- 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 12/12/22 at 7:17 am to Plx1776
Posted on 12/12/22 at 7:17 am to Plx1776
quote:
married interracial and gay couples can finally stop hiding in their attics Anne Frank style.
The way they've disingenuously tied interracial marriage to this is annoying.
1
Posted on 12/12/22 at 7:30 am to Mickey Goldmill
Awesome. Soon you’ll be able to take shits into each other’s mouths on live TV.
We’re such an advanced society now.
We’re such an advanced society now.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 7:54 am to Indefatigable
quote:
quote:
States can and do have the right to not recognize gay marriage.
Negative
10th Amendment has entered the chat
Posted on 12/12/22 at 8:54 am to TruthSpeaker225
quote:The point of the exemption in the first place was to protect religious institutions from the power of the government to regulate what they teach and how they act through the force of taxation. This ultimatum (do as we say or you lose protection) violates the very principle that the exemption was put in place for.quote:That’s a great idea actually
Force churches to accept same sex marriages or lose your exemption.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 8:57 am to udtiger
quote:
10th Amendment has entered the chat
Giddy up! (Repeatedly ignored & denied by TD's usual pro-LGQt lobbyists / suspects.)
...led by *this* guy:
... masquerading as *this* guy:
Let's review the 10th Amendment again:
THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION , NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.
A LOT more of these select Feral Overlording edicts must be formally challenged by SCOTUS. Violations of the 10th Amendment are totally out of hand.
Two of three Constitutional checks & balances of the US we are promised ( Legislative & Executive) have completely failed -- thanks to a hijacked by a bogus / rigged "voting" system.
That obviously leaves only the Judicial check of SCOTUS from which to preserve the Republic.
This post was edited on 12/12/22 at 9:15 am
Posted on 12/12/22 at 9:03 am to Jrv2damac
If this act passes it will be huge in respect to rights of those in these partnerships/marriages. It means employers will have to provide spousal benefits if already offered to hetro workers. Maternity and paternity leave for adoptions by gay couples. Insurance premiums will go up for everyone across the board for those working at companies with group policies.
I am someone shocked this is going through with the financial ramifications that will happen.
I am someone shocked this is going through with the financial ramifications that will happen.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 9:06 am to blueboy
quote:
Awesome. Soon you’ll be able to take shits into each other’s mouths on live TV.
(TD post in 3 years)
"I don't know why you guys care about someone taking a shite into another person's mouth on live TV. Move on; we have more important issues."
Posted on 12/12/22 at 9:07 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
The way they've disingenuously tied interracial marriage to this is annoying.
Hear ya.
That this Bill purposely and disingenuously paired "Interracial Marriage" with Qweer Marriage is the worst kind of Strawman.
Let's ask SCOTUS Justice Thomas how his "Interracial Marriage" was "disrespected" by any State Law.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 9:07 am to Flats
80% of my friends have shite in someone’s mouth. I don’t know why you all are worked up about it.
- Someone contrarian in 3 years on TD
- Someone contrarian in 3 years on TD
Posted on 12/12/22 at 9:07 am to Flats
Posted on 12/12/22 at 9:16 am to Liberator
quote:
That this Bill purposely and disingenuously paired "Interracial Marriage" with Qweer Marriage is the worst kind of Strawman.
It has more to do with this regarding the language.
quote:
it would require individual states to recognize another state’s legal marriage.
The federal government is limited in most cases to dictate what a state can and can not do. Where the 10th amendment can be argued but making it an issue involving more than one state allows the federal government to step in. Probably under the guise of something like.
quote:
Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, also known as the Comity Clause)
Posted on 12/12/22 at 9:17 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
In short, the bill requires every state to recognize a legally valid marriage from another state.
But...What about the 10th Amendment?
In your opinion should it (along with ALL States' Rights) be eliminated?
Posted on 12/12/22 at 9:26 am to Liberator
Why we have SCOTUS to determine who has the power between the states and the federal government.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 9:29 am to TideWarrior
quote:
...Where the 10th amendment can be argued but making it an issue involving more than one state allows the federal government to step in.
Probably under the guise of something like.
quote:
Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, also known as the Comity Clause)
Which is so broad a technicality and definition loophole that a Mack Truck could drive through it.
(..."treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner.")
Rhetorical Question: Why aren't States' Rights (and of Rights of/for people) considered reverse-"discrimination" by Federal edicts that overturn the 10th Amendment??
Posted on 12/12/22 at 9:35 am to Liberator
quote:politically, the two were tied together for optics. I don’t think anyone would dispute that.quote:That this Bill purposely and disingenuously paired "Interracial Marriage" with Qweer Marriage is the worst kind of Strawman.
The way they've disingenuously tied interracial marriage to this is annoying.
Jurisprudentially, however, the legal theories underlying Obergfell are essentially the same as the legal theories underlying Loving. Legally, it makes perfect sense (almost seems mandated) to treat them in much the same way.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 9:40 am to Liberator
quote:it would still apply. This bill does not make any effort to impose a nationwide mandate for SSM, which would raise 10th amendment concerns.
In short, the bill requires every state to recognize a legally valid marriage from another state.quote:
But...What about the 10th Amendment?
To the contrary, it provides that (if Obergefell falls) Alabama could well declined to license SSM. It simply would be prohibited from recognizing the exustence of a SSM which was legally entered in New Hampshire.
That is not a 10th amendment issue, it is an issue under the full faith and credit clause.
This post was edited on 12/12/22 at 9:43 am
Posted on 12/12/22 at 9:42 am to AggieHank86
quote:
the legal theories underlying Obergfell are essentially the same as the legal theories underlying Loving. Legally, it makes perfect sense (almost seems mandated) to treat them in much the same way.
Incorrect, and I believe I outlined this earlier in the thread. The backstop for SSM, I get, as over half the states have laws against such that would come back into play should Obergfell get reversed. However, even if Loving were reversed, there'd be no such peril (the last state to have any anti-IR marriage laws was Alabama, and that was struck down over 20 years ago).
Treating IR marriage the same as SSM in this discussion is simply incorrect. Different set of circumstances.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 9:44 am to AggieHank86
quote:
This bill does not make any effort to imply a nationwide mandate for SSM, which would raise 10th amendment concerns
bullshite.
That's the practical effect through FF&C.
States and rules of comity decide FF&C, not federal statute. Once the latter gets involved, it becomes a 10th Amendment issue.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 9:44 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:You are correct, the perceived need for the two different applications is indeed very different.
Incorrect, and I believe I outlined this earlier in the thread. The backstop for SSM,
The constitutional theories and analysis underlying each of those two decisions, however, are very similar. The Obergfell court cited Loving a round dozen times in its written opinion.
Factually, the cases are different.
Legally, at least under the reasoning of the two SCOTUS opinions, they are nearly identical.
This post was edited on 12/12/22 at 9:53 am
Posted on 12/12/22 at 9:45 am to Flats
quote:'The only reason you're against people shitting into each other's mouths on TV is because you secretly want to shite into each other's mouths on TV.'
Awesome. Soon you’ll be able to take shits into each other’s mouths on live TV.
(TD post in 3 years)
"I don't know why you guys care about someone taking a shite into another person's mouth on live TV. Move on; we have more important issues."
Page 21 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News