- 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: Respect for Marriage Act passed by Senate. Goes to House for final vote.
Posted on 11/30/22 at 2:01 pm to dukkbill
Posted on 11/30/22 at 2:01 pm to dukkbill
quote:
Roberts dissented in the Obergefell decision. Indeed, the likely reason for the bill is to create a statutory (not constitutional) right because the fear is that the majority of the current justices may not find that right in the Constitution
They might find that the recognition of a marriage is a full faith and credit issue, but that is what the statute is codifying
You are correct about the the likely reason for the bill, but Roberts believes in the fundamental right to marriage, he just does not believe that included gay-marriage.
1
Posted on 11/30/22 at 2:08 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
it's already been determined that you're incapable of understanding unless it's written in legalese.
Moreover, he's itterly addicted to his Strawmen, Red Herrings and litany of logical fallacies. Even his Avatar of Bill Buckley (his ideological OPPOSITE) is an Appeal To Authority from the get-go.
In citing his (carefully selected) legalese as a thread signature he somehow hopes they lend legitimacy to his poor arguments and carry unwinnable, absurd positions. It's entertaining...in a Washington Generals kind of way.
Posted on 11/30/22 at 2:08 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
This repeals DOMA
So an Act is an act. Fitting name.
Posted on 11/30/22 at 2:09 pm to SoonerK
quote:
FFS. OK, how about that occurs in your own bedroom?
Posted on 11/30/22 at 2:09 pm to Liberator
quote:
Moreover, he's itterly addicted to his Strawmen, Red Herrings and litany of logical fallacies
Because he's socially awkward and cannot understand the things common people discuss. The day to day things of life are foreign to him.
Posted on 11/30/22 at 2:12 pm to NC_Tigah
It's almost as if moral and social norms have been codified into law, forcing certain values of the majority down the throats of the minority. Pretty scary; has this been going on for long?
Posted on 11/30/22 at 2:14 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Full Faith and Credit clause. Article IV, Section 1.
No, really.
In your own words defend the insane 'Respect for Marriage Act' loophole that enables ALL "Marriage" (as defined by the multi/poly/inter-species betrothed) to be respected and even honored by States?
1-2-3...GO!
Posted on 11/30/22 at 2:15 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
FFS. OK, how about that occurs in your own bedroom?
Why don't you answer the question instead of deflecting with these one-off scenarios. My guess is because you don't want to answer.
This post was edited on 11/30/22 at 2:18 pm
Posted on 11/30/22 at 2:22 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The SSM bill, the one not yet finalized, addresses legality of SSM.
Which has no bearing upon cousin marriage.
Two gay Aggies who are 1st cousins want to get married ... after they grabbed their nuts and made weird assorted gestures during Aggie yell practice. Is it legal for them to marry in Massachusetts? How about in Texas?
How about if Congress passed a law stating gay Aggies who are 1st cousins can get married in any state ... after they grab their nuts and make weird assorted gestures during Aggie yell practice?
Posted on 11/30/22 at 2:28 pm to SoonerK
quote:Nah. Just having a little fun with someone thinking marriage is addressed in the US Constitution.
My guess is because you don't want to answer.
Posted on 11/30/22 at 2:31 pm to Liberator
quote:Again, Full Faith and Credit clause. Article IV, Section 1.
In your own words defend the insane 'Respect for Marriage Act' loophole that enables ALL "Marriage" (as defined by the multi/poly/inter-species betrothed) to be respected and even honored by States?
The core of the issue us that a legal relationship in one state must be recognized in another state.
There are legal relationships that you personally do not want to recognize. That is fine. You are entitled to your opinions.
As to inter-racial and same-sex relationships, the Constitution and (soon) the United States code disagree with you.
Welcome to life in our federal republic.
Posted on 11/30/22 at 2:32 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:I never said it was listed in the Constitution. Do you believe that their are not rights reserved for the people that are not listed in the Constitution?
Nah. Just having a little fun with someone thinking marriage is addressed in the US Constitution
Posted on 11/30/22 at 2:32 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
thinking marriage is addressed in the US Constitution.
Hacks and activists.
Posted on 11/30/22 at 2:35 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
thinking marriage is addressed in the US Constitution.
Hacks and activists.
You sure do love those states having rights as opposed to the people. Why do you love big government so much?
Posted on 11/30/22 at 2:37 pm to SoonerK
quote:
You sure do love those states having rights as opposed to the people
Wrong, emotional one.
You're simply wishcasting in this thread..
My choice and the current laws are incompatible. States have no business in the marriage game.
But that doesn't change reality.
This post was edited on 11/30/22 at 2:39 pm
Posted on 11/30/22 at 2:37 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Obergefell says that two men may marry anywhere in the country. Under state law in both states, first cousins may marry. So there is no bar to the marriage based upon either sex or consanguinity.
Is it legal for them to marry in Massachusetts? How about in Texas?
If one of those two states did not allow first cousins to marry, there would at least be an argument against recognition of that marriage in the second state, not based upon SSM, but rather upon consanguinity. My first thought, however, is that the rationale of the Loving decision would require recognition of the marriage nonetheless.
Is there some POINT to this odd Yell Practice hypothetical inquiry?
This post was edited on 11/30/22 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 11/30/22 at 2:43 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Wrong, emotional one.
You're simply wishcasting in this thread..
My choice and the current laws are incompatible. States have no business in the marriage game.
But that doesn't change reality.
I am not wishcasting. There are fundamental rights allocated to the people that do not have to be specifically listed in the Constitution to be protected. I believe marriage to be one of those.
Posted on 11/30/22 at 2:44 pm to SoonerK
quote:'
There are fundamental rights allocated to the people that do not have to be specifically listed in the Constitution to be protected. I believe marriage to be one of those.
No, you believe some definitions of marriage should be protected and other definitions should not be protected. Just like pretty much everybody else in the country.
Posted on 11/30/22 at 2:52 pm to Flats
quote:
There are fundamental rights allocated to the people that do not have to be specifically listed in the Constitution to be protected. I believe marriage to be one of those.
'
No, you believe some definitions of marriage should be protected and other definitions should not be protected. Just like pretty much everybody else in the country.
Yes, my definition is two consenting adults when it comes to marriage. Every right is going to have some form of curbs, and that is mine.
Posted on 11/30/22 at 3:07 pm to SoonerK
quote:
am not wishcasting.
Under American law you are.
We already have limits on marriage.
I don't thing govt should be involved at all, but they are.
Page 14 of 15
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News