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
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
477231 posts
Posted on 8/11/25 at 7:28 pm to
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 by northshorebamaman
Mackinac Island
Member since Jul 2009
38343 posts
Posted on 8/11/25 at 7:37 pm to
quote:


Even if Ogberfell was reversed, it wouldn't change what the law was at the time of her injuring behavior.
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?

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 by RohanGonzales
Pronoun: Whatever
Member since Apr 2024
10711 posts
Posted on 8/11/25 at 7:38 pm to
That guy who played 3rd for the Cardinals in the 80's got married to a dude?

Oh wait, he was named Oberkfell, nevermind
Posted by Narax
Member since Jan 2023
7969 posts
Posted on 8/11/25 at 7:41 pm to
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 by td01241
Savannah
Member since Nov 2012
30152 posts
Posted on 8/11/25 at 7:48 pm to
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 by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
477231 posts
Posted on 8/11/25 at 7:48 pm to
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 by northshorebamaman
Mackinac Island
Member since Jul 2009
38343 posts
Posted on 8/11/25 at 7:50 pm to
quote:

Retroactive decisions are very, very rare.
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."
This post was edited on 8/11/25 at 7:52 pm
Posted by Narax
Member since Jan 2023
7969 posts
Posted on 8/11/25 at 8:00 pm to
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 by LSUSkip
Central, LA
Member since Jul 2012
24717 posts
Posted on 8/11/25 at 8:04 pm to
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 by td01241
Savannah
Member since Nov 2012
30152 posts
Posted on 8/11/25 at 8:05 pm to
Agreed.

Also they need to be made illegal from adopting kids or getting a surrogate
Posted by LSUSkip
Central, LA
Member since Jul 2012
24717 posts
Posted on 8/11/25 at 8:10 pm to
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 by Azkiger
Member since Nov 2016
28172 posts
Posted on 8/11/25 at 9:08 pm to
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 by Azkiger
Member since Nov 2016
28172 posts
Posted on 8/11/25 at 9:10 pm to
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 by Palm Beach Tiger
Orlando, Florida
Member since Jan 2007
30103 posts
Posted on 8/11/25 at 9:33 pm to
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 by PastorJ
Member since Sep 2024
895 posts
Posted on 8/11/25 at 9:52 pm to
Obergefell needs to be overturned with the quickness.
Posted by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
173799 posts
Posted on 8/11/25 at 9:55 pm to
I can't imagine this being a political win for Republicans.
Posted by wackatimesthree
Member since Oct 2019
13574 posts
Posted on 8/11/25 at 11:11 pm to
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 by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
46873 posts
Posted on 8/12/25 at 1:00 am to
quote:

I can't imagine this being a political win for Republicans.
Often times what is right isn’t politically expedient.
Posted by Azkiger
Member since Nov 2016
28172 posts
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:11 am to
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 by ibldprplgld
Member since Feb 2008
27771 posts
Posted on 8/12/25 at 6:44 am to
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.
Jump to page
Page First 8 9 10 11 12 ... 17
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 10 of 17Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram