- 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 10:04 am to the808bass
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:04 am to the808bass
quote:
At some point, you have to face the facts that the goal for the neo-Marxists is the abolition of religion.
Oh I'm not arguing differently.
I'm just arguing lots of people in this thread (not you) are invoking "muh states rights" and don't fully understand what that means.
Laws forcing churches to do gay marriages won't be from the federal level.
1
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:05 am to Tantal
quote:
Which is bull shite. Neither of those have anything to do with defense, immigration, foreign treaties, or regulation of interstate commerce;
yep, and neither does the Dept of Education, the Dept of Energy and a few others that should be abolished.
The FED overreach is what is destroying the country.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:05 am to Flats
quote:
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.
Naw. States just couldn't justify the discrimination properly. Discrimination is permitted, you just have to justify it properly.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:05 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.
Alabama pretty much stopped this from happening by changing it from a liscense to a certificate that you fill and have a notary stamp. You send it in along with a recording fee to the probate clerk.
You are essentialy married by notary.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:07 am to Flats
quote:
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.
States can have different requirements for the same thing, so long as those requirements are reasonably suited to a legitimate purpose and don't run afoul of anti-discrimination laws.
States already have different ages for consent to marry, and they are completely constitutional. This would not be different.
This post was edited on 6/27/22 at 10:09 am
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Laws forcing churches to do gay marriages won't be from the federal level.
That would be an unconstitutional law. It doesn't have to be Federal to be unconstitutional, obviously.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:07 am to dcbl
Covid gave some great examples as to why we need to remove federal power from anything we can. They will always overuse their power and diminish personal freedoms. Kick everything possible back to the states.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:07 am to Diamondawg
quote:
This is where I am confused. Marriage is not defined in the constitution so how can it be redefined?
Marriage is defined in the Bible. The state recognizes marriages because supporting and encouraging the nuclear family is in the best interest of society.
As for equality, everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex (the definition of marriage), regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. We shouldn’t be creating protected classes of people based on what they like to do with their sexual organs.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:07 am to Indefatigable
quote:
It has NOTHING to do with what your church considers or recognizes as marriage.
It does have a lot of ramifications outside of the church. But most people want to play dumb about the goals of gay marriage.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:09 am to moneyg
quote:
That would be an unconstitutional law.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how much power you want to give states. Most people in this thread want a return to the vision of our founders.
The 1st Amendment's Free Exercise Clause wasn't incorporated to the states until after WWI.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:10 am to Indefatigable
quote:
reasonably suited to a legitimate
By whose reason? If the state has requirements then they've decided that they're reasonable and legitimate.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:10 am to Flats
quote:
If the state has requirements then they've decided that they're reasonable and legitimate.
That's basically rational basis.
There are other levels of review.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:11 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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.
What are you saying? States are capable of removing constitutional rights? (assuming we "go back to the reading of the Constitution at the time of our founding")
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:16 am to Flats
quote:
If the state has requirements then they've decided that they're reasonable and legitimate.
That doesn't mean they in fact are. If it comes to it, the SCOTUS decides if its reasonable and suited to a legitimate government purpose.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:18 am to Mellow Drama
quote:
Unfortunately, I can't provide a link, but I do recall in the aftermath of Obergefell that a leftist news outlet (probably The New Yorker) said that there can't be conscience protections for clergy who don't want to perform rainbow weddings, nor can there be such protections for wedding vendors, because that would make LGBT couples "unequal."
The militant left too far into forcing unwilling people into participating in their lifestyle ceremonies.
Hopefully the SCOTUS can do something to protect the rights of those who object to rainbow stuff for religious reasons (meaning Christians and not just Muslims).
All of this indeed. The gay/tranny mafia is definitely pushing it, and we need to stop being afraid to fight back and keep giving them an inch in the name of "they just want acceptance." They are not accepting in their antiChristian push.
quote:
Unfortunately, I can't provide a link, but I do recall in the aftermath of Obergefell that a leftist news outlet (probably The New Yorker) said that there can't be conscience protections for clergy who don't want to perform rainbow weddings, nor can there be such protections for wedding vendors, because that would make LGBT couples "unequal."
My Pastor won't do a wedding that will have alcohol served at the reception. This is like forcing him to do this to appease the proud alcoholic/druggie couples.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:19 am to moneyg
quote:
What are you saying? States are capable of removing constitutional rights?
Incorporation of the Constitution to the states didn't start being a concept until after the 14th Amendment.
2A wasn't incorporated until Heller (so it's not really applicable), but the various parts of the 1st Amendment weren't incorporated until the 1930s and 40s (for an example of a right that has a lot more historical cases since the early 1800s)
*ETA: Barron v. Baltimore was a unanimous decision from 1833, that clearly stated that the "amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.""
This post was edited on 6/27/22 at 10:22 am
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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.
Apparently, you weren't paying attention this week. The USSC effectively just made New York a shall issue state because 2nd Amendment rights are expressly covered by the U.S. Constitution. The bullshite rationalizations for abortion and gay marriage are not. If Texas were to outlaw a particular church or suspend the 4th Amendment, I'd have no problem with the USSC stepping in.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:22 am to Tantal
quote:
because 2nd Amendment rights are expressly covered by the U.S. Constitution.
Post-Incorporation, which was not the law of the land until after the Civil War and 14A
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:30 am to dcbl
Who was he arguing the constitutionality of it with? Or is this super secret reporting?
You know seems to go right along with the lefts talking point since the over turning of Roe doesn’t make abortion illegal just pushes it to the state level. So the lefties know we are passing info faster then they can spread their false crap. So is this just circular reporting that says oh they are going after gays next?
You know seems to go right along with the lefts talking point since the over turning of Roe doesn’t make abortion illegal just pushes it to the state level. So the lefties know we are passing info faster then they can spread their false crap. So is this just circular reporting that says oh they are going after gays next?
Posted on 6/27/22 at 10:33 am to Indefatigable
quote:
If it comes to it, the SCOTUS decides if its reasonable and suited to a legitimate government purpose.
Right, and it's completely subjective, not some grand legal analysis. 5 people wanted gay marriage so they did whatever they needed to in order to justify their conclusion, which was reached well before the case ever made it to court.
Page 4 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News