- 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: Supreme Court being formally asked to overturn Obergefell; gay marriage will fall
Posted on 8/11/25 at 7:28 pm to td01241
Posted on 8/11/25 at 7:28 pm to td01241
quote:
I could accept something like maybe it’s not the primary reason or purpose at hand,
This case is about damages from a civil suit.
Even if Ogberfell was reversed, it wouldn't change what the law was at the time of her injuring behavior.
quote:
but “nothing to do with the actual case” is an actually dumb statement. And as I’ve said many times I don’t think you’re dumb.
Explain the relationship. Again, this is about damages from a civil lawsuit.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 7:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:I'm not a lawyer but my "feelings"
Even if Ogberfell was reversed, it wouldn't change what the law was at the time of her injuring behavior.
I'm no Kim Davis fan, just trying to wrap my head around this.
eta- nvm, I see it now. The argument would be that her original case was related to her refusal to perform her job, and although in her case it was over Obergfell, but her official actions would have the same effect regardless of subject.
This post was edited on 8/11/25 at 7:49 pm
Posted on 8/11/25 at 7:38 pm to td01241
That guy who played 3rd for the Cardinals in the 80's got married to a dude?
Oh wait, he was named Oberkfell, nevermind
Oh wait, he was named Oberkfell, nevermind
Posted on 8/11/25 at 7:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Even if Ogberfell was reversed, it wouldn't change what the law was at the time of her injuring behavior.
I think it's going to fall, but this isn't the case.
States will have to be the plaintiffs.
This post was edited on 8/11/25 at 7:43 pm
Posted on 8/11/25 at 7:48 pm to Narax
It is going to fall. I’ll admit it might not be this case, but it could. Either way this just pushes the line further. Roe was always destined to the same fate it met and so is this one. Gays should’ve gone through Congress
Posted on 8/11/25 at 7:48 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
I'm not a lawyer but my "feelings" tell me that if a law is overturned any convictions or judgements based upon that law should be open to review. Is this not the case?
Retroactive decisions are very, very rare.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 7:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:I added an ETA to that post after thinking about it---------"eta- nvm, I see it now. The argument would be that her original case was related to her refusal to perform her job, and although in her case it was over Obergfell, her official actions would have the same effect regardless of subject."
Retroactive decisions are very, very rare.
This post was edited on 8/11/25 at 7:52 pm
Posted on 8/11/25 at 8:00 pm to td01241
quote:
Roe was always destined to the same fate it met and so is this one. Gays should’ve gone through Congress
Yup, both of them were pushed through and crushed previous state rights.
Long term that's why I see States winning.
The question I have is what falls first, the Trans case or the gay marriage case.
I think the Trans case get snapped back at the federal level where states cannot declare men women.
And Gay marriage goes back to the states, like any other license.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 8:04 pm to td01241
Remove the word "marriage" and there isn't a problem. Use any word you like to describe a civil union, any word except for marriage and I don't have a problem with it.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 8:05 pm to LSUSkip
Agreed.
Also they need to be made illegal from adopting kids or getting a surrogate
Also they need to be made illegal from adopting kids or getting a surrogate
Posted on 8/11/25 at 8:10 pm to td01241
I wouldn't say illegal, but it should be a very, very intensive and expensive process, and one that can't be fund-raised for. If you have to raise funds to have kids, I don't know if you should be a parent.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 9:08 pm to AlwysATgr
quote:
Are you suggesting we should condone child sacrifice and prayers offered to Molech?
No, stop being a fricking retard.
I'm just informing you that you're opening the door to other religions getting the same benefits.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 9:10 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Unless you can give me a secular humanistic basis for "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights..."
That's how marriage became under the states purview?
Posted on 8/11/25 at 9:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is retarded, even for MAGA echo chamber nonsense.
I am as anti Dem as it gets and I think Gays should be able to marry. However all the nonsense with men in women’s sports and the constant trans bs during the Biden admin was horrible. I sure as hell don’t want that ever coming back. A lot of people would give a “slippery slope” argument that gay marriage kicked that off.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 9:52 pm to TwoFace
Obergefell needs to be overturned with the quickness.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 9:55 pm to td01241
I can't imagine this being a political win for Republicans.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 11:11 pm to Azkiger
quote:
That's how marriage became under the states purview?
No, that's what our entire Constitution is based on.
Nor was that what you asked.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 1:00 am to Powerman
quote:Often times what is right isn’t politically expedient.
I can't imagine this being a political win for Republicans.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:11 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
No, that's what our entire Constitution is based on.
Nor was that what you asked
You should probably reread my post. That way you can see how you immediately went off topic.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 6:44 am to Powerman
quote:
I can't imagine this being a political win for Republicans.
It’s not. 70% of Americans approve of gay marriage, and 70% of Americans also approve of gay couples being able to adopt.
A lot has been joked about on this board, for good reason, about dems and 80/20 issues. Here we are with some conservative theocrats on this board grasping at not one but two 70/30 issues.
Popular
Back to top



2






