- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Clarence Thomas Wants SCOTUS to 'Correct the Error' of Legal Gay Marriage
Posted on 6/27/22 at 9:52 am to dcbl
Posted on 6/27/22 at 9:52 am to dcbl
quote:
but the definition of marriage should not be forced by the feds
I actually support gay marriage. But it is on very shaky legal ground, like RvW was.
Democrats took money from LGBT groups for years on this issue, and they didn’t do shite once they had Congress and the White House in the Obama era.
0
Posted on 6/27/22 at 9:53 am to Tantal
quote:
It's a return to our founders' principles of limited Federal government
Well this doesn't end where you think it ends.
For example, the USSC would have no power to stop New York from draconian regulations on firearms, if we go back to the reading of the Constitution at the time of our founding.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 9:54 am to the808bass
quote:
For now.
There are dozens of avenues for the government to put the screws to the churches to try to change that.
Anybody who denies this is an active goal is a liar or a fool.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 9:54 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
As long as the State is involved in Marriages, under the Equal Protection Clause (among other things), there clearly needs to be an allowance for same sex Marriages. Its not even a question for me.
This ^^^
Obergfell is a mishmash of Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process. Thomas would win on the latter but can’t ignore the former.
Also, sending gay marriage back to the states would create interstate issues when a gay couple has to move from a state that legalizes it to a state that doesn’t.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 9:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the USSC would have no power to stop New York from draconian regulations on firearms
I could give a shite less what New York’s firearms regulations are.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 9:56 am to Flats
quote:
Anybody who denies this is an active goal is a liar or a fool.
The correct answer is usually both.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 9:58 am to dcbl
This comment was seized upon by every left leaning outlet to stir more outrage that the SCOTUS was coming for birth control and gay marriage, when it said nothing of the sort.
It was cherry picking to try and do what the leak failed to do. The left wanted real violence on this announcement and didn't get its wish.
It was cherry picking to try and do what the leak failed to do. The left wanted real violence on this announcement and didn't get its wish.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 9:59 am to dcbl
Bake that cake!!
Posted on 6/27/22 at 9:59 am to GoldenGuy
quote:
I assume it’s an additional charge on top of rape, which is weird that that got protected.
No, it was aimed at the gays
Posted on 6/27/22 at 9:59 am to the808bass
quote:
Some ideas include making churches the target of anti-discrimination laws
These would likely be state-level anti-discrimination laws, though...like the ones used for the cake people.
If we "leave it up to the states" you're just permitting this sort thing regardless.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 9:59 am to bluestem75
quote:
Also, sending gay marriage back to the states would create interstate issues when a gay couple has to move from a state that legalizes it to a state that doesn’t.
People have to do that for firearms and that's an explicit right.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:00 am to Ace Midnight
quote:This is where I am confused. Marriage is not defined in the constitution so how can it be redefined?
Redefining marriage was a travesty.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:00 am to dcbl
I really don’t care if the gays get married.
We’ve got bigger issues in this nation. Not interested in making the Bible Belt expand.
We’ve got bigger issues in this nation. Not interested in making the Bible Belt expand.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:00 am to dcbl
Government, state or federal, should have nothing to do with marriage.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:01 am to dcbl
The fed shouldnt be involved in defining marriage at all, gay or straight
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:01 am to bluestem75
quote:
quote:
As long as the State is involved in Marriages, under the Equal Protection Clause (among other things), there clearly needs to be an allowance for same sex Marriages. Its not even a question for me.
This ^^^
Obergfell is a mishmash of Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process. Thomas would win on the latter but can’t ignore the former.
Also, sending gay marriage back to the states would create interstate issues when a gay couple has to move from a state that legalizes it to a state that doesn’t.
so how can states have different laws for age to marry?
degrees of relatives that are barred to marriage?
marriage is (and has been) sui generis and applying the same "historical/traditional" rationale that was applied in Dobbs, it would be returned to the states.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
These would likely be state-level anti-discrimination laws, though...like the ones used for the cake people.
They would be wherever they neo-Marxists could get them enacted. If it’s at a city level like they tried in Houston, they’re for it. If it’s at a state level like Oregon, they’re for it. If they could do it on an international level, they would do it.
At some point, you have to face the facts that the goal for the neo-Marxists is the abolition of religion.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:02 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
It should be, but it isn't.
As long as the State is involved in Marriages, under the Equal Protection Clause (among other things), there clearly needs to be an allowance for same sex Marriages. Its not even a question for me.
Now, if States get out of the marriage game all together, that's another ball game.
This. I don't understand why so many people get worked up on the semantics (i.e. "but it cant be CALLED marriage !!11!"). Marriage in a legal context is nothing but a contract between consenting adults that allows them to benefit from certain tax and family law regimes. Adults have to be treated equally in that context.
It has NOTHING to do with what your church considers or recognizes as marriage.
This post was edited on 6/27/22 at 10:04 am
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:02 am to udtiger
quote:
so how can states have different laws for age to marry?
Discrimination is permitted, it just requires the state to justify the discrimination properly, to simplify the response to your question.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:03 am to udtiger
quote:
so how can states have different laws for age to marry?
degrees of relatives that are barred to marriage?
Correct. Logically the only way this tortured "equal protection" excuse makes sense is if SCOTUS made a uniform set of requirements for marriage that applied to all states. They didn't, so they're acknowledging that the states have a role to play in legal requirements, they just didn't want them to have THIS particular power because it didn't match their personal beliefs.
Page 3 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News