- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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 passes House (258 to 169) - now heads to Biden's desk
Posted on 12/9/22 at 11:15 am to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 12/9/22 at 11:15 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:There are LOTS of things that SHOULD be a "local call," but are not treated as such because 100 years of jurisprudence have completely misinterpreted the 14th Amendment as causing the Bill of Rights to limit State/Local governments (the Incorporation Doctrine) ... rather than simply limiting the government in DC, as the drafters of the Bill of Rights intended.
71% of Americans support SSM.quote:
Should be a local call.
That is what the law SHOULD be.
What the law IS? The 14th Amendment dictates that same sex couples may marry, anywhere in the country. It is what it is.
1
Posted on 12/9/22 at 11:18 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 12/9/22 at 11:18 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The 14th Amendment dictates that same sex couples may marry, anywhere in the country. It is what it is.
No....
Modern Lawyers/Judges have INTERPRETED the 14th Amendment to say as much because MOST ASSUREDLY if it had been an issue at the time the Constitution was written Gay people would NOT be allowed to marry, period.
I personally don't give a shite, but words mean things.
The Framers would all be against Gay marriage.
Posted on 12/9/22 at 11:25 am to oogabooga68
quote:
Gallup interviews a minimum of 1,000 U.S. adults aged 18 and older for each GPSS survey.
quote:
Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 70% cellphone respondents and 30% landline respondents,
Wow....a whopping One Thousand fking people over 50 States IF they decide to answer the phone...
Hahahahahaaaa.
Here is support for gay marriage over 25 years. I am sure you will have some educated reason to throw out its data.
Historical Gallup Polling
This post was edited on 12/9/22 at 11:28 am
Posted on 12/9/22 at 11:26 am to armsdealer
quote:Agreed. No involvement by the government OR by any religious hierarchy.
We should all be against having to get a government license to get married..
Let's return marriage to the families.
Posted on 12/9/22 at 11:27 am to SoonerK
quote:Some people accept only those polls and studies which support their preconceptions and biases.
Here is support for gay marriage over 25 years. I am sure you will have some educated reason to (throw) out its data.
Posted on 12/9/22 at 11:28 am to SoonerK
quote:
I am sure you will have some educated reason to through out its data.
If I were a Grammar Nazi (I'm not), I'd ask if you meant "throw", but I'll "except" your statement as is.
Yes, methodology and internals from a biased polling company are indeed a reason to be skeptical.
Posted on 12/9/22 at 11:29 am to SoonerK
quote:
Here is support for gay marriage over 25 years. I am sure you will have some educated reason to throw out its data.
The only takeaway there is we have too few people attending church weekly.
Posted on 12/9/22 at 11:29 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Some people accept only those polls and studies which support their preconceptions and biases.
Are you legit retarded?
You posted a poll the other day to support your bullshite kid-diddler defense that was ripped to shreds because it's methodology was horse-shite.
You need to go to the Doctor, I'm starting to worry about you....
Posted on 12/9/22 at 11:30 am to the808bass
quote:
The only takeaway there is we have too few people attending church weekly.
I am guilty of attending Church weakly.
I need to work on that....
Posted on 12/9/22 at 11:32 am to oogabooga68
quote:
I am sure you will have some educated reason to through out its data.
If I were a Grammar Nazi (I'm not), I'd ask if you meant "throw", but I'll "except" your statement as is.
Yes, methodology and internals from a biased polling company are indeed a reason to be skeptical.
Thanks for not being a grammar Nazi, but still pointing it out and which I already edited, but good on you. Also, LOL to Gallup being biased. Please show your reputable polling companies that show a significant deviation from what Galllup has registered over 25+ years.
Posted on 12/9/22 at 11:33 am to the808bass
quote:
Here is support for gay marriage over 25 years. I am sure you will have some educated reason to throw out its data.
The only takeaway there is we have too few people attending church weekly.
Or the data about gay marriage which the primary question being asked.
Posted on 12/9/22 at 11:38 am to SoonerK
quote:Advice: Don't waste your time.
Please show your reputable polling companies that show a significant deviation from what Galllup has registered over 25+ years.
He will whine and bitch about the name or background of the researcher, or the methodology or the sample size or the color of the paper regarding any poll or study that produces a result he does not like.
It is what it is.
Perfect example already on this page.
Posted on 12/9/22 at 11:42 am to AggieHank86
quote:
background of the researcher, or the methodology
This week while defending your particular favorite flavor of kid-diddlers, you made a stupid claim based on a study you pulled out of your arse.
That study which was supposedly representative of a whole, diverse population consisted of 360 cases over a broad time frame, all in Florida which consisted of file "reviews" that relied on the veracity of the perps involved.
STFU about studies and data, you have no high-ground.
Posted on 12/9/22 at 11:43 am to SoonerK
quote:
Or the data about gay marriage which the primary question being asked.
None of that is surprising to me. Thanks.
Posted on 12/9/22 at 12:02 pm to AggieHank86
Hank, I just stumbled upon these two articles discussing the Respect for Marriage Act and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Very interesting read that I think you'd enjoy.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/07/20/federalism-and-the-respect-for-marriage-act/
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/07/20/steve-sanders-on-full-faith-and-credit-and-the-respect-for-marriage-act/
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/07/20/federalism-and-the-respect-for-marriage-act/
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/07/20/steve-sanders-on-full-faith-and-credit-and-the-respect-for-marriage-act/
Posted on 12/9/22 at 12:09 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Thx Mick. I will take a look.
EDIT:
In the first article, they raise a point that I see here, a lot:
EDIT:
In the first article, they raise a point that I see here, a lot:
quote:The second article raises an interesting point, as well. Basically, it ACKNOWLEDGES that the Full Faith and Credit Clause (FFCC) is a limit on unfettered federalism:
It's also worth noting that state laws banning same-sex marriage can violate individual constitutional rights, even if the federal government lacks any general power to legislate on the definition of marriage. There is no contradiction between these two positions and I in fact hold both.
quote:
Is there some cost to federalism in the Respect for Marriage Act? Sure. But the FF&CC was intended as a unifying device, not a states-rights provision. And as a policy matter, the cost is far outweighed by the chaos and injustice that would be caused by allowing one state to nullify another state's existing legal marriage.
This post was edited on 12/9/22 at 12:21 pm
Posted on 12/9/22 at 12:25 pm to Mickey Goldmill
When California makes it "lawful" to marry your dog or your child, then ALL states will have to accept it as legitimate.
Posted on 12/9/22 at 12:27 pm to AUauditor
quote:
When California makes it "lawful" to marry your dog or your child, then ALL states will have to accept it as legitimate.
When Democrats are in charge, today's hyperbole becomes tomorrow's truth.
It WILL happen (the dog thing, anyways).
Posted on 12/9/22 at 12:39 pm to AUauditor
quote:Not under the RMA, which addresses only SSM and miscegenation.
When California makes it "lawful" to marry your dog or your child, then ALL states will have to accept it as legitimate.
You could make the doggie marriage argument even BEFORE the RMA, under the Full Faith & Credit (FFC) Clause, but you would certainly lose. RMA won't change that.
Page 18 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News