- 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
Realistically, would the overturning of Obergefell have undone any of the moral decay?
Posted on 11/10/25 at 8:32 pm
Posted on 11/10/25 at 8:32 pm
I get it, it would’ve been a righteous victory for conservatives and Christians, and I wouldn’t have been opposed to an overruling.
But the inconvenient truth is that it would have absolutely resulted in even more radicalization than we saw with Roe and a golden propaganda angle for the midterm cycle and potentially 2028.
I despise the “mob rule” factor of hyper polarized/publicized judicial proceedings, I just don’t see it as a net positive being that the damage it caused has been done and at this point it is indisputably more preferential to work on mending the cultural damage it caused rather than the legal impetus.
Long story short, this was not the hill to die on. And I would much rather see elevation of suits related to the 2020 election rather than something that has already run its course culturally and is actively being fought back on.
But the inconvenient truth is that it would have absolutely resulted in even more radicalization than we saw with Roe and a golden propaganda angle for the midterm cycle and potentially 2028.
I despise the “mob rule” factor of hyper polarized/publicized judicial proceedings, I just don’t see it as a net positive being that the damage it caused has been done and at this point it is indisputably more preferential to work on mending the cultural damage it caused rather than the legal impetus.
Long story short, this was not the hill to die on. And I would much rather see elevation of suits related to the 2020 election rather than something that has already run its course culturally and is actively being fought back on.
This post was edited on 11/10/25 at 8:43 pm
2
Posted on 11/10/25 at 8:36 pm to crotiger0307
quote:
elevation of suits related to the 2020 election
You like beating dead horses, right?
Posted on 11/10/25 at 8:38 pm to crotiger0307
Obergerfell was what led to the slippery slope
Posted on 11/10/25 at 8:40 pm to retired_tiger
You cannot allow that to go unheard or unchallenged man. The throwing out of any relevant cases because of radicalized judges (or at best, the hyper polarization surrounding the matter) is absolutely inexcusable in this country in which every other type of litigation runs wild.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 8:41 pm to crotiger0307
quote:
The throwing out of any relevant cases because of radicalized judges (or at best, the hyper polarization surrounding the matter)
Or, you know, lack of evidence
Posted on 11/10/25 at 8:42 pm to TigersHuskers
I agree. But an overturning doesn’t situate us back at the top of the slope. More so sets off an avalanche to reset the digging out of it we’ve already done.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 8:47 pm to NawlinsTiger9
Serious question, can evidence be presented in a case that has yet to be heard?
This post was edited on 11/10/25 at 8:48 pm
Posted on 11/10/25 at 8:55 pm to TigersHuskers
quote:
Obergerfell was what led to the slippery slope
You misspelled the sexual revolution.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 8:56 pm to crotiger0307
Yeah dog 
You need to do some reading on this topic since you’re obviously very passionate about it, the cases are out there
You need to do some reading on this topic since you’re obviously very passionate about it, the cases are out there
Posted on 11/10/25 at 9:11 pm to NawlinsTiger9
Sounds like you’re really up on the subject. Care to share some of your expertise?
Posted on 11/10/25 at 9:12 pm to yakster
What do you wanna know, broham?
Posted on 11/10/25 at 9:20 pm to NawlinsTiger9
About the cases that are out there. I’m sure you could probably cherry pick the ones that fit the agenda though.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 9:22 pm to yakster
I mean they damn near all lost in aggressive fashion by judges on both sides of the aisle, wouldn’t take much cherry picking
But you knew that
But you knew that
Posted on 11/10/25 at 9:31 pm to NawlinsTiger9
Again, they went unheard. They were not “lost”.
You’re convinced that federal judges who have sought every opportunity to give Trump the finger would rule with impartiality? Especially in the districts that they were hand picked for, which just so happened to be where the frickery occurred and was being challenged.
You’re convinced that federal judges who have sought every opportunity to give Trump the finger would rule with impartiality? Especially in the districts that they were hand picked for, which just so happened to be where the frickery occurred and was being challenged.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 9:34 pm to crotiger0307
quote:
Again, they went unheard
Thrown out due to lack of evidence =\= “unheard”
Some of the judges who did this were literally appointed by Trump
I think you have read too many propaganda headlines.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News