- 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 2:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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)
Don't get me wrong, from reading your posts, I can see how you can be this f*cking stupid.
That's not what you said, and certainly not what you f*cking meant.
In fact, what you’re saying now is just plain f*cking retarded. Basically what you’re saying is that a Supreme Court just can "recognize" a right to f*cking anything and because he “recognized” it that necessarily means that he couldn’t have “invented“ it. Only a f*cking retard could make that leap of logic – which is I guess why you did.
The four scumbag Leftists on the Court signed onto his opinion, but did so only because it achieved their political agenda. One of them wrote a concurring opinion that, while wrong and politicized, at least stuck to the Supreme Court jurisprudence framework. All four leftist pieces of f*cking politicized filth signed onto that concurring opinion.
1
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:13 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.
Note that lesbians have the highest divorce rate in the country.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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.
In some polls it's falling. In Gallup not so much.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/us-support-for-same-sex-marriage-falls-to-51/
But you must realize that if you said you did not support Gay marriage at work over the last 4 years you could have lost your job.
We can see how that winds up in 2025.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Who wants to tell him?
The marriage part is a religious act that the gays commandeered as if it's equivalent.
The govt piece is the civil union piece behind it, that the gays could have been happy with.
At the end of the day, brace yourself, gay "marriage" will never or can never be equivalent to hetero-marriage. Our govt needs to figure out how to separate the 2, as benifits need to be given to hetero couples to benifit our society. It's not giving one right to one over another, because the gay couples can't provide the same return, no matter what is done.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
Plus DOMA did not help. Marriage up until that passage was recognized to be really a state concern. State's issued marriage license, inheritance, probate, etc were determined by the states in general. But then the federal government passes DOMA and goes about defining from a federal standpoint what marriage is at its core and who could marry in a limiting way legally speaking.
So now you have marriage fully incorporated into the federal code...this opened it up for Obergefell. A professor once told me " Bad assumptions lead to bad policy."
So now you have marriage fully incorporated into the federal code...this opened it up for Obergefell. A professor once told me " Bad assumptions lead to bad policy."
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
I'm not sure which false narrative to tackle here. So I'll just list them, then LoL
1) Public support now proven to be driven by USAID, you mean?
2) I am now stunned that of all people, you seem to think court decisions should be based on public opinion, and not precedent
Now heres that LoL I promised
1) Public support now proven to be driven by USAID, you mean?
2) I am now stunned that of all people, you seem to think court decisions should be based on public opinion, and not precedent
Now heres that LoL I promised
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:16 pm to Wolfwireless
quote:
Note that lesbians have the highest divorce rate in the country.
I think they're over-represented in the Irish Sunglasses category as well.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:17 pm to Seldom Seen
Marriage.
K.
Let's see some fair divorce reform.
K.
Let's see some fair divorce reform.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:17 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.
Agreed. They deserve to be as miserable as heterosexual married people
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:17 pm to OBReb6
quote:
Let me ask you this though. If public opinion shifted to being large majority against it, would you support its repeal? I
I don't get too worked up over the ruling, but it would likely still win under FFC analysis (which is where it should have stayed instead of 14A analysis)
The bigger questions come working backwards into cases like Griswold, which are the basis of the now controversies opinions like Roe/Obergfell
What really raised eyebrows was Thomas saying GRISWOLD needed to be revisited. You're going to need an actual Handmaiden's Tale society to support that one.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:17 pm to Wolfwireless
quote:
Note that lesbians have the highest divorce rate in the country.
Many might support it so the option is off the table and avoid the convo.
Though gay men just step out and take advantage of the tax advantages. Which they could have fought for via civil unions instead of upending a religious act, like the bigots they are.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:19 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.
Lesbians have double the divorce rates of gay men, lol. Big shock since women file for about 75% of all divorces in heterosexual marriages.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:19 pm to MMauler
quote:
That's not what you said
That is literally what I said
I even included a disclaimer for emotional types like you.
quote:
and certainly not what you f*cking meant.
THERE we go. The patented "shite I was just proven so very wrong without question, so we're going to pivot to creating strawmen via my shitty interpretations to save face" move.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:21 pm to HagaDaga
quote:
The marriage part is a religious act
Nobody touched that version of marriage.
The marriage being discussed is the governmental, bureaucratic version of marriage.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:21 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Obergfell isn’t just based on Roe. It’s also based in Loving. Overturning Obergfell puts Loving in jeopardy.
The difference between Roe and Obergfell is where the harm lies. In Roe, the unborn child has no say in the ending of its life. Allowing abortion harms that unborn child.
Obergfell allows gay men and women to pass their property on death without contest. To deny them that right would cause harm. Overturning Obergfell puts gay people in a position where a family, through the help of the courts, can override the wishes of the deceased partner in their will. And, yes, it happened a lot. Overturning Obergfell would cause more harm than overturning Roe did.
Example:
Since my partner and I aren’t married, having him on my benefits as an unmarried partner means the IRS gets to count all of the premiums my employer pays for him as income for me, increasing my tax burden. A 23 year old adult child who is perfectly capable of finding a full time job with benefits can remain on his parents’ plan. The IRS will not count those premiums as income for the parent. They have no additional tax burden to keep an able-bodied adult on their plan. It’s this kind of inequity Obergfell alleviates.
The difference between Roe and Obergfell is where the harm lies. In Roe, the unborn child has no say in the ending of its life. Allowing abortion harms that unborn child.
Obergfell allows gay men and women to pass their property on death without contest. To deny them that right would cause harm. Overturning Obergfell puts gay people in a position where a family, through the help of the courts, can override the wishes of the deceased partner in their will. And, yes, it happened a lot. Overturning Obergfell would cause more harm than overturning Roe did.
Example:
Since my partner and I aren’t married, having him on my benefits as an unmarried partner means the IRS gets to count all of the premiums my employer pays for him as income for me, increasing my tax burden. A 23 year old adult child who is perfectly capable of finding a full time job with benefits can remain on his parents’ plan. The IRS will not count those premiums as income for the parent. They have no additional tax burden to keep an able-bodied adult on their plan. It’s this kind of inequity Obergfell alleviates.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:22 pm to Flats
quote:
think they're over-represented in the Irish Sunglasses category as well.
I think "over-represented" is actually a euphemism and they may be the leading cohort.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:22 pm to Seldom Seen
As they should, get a case before the court immediately, strike down that abomination.
If someone wants to be gay, that's their business, it's not the government's responsibility to sanction it.
If someone wants to be gay, that's their business, it's not the government's responsibility to sanction it.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Full Faith and Credit Clause
To note licenses are not always carried over.
Fishing License, Gun License, Medical, Attorney etc...
No one has a fundamental right to get married.
There are age limits, relationship limits, metal awareness limits.
They sent abortion back to the states, that's not a fundamental right either.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:22 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
I'm not sure which false narrative to tackle here. So I'll just list them, then LoL
1) Public support now proven to be driven by USAID, you mean?
No
quote:
2) I am now stunned that of all people, you seem to think court decisions should be based on public opinion, and not precedent
I'm not stunned that you've proven you can't read yet again, as I never said nor implied this, either.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't get too worked up over the ruling, but it would likely still win under FFC analysis (which is where it should have stayed instead of 14A analysis)
Interesting
Also to be clear I like to troll as an extremist on the board, and while I meant all the things I said in my first post, I really don’t care that much about this issue. My problems are with our culture in general and until those things change the law doesn’t mean much.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News