Revolution in its infancy, the Catholic Church could remain in power for longer.

I do think both of those events would eventually occur in some form, but if you stop the French Revolution when it happens, you could push back the date the inevitable anti-Church revolution actually succeeds by quite a bit. That could land us with a 2015 in which homosexuality and abortion are still illegal.

Protestant Church is Opposed Homosexuality and Abortion too

(No Offense)

 

[Magnum]

Regarding the US - could maybe a slight alteration in the wording of the Constitution have lead a court to rule that life begins at inception ? Would that do the trick re abortion?

 

[Caramelcorn]

Protestant Church is Opposed Homosexuality and Abortion too

(No Offense)

I know, that's not the point. We have to keep the Catholic Church in power in general, because they're the only organization in Europe which will reliably keep homosexuality illegal.

That means no Protestant Reformation and no French Revolution, because those both destroyed the church's power.

 

[Pennsylvania]

Easier than it seems.

You only need a Dictator to decree that homosexuality, contraception, and infanticide are illegal-Nicolae Ceauceschu (did I spell that right?) was an {expletive deleted} as he was, but his one redeeming quality was that he was pro-life (though for all the wrong reasons!). He only needed to sign one law to end infanticide in Romania.
Anyone with the absolute power to make any law he pleases will be capable of making such acts.
If the UN were filled with Ceauceschus (did I spell that right?), I do not expect anyone would be able to keep homosexuality or infanticide legal, let alone contraception.