- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: U.S. District Judge says Toddy can't get married in Louisiana
Posted on 9/3/14 at 1:32 pm to SirWinston
Posted on 9/3/14 at 1:32 pm to SirWinston
Another embarrassment for Louisiana. Always behind the times
3
Posted on 9/3/14 at 1:36 pm to SirWinston
quote:
Because it's clearly the wrong side of history to be on.
Actually, it is not.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 1:40 pm to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
I fully expect Louisiana and Mississippi to be next to last and dead last in this just like they are in everything else.
This post was edited on 9/3/14 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 9/3/14 at 1:40 pm to SirWinston
I have no doubt it will be legal in 20 years. There are always people who will fight against things like this. I'm not against it at all. However, using the "wrong side of history" crap is just that, crap. I want groups who have opposing opinions debating the issue. It helps major issues get resolved and all myths and realities to be held up for all to see. To insult a state (I don't live there) with your typical arrogance is foolish and unnecessary. The more you say things like "they are an embarrassment" the more these groups will resist change.
One thing that many in political office do not seem to understand is that one must work things out. Claiming to have the absolute answer and discounting other people's views gets you what you do not want.
One thing that many in political office do not seem to understand is that one must work things out. Claiming to have the absolute answer and discounting other people's views gets you what you do not want.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 1:43 pm to themunch
quote:
Actually, it is not.
Well it is - but for the wrong reasons. The progressives never sleep, rest or stop until they accomplish a goal.
Gay acceptance is a relatively recent thing, I'll admit. But, we couldn't take the calm, moderate, gentle approach of having civil union legislation (which would have had benefits outside of the context of homosexual marriage, by the way) - that would have been too civil.
No. We had to have a war - a war where each side can score political points. Where someone who stands up for traditional marriage, family and values can be painted as a bigot.
It isn't any more complicated than that.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 1:44 pm to Hawkeye95
This Judge is one of the judges on the FISA court. Uh oh!!! A conundrum for you lefties. Do you trust the judge's wisdom.....or no?????
Posted on 9/3/14 at 1:44 pm to Hawkeye95
Posted on 9/3/14 at 1:46 pm to Paluka
if it's inevitable that pro gay marriage is the winning side than my statement cannot be inaccurate. Sorry if that sounds "arrogant".
Posted on 9/3/14 at 1:47 pm to ragincajun03
quote:So a competent father should be able to sign a contract marrying his 13 year-old daughter to some competent man who pays the father $100,000 in your view. Government has a compelling interest in establishing some limitations on marriage, to include establishing procedures for dissolving a marriage.
I do believe that government should have no say in what kind of binding contracts two competent adults enter into, whether we call that contract "marriage", I don't give a shite.
quote:as soon as your ideals go into effect I will be organizing The Poodlebrain Church of Orthodox Hedonists. I will offer church services to marry human adults to any mature domesticated animals, limit 3 per customer.
As long as churches are left to their own decisions.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 1:49 pm to SirWinston
quote:
Because it's clearly the wrong side of history to be on. I'll give you $5000 if gay marriage is not legal across the United States in 20 years. Bookmark this.
Today I learned judges are supposed to make decisions on future feelings of societical norms rather than legal argument today.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 1:50 pm to SirWinston
quote:
if it's inevitable that pro gay marriage is the winning side than my statement cannot be inaccurate.
quote:
When comparing one thing with another you may find that one is more appealing “than” another. “Than” is the word you want when doing comparisons. But if you are talking about time, choose “then“: “First you separate the eggs; then you beat the whites.” Alexis is smarter than I, not “then I.”
quote:
Sorry if that sounds "arrogant".
Posted on 9/3/14 at 1:51 pm to BBONDS25
Posted on 9/3/14 at 2:01 pm to Volvagia
quote:
Today I learned judges are supposed to make decisions on future feelings of societical norms rather than the fricking Constitution
FIFY
Posted on 9/3/14 at 2:03 pm to SirWinston
quote:
if it's inevitable that pro gay marriage is the winning side than my statement cannot be inaccurate. Sorry if that sounds "arrogant".
If we remain on our current course then I would suggest that this is inevitable. However, there are plenty of dissatisfied people out and about. State's rights may become a bigger and bigger issue as government overreach continues. It is foolish to assume that this trajectory will remain he same. After all, the government is involved which suggests that there will be some sort of frick up in handling this. Remember, things can change rapidly given the necessary circumstances. So, yes, it IS ARROGANT of YOU to assume you know all.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 2:05 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
BBONDS25
Posted on 9/3/14 at 2:47 pm to ragincajun03
If the 5th circuit affirms the districts ruling and that ruling being in conflict with the 10th, 4th and others ruling, SCOTUS will have no choice but to take up the issue. Conflicting circuit courts usually get resolved by SCOTUS.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 2:52 pm to udtiger
quote:
Yay for state sovereignty
Louisiana ratified the 14th amendment. A ban on gay marriage violates the 14th amendment. Courts are not beholden to the will of the people but rather the constitution. Guess what's going to happen when this gets to SCOTUS?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 2:56 pm to Poodlebrain
quote:
So a competent father should be able to sign a contract marrying his 13 year-old daughter to some competent man who pays the father $100,000 in your view.
Except the third person involved in this transaction, the minor, is unable to consent to this as a competent adult.
Much like two competent adults should not be able to enter into a hire for murder contract, because that would trump the basic human rights of the person the hitman is contracted to murder.
However, in the case of two consenting adults agreeing to communitize their property, etc., where a third person is not going to have their basic human rights disregarded, I see no issue with government getting out of the way.
quote:
as soon as your ideals go into effect I will be organizing The Poodlebrain Church of Orthodox Hedonists. I will offer church services to marry human adults to any mature domesticated animals, limit 3 per customer.
Fine. Just don't go around raping altar boys.
This post was edited on 9/3/14 at 2:58 pm
Posted on 9/3/14 at 2:58 pm to Sentrius
quote:
A ban on gay marriage violates the 14th amendment.
No it doesn't.
Gays and lesbians are free to marry - just must be to the opposite sex. Gays/lesbians aren't (or shouldn't be) a protected class.
I'm all for civil unions. I'm all for grown people arranging their business and personal affairs they way they see fit - as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. But redefining marriage to fit a particular outcome is crossing a line. The Constitution is SILENT on the issue of marriage. That's a good thing.
You know I agree with you about 95% of the time Sentrius - this is one area where we'll just have to resectfully agree to disagree.
This post was edited on 9/3/14 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 9/3/14 at 3:04 pm to Paluka
quote:
If we remain on our current course then I would suggest that this is inevitable.
it is inevitable.
quote:
However, there are plenty of dissatisfied people out and about.
Yes for sure, but those dissatisfied about gay marriage is rapidly shrinking. And I doubt that changes.
quote:
State's rights may become a bigger and bigger issue as government overreach continues.
The thing about state rights is those who champion the idea of states rights almost always champion it when their perspective is winning in a particular state. When its losing, they clamor for federal involvement.
Look at the gay marriage debate. The push at the federal level has almost been exclusively from the anti side. Both DOMA and the constitutional amendment were anti gay rights. Yes Obama has hedged his bets a bit but he really can't do shite about gay marriage as president.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News