- 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: Alito & Thomas wish to review Obergefell v. Hodges
Posted on 2/7/25 at 1:55 pm to OBReb6
Posted on 2/7/25 at 1:55 pm to OBReb6
quote:
. It was the state itself legitimizing it, and making people think it’s normal and nothing wrong with it.
People already accepted it as normal and nothing wrong with it outside of certain extreme religious types. You have this wrong.
quote:
I absolutely believe some non zero portion of younger people are “gay” now because it’s cool, and this is obviously true with trannys)
Sure, but this has nothing to do with a Supreme Court ruling
1
Posted on 2/7/25 at 1:56 pm to Seldom Seen
Let's not forget that one of the cabinet members IS married and gay, with children. Not keen on tackling this right now!
Posted on 2/7/25 at 1:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
People already accepted it as normal and nothing wrong with it outside of certain extreme religious types. You have this wrong.
What were the polling numbers throughout the 2000s and 2010s nation wide? Do they support this?
quote:
Sure, but this has nothing to do with a Supreme Court ruling
But it does. What the state considers normal formally with law is what the population is going to adopt in their own subconscious.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 1:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Apparently you can't read
I read your post perfectly fine. It’s just f*cking wrong and f*cking stupid – LIKE YOU.
He didn’t "recognize" a f*cking right -- he literally invented it out of whole f*cking cloth. If you have any f*cking doubt how f*cking stupid you are just go back and read the brief to the Supreme Court. All of them discussed the issue in terms of the scrutiny standard that had been developed for over 100 years. He completely disregarded all of this and literally just made up a Constitutional right to f*cking "dignity."
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:01 pm to MMauler
quote:
I read your post perfectly fine. It’s just f*cking wrong and f*cking stupid – LIKE YOU.
You're confusing me saying they have the power to do something (which is what I said) and their ruling being correct (which is what you're melting over)
I even included the disclaimer for scholars like yourself. Then I re-posted it for you, and you're still confused over very simple concepts.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:01 pm to Bunk Moreland
Yeah, why should they receive special protection.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:01 pm to MMauler
quote:
Kennedy went against over 100 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence
Kennedy did exactly what Scalia predicted he would do when he (Scalia) wrote the dissent for DOMA.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:02 pm to OBReb6
quote:
In addition to this, the fact that “marriage” between homosexuals is legally and culturally considered exactly the same, it confuses people and subconsciously cheapens the institution itself by making it seemingly something about love rather than family building. This affects the straight portion of the population by making them more numb and nihilistic and having less of a sense of obligation and urgency to fulfill their calling of creating a family.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:04 pm to Seldom Seen
"I'll take 'How to get massacred in the 2026 midterms' for $800, Ken"
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The point of rights is that "the people" cannot violate them via voting (other than voting enough to amend the Constitution itself). That's LITERALLY the point.
If that's what this was then this should have never been on the ballot, and determined an unconstitutional ballot option. If it was a "right" it should have just been "one".
Gays had civil unions to get the rights they "wanted." There's no right to take over a religious act that counters your lifestyle, especially when the 2 types of unions will never be equivalent. One is beneficial, and the other isn't.
So their rights were there in a different form, but instead the gays decided to be anti-Christian bigots. Just like they did by commandeering the Rainbow.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:05 pm to OBReb6
quote:
What were the polling numbers throughout the 2000s and 2010s nation wide? Do they support this?
No noticeable difference in the rate of increase in acceptance of gay marriage (which is a slightly different, but related topic to what was being discussed).
quote:
What the state considers normal formally with law is what the population is going to adopt in their own subconscious.
The public's growing approval was accomplished well before the ruling and, many argued at the time, influenced the questionable Constitutional ruling.
If you replaced "the state" with "popular culture", you'd be much more accurate, which is why that was the focus for literally decades before a real push towards trying to make gay marriage a right occurred.
They also did that whole "if you just talk to someone on the opposite side, they'll come to your side" (there's a term for it that I forget) outreach.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:06 pm to HagaDaga
quote:
There's no right to take over a religious act
Who wants to tell him?
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:07 pm to Seldom Seen
Ooooffff, let's not.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:07 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
This is where I think conservatives go too far. Let the gays get married and ruin their lives with divorces.
"Marriage" is yet again something the govt has taken upon themselves to dictate. Marriage is NOT a function of the govt, It began as a way to bind one man to one woman for the purpose of reproduction. Gays cant do that
If you dictate who can qualify to be married, then you can also dictate that churches cant discriminate against those who qualify. Which violates freedom of religion
We are created equal under the law. So the govt should treat each of us as individuals. Marital status shouldnt be a factor. The only business the govt has in marriage is to encourage reproduction. And that has been done through the tax code since 1913.
quote:
Within the past 40 years, marriage has changed more than in the previous 5,000. And despite what you may have heard, "we care much more about marriage as a relationship than people ever did in the past."
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:07 pm to Demonbengal
States Rights.
The 10th amendment gives all rights not in the constitution to the states.
Marriage was around for 200+ years in this country, not once was it federal.
CA can continue to marry them.
Let LA and MS decide on their own if they want it.
The 10th amendment gives all rights not in the constitution to the states.
Marriage was around for 200+ years in this country, not once was it federal.
CA can continue to marry them.
Let LA and MS decide on their own if they want it.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:08 pm to SirWinston
quote:
"I'll take 'How to get massacred in the 2026 midterms' for $800, Ken"
That I will agree with. It’s not a wise move to make politically right now.
In an ideal world the right would take over the cultural institutions, reeducate people into thinking differently on these matters, and then at that point change the law. That is not where we are now, so it’s necessary to not shoot ourselves in the foot.
I’m just not going to act like it’s good
This post was edited on 2/7/25 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:09 pm to Narax
quote:
CA can continue to marry them. Let LA and MS decide on their own if they want it.
I’m personally all for this. Unfortunately, that way of thinking died in 1865.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:11 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
If you dictate who can qualify to be married, then you can also dictate that churches cant discriminate against those who qualify.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:11 pm to Narax
quote:
States Rights.
The 10th amendment gives all rights not in the constitution to the states.
Full Faith and Credit Clause
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No noticeable difference in the rate of increase in acceptance of gay marriage (which is a slightly different, but related topic to what was being discussed).
I thought the polls were a little different than this. But if I’m wrong I’ll admit it.
Let me ask you this though. If public opinion shifted to being large majority against it, would you support its repeal? Ignoring the SCOTUS ruling for this hypothetical.
quote:
If you replaced "the state" with "popular culture", you'd be much more accurate, which is why that was the focus for literally decades before a real push towards trying to make gay marriage a right occurred.
Given some of the recent state funding revelations, how certain are you that these aren’t intertwined?
This post was edited on 2/7/25 at 2:17 pm
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News