- 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 4:39 pm to Bass Tiger
Posted on 6/27/22 at 4:39 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
I’ve told gay people I know that their fight for gay marriage was unnecessary. I’ve told them that all the legal protection afforded to married men and women was available to them in the late 80’s early 90’s through the court system but the relationship could not carry the legal name of a “marriage”….that wasn’t good enough. Why? Because to make themselves feel good about their relationship it had to be normalized through marriage.
The gay marriage sham was a critical component of the progressive agenda to normalize deviant behavior….it was always a “slippery slope” approach to take society farther down the road of sexual deviancy, who could argue, just look at the shite going on currently in society.
same for me - with discussions w gay people and the end result -- some of the people that used to call me "gay friendly" since I had a "live & let live" approach & treated them the same as I did anyone else are now branding me a "homophobe"
I'm good with that...
0
Posted on 6/27/22 at 4:40 pm to SoonerK
quote:
Ah yes, it's been seven years since Gay Marriage was legalized and marriage has been wiped off the face of the map. It can only sadly be found in history books now./s You want to talk about the destruction of the nuclear family, how about you look at what divorce has done for the last 50 years.
Are you under the impression that divorce was championed by a different ideology than the one championing gay marriage? Simpleton.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 4:44 pm to LSUnation78
quote:
The gay marriage issue SHOULD revolve around one thing and one thing alone - wether gay couples get to enjoy the same benefits of straight couples. Tax treatment and including spouse on health insurance.
FIFY
Unfortunately, reality doesn’t jive with your assessment.
Celebration is demanded by the leftist...not just equality.
Do you even Democrat bro?
Posted on 6/27/22 at 5:01 pm to the808bass
quote:
Ah yes, it's been seven years since Gay Marriage was legalized and marriage has been wiped off the face of the map. It can only sadly be found in history books now./s You want to talk about the destruction of the nuclear family, how about you look at what divorce has done for the last 50 years.
Are you under the impression that divorce was championed by a different ideology than the one championing gay marriage? Simpleton.
I'll try and spell it out to you so your caveman level intelligence can understand. Gay marriage has done nothing to hurt the nuclear family, but the 50% divorce rate starting in the early 1970's sure has.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 5:08 pm to dcbl
quote:
Clarence Thomas Wants SCOTUS to 'Correct the Error' of Legal Gay Marriage by dcbl
I’m not going to read through 7 pages to find out if my take has already been addressed.
But this quote above is intellectually dishonest. Making gay marriage legal was not the error Thomas was addressing.
The error was the flawed legal reasoning used to suggest that the right to due process should somehow result in conferring new rights not previously identified in the Constitution.
He was correct to point out that the due process clause guarantees the right to a process before depriving someone of life, liberty, or property.
He made it quite clear that substantive due process precedents should be reconsidered because any substantive due process decision is demonstrably erroneous.
Stated another way, he says the error that must be corrected is not the decision, but the reasoning for that decision.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 5:17 pm to Willie Stroker
quote:
The error was the flawed legal reasoning used to suggest that the right to due process should somehow result in conferring new rights not previously identified in the Constitution.
There are already rights not listed in the Constitution that have been deemed protected. James Madison when proposing the Bill of Rights was worried that people would then jump to the view that enumerated rights were the only rights protected, which clearly was not the Founders intentions.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 5:19 pm to SoonerK
quote:
I'll try and spell it out to you so your caveman level intelligence can understand. Gay marriage has done nothing to hurt the nuclear family, but the 50% divorce rate starting in the early 1970's sure has.
Divorce has had more far reaching effects. 50 years will do that.
Are you a gay or are you just stupid?
Posted on 6/27/22 at 5:22 pm to the808bass
quote:
Are you a gay or are you just stupid?
Nice comeback. Your 9th grade education is showing.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 5:28 pm to SoonerK
It’s a serious question. Are you gaslighting or dumb?
Posted on 6/27/22 at 5:31 pm to SoonerK
quote:
There are already rights not listed in the Constitution that have been deemed protected.
Which ones?
Posted on 6/27/22 at 5:32 pm to UpToPar
quote:
Which ones?
Marriage is one.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 5:34 pm to SoonerK
quote:
Marriage is one.
The constitution does not give one the right to marry. The constitution says that if you allow certain people to marry then you must allow others to marry as well. Those two are not the same thing.
This is exactly the fallacy that Thomas is trying to address.
This post was edited on 6/27/22 at 5:35 pm
Posted on 6/27/22 at 5:34 pm to the808bass
quote:
It’s a serious question. Are you gaslighting or dumb?
You're view that gay marriage was an attempt to destroy traditional marriage and attack the nuclear family. Seven years after Obergefell and none of that is true. If you truly care about the "nuclear family" You should be on a crusade about divorce, not gay marriage.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 5:38 pm to UpToPar
quote:
The constitution says that if you allow certain people to marry then you must allow others to marry as well.
No, 5 justices said that.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 5:43 pm to UpToPar
quote:
The constitution does not give one the right to marry. The constitution says that if you allow certain people to marry then you must allow others to marry as well. Those two are not the same thing.
This is exactly the fallacy that Thomas is trying to address.
Incorrect, justices on all sides of the political spectrum have stated marriage is a right. Look at what Madison had to say about his fear that adding the Bill of Rights will lead people to believe that only enumerated rights can be protected.
Loving v Virginia
Zablocki v Redhail
Turner v Safley
Obergefell v Hodges
Posted on 6/27/22 at 5:46 pm to Willie Stroker
quote:
quote:
Clarence Thomas Wants SCOTUS to 'Correct the Error' of Legal Gay Marriage by dcbl
I’m not going to read through 7 pages to find out if my take has already been addressed.
But this quote above is intellectually dishonest. Making gay marriage legal was not the error Thomas was addressing.
It was, and my answers is the same - my thread title is a c/p of the “news” article linked in op
Posted on 6/27/22 at 5:56 pm to SoonerK
quote:
Incorrect
Okay. quote:
justices on all sides of the political spectrum have stated marriage is a right.
A right =/= a right conferred by the constitution.
quote:
Loving v Virginia
Zablocki v Redhail
Turner v Safley
Obergefell v Hodges
Loving and Zablocki were correctly decided under the Equal Protections Clause. Turner and Obergefell were (incorrectly in Thomas's view) decided, at least in part, under the substantive due process clause.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 6:05 pm to UpToPar
quote:
Loving and Zablocki were correctly decided under the Equal Protections Clause. Turner and Obergefell were (incorrectly in Thomas's view) decided, at least in part, under the substantive due process clause.
quote:
A right =/= a right conferred by the constitution.
James Madison would disagree.
Here is part of the dissent joined by Thomas on Obergefell. "The right to marry, although not specifically listed in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, has long been held as protected as a fundamental right."
Here is from the unanimous ruling in Loving. "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
This post was edited on 6/27/22 at 7:13 pm
Posted on 6/27/22 at 6:08 pm to UpToPar
quote:
Loving and Zablocki were correctly decided under the Equal Protections Clause. Turner and Obergefell were (incorrectly in Thomas's view) decided, at least in part, under the substantive due process clause.
yup
his whole dissent in obergefell is great, specifically with how arbitrary substantive due process is.
he also brings up a really good point about marriage and the government's involvement in it.
The only reason the States are involved with defining marriage is because marriage gives some defined benefits that the State provides.
if you remove the State benefits of marriage, what would be the point of defining marriage in regulation?
Think about it....why does the State need to recognize marriage done in a religious or private ceremony?
Government should get out of the marriage process all together.
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News