re: Alito & Thomas wish to review Obergefell v. Hodges

quote:

---

Thomas thinks privacy via substantive due process is untethered, incomprehensible fairy dust,

---

Only because it led to Roe, but really, Obergfell.

Thomas omitted Loving from his dissent in Obergfell. I just looked it up and I didn't remember wrong when mentioning Griswold.

quote:

---

and I expect he'll be replaced with a conservative jurist without that particular obsession anyway.

---

Thomas has gotten overly political and more hypocritical/less serious as his personal life (specifically his wife) has been attacked more, publicly.

This is best seen in his random and irrelevant "special prosecutor" concurrence in the immunity case.

quote:

---

Thomas has gotten overly political

---

you lefties. As if your judges are politically pure in their decisions. Heck one wouldnt define what a woman is, due to politics. The same one that was put on the court only due to the current political wind, not because she was the best option.

quote:

---

Not have faux religious ceremonies mocking Christians

---

Marriage existed before Christianity and has existed separately throughout human history. Just because you attach a religious connection to it does not mean that it is inherently religious. A Hindu wedding is not mocking Christianity, just as a gay wedding is not.

quote:

---

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

---

Pretty fascist perspective. Fascism, as defined by Mussolini and Gentile, essentially boils down to "people only exist to serve the state". The purpose of marriage is not to serve the state, it's to serve the individuals involved.

quote:

---

Gays couldn't leave it be, and just push for their own gay govt version via civil unions. Which has no benefit to society/govt.

---

You are implying that creating children is the only purpose/value of marriage which is wild. Not that it really matters since that is a fascist perspective, but marriage provides many benifits to society and the economy, such as joined economic power (how many people are buying houses on a single income?), opportunity for better decision making (a partner with a vested interest to explore ideas with), a safety net if one partner gets laid-off or has a health crisis, general caretaking, ect. They all apply to gay marriages just as much as hetero marriages.


Your entire perspective is wild, un-American and ultimately wrong.

quote:

---

This is where I think conservatives go too far.

---

Agreed. I honestly don’t care if they want to marry or not. Should be up to them.

quote:

---

We weren't discussing the legal decision, Mr. Illiterate. That digression had nothing to do with the legal merits or justifications of the ruling.

---

You dont take it well when someone owns you. The poster replied to this FROM YOU

quote:

---

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.

---

He said the state legitimized it with this ruling. YOU brought in popularity, not him. YOU then grabbed polls to try and prove your point, arguing that the ruling didnt have an effect. When your own poll shows a dip after the ruling

Cue my USAID comment. Who we now know shaped popular opinion specifically targeting the spread of garbage like this. Yet you still deny that

Thats when I laughed at you about brining public opinion to this. His question about polls was ONLY AFTER your pronouncement of public support prior to the ruling. Mr Literate

quote:

---

This is where I think conservatives go too far. Let the gays get married and ruin their lives with divorces.

---

I get that legally it’s a flawed ruling, but it’s not worth the political capital to deal with it.

Not to mention if the government is going to marry people it has to marry everyone or stop calling it a marriage certificate and just refer to it as a civil union to avoid the religious connotation.

A legal union yes. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Keep it real.

quote:

---

This is where I think conservatives go too far. Let the gays get married and ruin their lives with divorces.

---

Let people do whatever they want but one cannot be forced by an employer to perform any type of "convenience" or "service" that conflicts with their beliefs.

Those are probably Catholic priests.