- 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 9:48 am to blueboy
Posted on 12/12/22 at 9:48 am to blueboy
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.'
How long before we see "People Who Enjoy Shtting In Other People's Mouths' Literacy Hour for Children" at the local Elementary Schools?
0
Posted on 12/12/22 at 9:48 am to AggieHank86
quote:
You are correct, the perceived need for the two different applications is indeed very different.
The constitutional theories underlying each of those two decisions, however, are nearly identical.
I'm not talking about perceived need or theory, though. I'm talking about practical application and legal strategy. Marketing RFMA as equally beneficial to SSM/IR marriage, I get that play, false though it may be. But when the legal ramifications are wildly disparate, comparing the two isn't the correct tack to take.
This post was edited on 12/12/22 at 9:49 am
Posted on 12/12/22 at 9:51 am to TbirdSpur2010
You are correct in observing that a SCOTUS reversal on Obergfell would have a profound effect, while a reversal on Loving would not have a significant effect because no miscegenation laws remain on the books.
None of that changes the fact that the legal reasoning between the two decisions is essentially identical, and that providing a “backstop” to one (and not to the other) would be … inconsistent.
Politically, it was a clever ploy to link them in the same statute. Jurisprudentially, it was almost mandated.
None of that changes the fact that the legal reasoning between the two decisions is essentially identical, and that providing a “backstop” to one (and not to the other) would be … inconsistent.
Politically, it was a clever ploy to link them in the same statute. Jurisprudentially, it was almost mandated.
This post was edited on 12/12/22 at 9:53 am
Posted on 12/12/22 at 10:02 am to AggieHank86
quote:
You are correct in observing that a SCOTUS reversal on Obergfell would have a profound effect, while a reversal on Loving would not have a significant effect because no miscegenation laws remain on the books.
Yes. It'd have no effect unless states crafted anti-IR marriage laws prior to a reversal of Loving.
quote:
the legal reasoning between the two decisions is essentially identical
Wasn't arguing the legal reasoning, only the different circumstances. Misunderstanding of the latter is causing the disconnect with a lot of folks.
quote:
providing a “backstop” to one (and not to the other) would be … inconsistent.
This is your error. Obergfell potentially falling is what necessitates a backstop. It's been over a score since such would be required in the event Loving fell. Ergo, there's no backstop being provided for anything regarding IR marriage.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 10:05 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Legally, it makes perfect sense (almost seems mandated) to treat them [ "Interracial Marriage" + Qweer Marriage] in much the same way.
Sorry Mr. Kinsley.
Pairing the two alleged "deficiencies" of "justice" -- and actually making them analogous-- makes ZERO legal, religious, traditional or common sense.
The Loving Case was in 1967 -- over a half century ago -- and your ilk are citing it NOW??
The Loving case was rare exception to the rule/law *even then*; AND IMPORTANTLY, ruled on MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN.
quote:
Jurisprudentially, however, the legal theories underlying Obergfell are essentially the same as the legal theories underlying Loving.
Obergfell is a clinical nutjob. Whether now or in 1973. 1923. Or Year ONE. His lunacy and rationale aimed at Justice Thomas are waaay off the mark. Come on, man.
The American Psychiatric Association official citations of "mental disorders" of Homosexuality applies (see definitions up through 1973. Obergfell is their poster boy.)
This post was edited on 12/12/22 at 10:06 am
Posted on 12/12/22 at 10:05 am to AggieHank86
quote:
None of that changes the fact that the legal reasoning between the two decisions is essentially identical, and that providing a “backstop” to one (and not to the other) would be … inconsistent.
Are retards still arguing obgerfell had any consequence on loving?
Just because a justice puked all over reason and mentioned loving doesn't make it relevant.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 10:13 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:Loving pre-dated a Obergefell.
Are retards still arguing obgerfell had any consequence on loving?
Loving influenced Obergefell, not vice versa.
quote:That was Dobbs.
Just because a justice puked all over reason and mentioned loving doesn't make it relevant.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 10:17 am to AggieHank86
quote:
That is not a 10th amendment issue, it is an issue under the full faith and credit clause.
This is a clause most subject to sledgehammer abuse and rife for corruption in support of an agenda [oh...like the current WOKE Agenda (D).]
One group's new "protections" are another group's obsolete / displaced rights.
The 10th Amendment is getting steamrolled -- ILLEGALLY in the opinion of many law scholars.
Simple Question:
WHO (and whom) IS CONTROLLING THE ("Social") AGENDA?
Posted on 12/12/22 at 10:19 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Are retards still arguing obgerfell had any consequence on loving?
Loving pre-dated a Obergefell.
Loving influenced Obergefell, not vice versa.
quote:
Just because a justice puked all over reason and mentioned loving doesn't make it relevant.
That was Dobbs.
Of course, the abortion clause of the Constitution. Who could miss it?
Posted on 12/12/22 at 10:59 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Mickey Goldmill
How long until you marry your boyfriend?
Posted on 12/12/22 at 11:03 am to Hurricane Mike
Not sure. It's been on our minds for a while though. Thanks for asking 
Posted on 12/12/22 at 11:04 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Respect for Marriage Act
Whenever a Libs names a bill, it means the opposite.
But that’s only because they are liars and their daddy is the Father of Liars, the devil.
This post was edited on 12/12/22 at 11:05 am
Posted on 12/12/22 at 11:44 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Loving pre-dated a Obergefell.
Obviously , what's your point?
quote:
Loving influenced Obergefell, not vice versa
Only for retards.
Page 22 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News