re: Gay marriage needs to be next

There are so many more pressing constitutional issues than consenting adults having consensual sexual relationships and sharing health insurance.

quote:

---

That ruling is every bit as flawed Constitutionally as Roe was

---

Not really.

You overrule Obergefell and you have to overrule Loving and who really wants to open that can of worms?

There is nothing to gain and a lot to lose, politically.

quote:

---

than consenting adults having consensual sexual relationships

---

If it had stopped there, it wouldn't be a pressing issue. It's clear it didn't stop there.

Or have you been living under a rock in regards to children attending gay strip clubs or the chemical castration of 5 year olds?

quote:

---

Not enough separation of church and state in my opinion

---

This doesn't matter in a Constitutional vs Unconstitutional conversation.

We need this one overturned as its a States rights issue just like Roe was. We need to stop SCOTUS from making laws from the bench just like we hope SCOTUS stops the EPA and other agencies from making laws.

Let the States decide how to handle marriages. IMO I hope states put in incentives to encourage biblical marriage to promote proper procreation.

Acceptance of gay "marriage" is an abomination towards God, so Christians need to fight against it like they did abortion. And get the child abuse of children being pushed to transition, and all other kids of immoral sexualization of the innocent children.

Everyone on this board knows or is related to a homosexual. Those people have a right to have their partner recognized for legal purposes such as next of kin, etc...

If you disagree with that then you just aren't a good person.

quote:

---

They will not overturn Obergefell. There is a caveat in the Dobbs decision that indicates abortion is different type of issue than marriage.

---

Obergefell is really an equal protections case, but the court felt the need to also find that gay marriage is protected under substantive due process. Roe is purely a substantive due process case. Thomas points out that substantive due process is an oxymoron and not a blanket protection of those rights. I think most agree that Obergefell would stand on the equal protection clause alone.

quote:

---

We are a country that condones deviant behavior.

---

Who is it deviant to? A lot of people do not think same sex relationships are deviant, so its not fair to blanket the gays as being deviants. I agree it is not natural, but I know a family member who was 100% born gay. When we were kids he would only play with girls and dolls and what not, years later he comes out, big surprise, but I believe he was born that way so hard to say it 'isnt natural' or 'deviant' in that regard.

quote:

---

Gay couples cannot procreate. They cannot increase the population without major costs.

---

So heterosexuals that can't reproduce shouldn't be allowed to marry either?

No. None of the gay people I know are like how the media and LGBT political movement portrays them. Media and politicians attach degenerate behavior to the gay community in order to use the gay community as a shield to prevent people from criticizing degenerate behavior.

'You don't like grooming kids in school ? You're homophobic and what you say doesn't matter!'

The problem is that the average gay community doesn't have a voice anymore. They are silenced in favor of the people who adhere to stereotypes and political messaging.

Trying to frick over average gay people who are just trying to live their lives with their wife/husband...is fricked up.

Besides, targeting gay marriage won't do shite to stop the LGBT political movement and media from attaching all kinds of shite to the gay community and using them as a shield.