re: Supreme Court being formally asked to overturn Obergefell; gay marriage will fall

quote:

---

State has no business deciding on marriage in anyone’s life.

---

While we're talking about a group wanting the state involved.

How ridiculous

This is how social conservatives frick up anti-progressive cultural shifts and have it flip back.

They confuse the cultural shift for a mandate and lie to themselves about how popular their stances are. You're seeing that in real time in this thread.

Chances of "writ denied" are about 90%

quote:

---

Equal Protection clause says otherwise.

---

No it doesn't and you and Anthony Kennedy are buffoons for claiming otherwise.

quote:

---

This is how social conservatives frick up anti-progressive cultural shifts and have it flip back.

They confuse the cultural shift for a mandate and lie to themselves about how popular their stances are. You're seeing that in real time in this thread.

---

You think the people who are getting tired of DEI racism, illegal immigration, and trans tyranny are going to shift back because of this?

I recall similar fears being expressed by the overturning of RvW.

quote:

---

What was the support for gay marriage before the Supreme Court shite all over the constitution again?

---

More popular than trump or Kamala 2024

quote:

---

You think the people who are getting tired of DEI racism, illegal immigration, and trans tyranny are going to shift back because of this?

---

Yes. This is all a matter of degrees, also, not binary. And that comment stands for each example you gave.

Also not all of those are even social issues (like immigration)

quote:

---

I recall similar fears being expressed by the overturning of RvW.

---

That gutted the Red Wave of the 2022 midterms and nerf'd the GOP for 2 years

quote:

---

Yes. This is all a matter of degrees, also, not binary. And that comment stands for each example you gave.

---

You are free to hold that opinion, obviously, but I don’t see it as being a political landmine of the same magnitude as some are making it out to be.

I don’t think this would be nearly as inflammatory as Roe was. There has been a drumbeat of “my body, my choice” going on for decades, with abortion being intimately associated with free existence for half the population of the country.

Gay marriage (and adoption) is a very recent phenomenon in our nation and only received support after it was forced upon the country through judicial decree. Even so, there hasn’t been the same level of indoctrination and national identity with gay marriage as with abortion.

The GOP picked up seats in 2022, removing the unified control that the Dems had.

Would it have been bigger if not for Roe being overturned? Maybe, but it didn’t destroy the GOP, and Roe was a much bigger emotional issue than this.

The “fatigue” of the left also wasn’t coming into play at that time, either. There are several emotional issues at play right now in this supposed culture shift that I don’t think will go away with gay marriage.

quote:

---

Also not all of those are even social issues (like immigration)

---

Doesn’t matter what classification you assign to those issues. They are part of this culture shift that is being alleged. The tyranny of the minority unites them all. In a similar way, homosexual marriage and adoption could be linked in, because they are associated with the LGBTQ acronym that has been foisted upon our culture.

quote:

---

That gutted the Red Wave of the 2022 midterms and nerf'd the GOP for 2 years

---

A 2-year setback in exchange for 50 years being overturned? I see that as a good trade.

Even the setback wasn’t as bad as it could have been. The GOP still took the house. In my estimation, that was a good outcome all around, especially considering how much of a sacred cow Roe was.

Gay marriage doesn’t have nearly that level of emotional baggage with it, and I don’t think it is strong enough to overturn all of the momentum shift with the other issues at play.

So here is your post:

quote:

---

Funny watching all the Christians who are adamantly opposed to a wall separating church and state now, all of a sudden, want marriage being a religious item and not a state item.

Who shoved it into the government in the first place?

Nah, keep it a mix (religious/state). Discrimination is illegal from a government body, since *everyone* pays taxes.

Y'all fricked up. Own it. And help maintain that wall separating church and state next time.

---

You're right, I conflated the last statement with the second statement. Mea Culpa.

For clarity though, do you deny that our entire Constitution—which obviously includes the whole concept and foundation for rights that our system is based on—has a supernatural underpinning?

Unless you think they meant aliens or some other natural Being that created humans with inalienable rights?

If you do, how?

If you don't, exactly how are we supposed to separate church and state when the entire basis of rights that our system is built upon depends upon a religious concept?

quote:

---

Why do you think they chose the word Creator over, say, God?

---

I'm not of the opinion that our founders were strictly Christian. Some were atheists and many were Deists, but all were impacted by a Christian culture at the time.

Humanists of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries became more and more focused on man's reason and ability to understand truth apart from revelation, and borrowed Christian ideas about natural law (the laws that stem from God's moral character as revealed primarily in the 10 commandments and written upon the hearts of all men), removing a lot of the divine imperative and viewing it more like common sense, understood through reason and experience. However, this was still guided by a cultural understanding and belief of God being the creator and the one who implanted a sense of morality in the consciences of all people.

Even for the non-Christian Deists, God was still the creator and author of the law. They just didn't all agree that the Bible was necessary for a full understanding of natural law, but that reason and conscience bore witness to it without supernatural revelation, and therefore biblical truths about natural law could be understood apart from the Bible.

In that sense, the founders acknowledged that God, as creator, was the originator and basis for the rights that we have as human beings. They just shied away from using language that was exclusive to Christianity. This upset a lot of Christians, like the Scottish Covenantors that came to America during persecution and lobbied for the U.S. to be an overtly Christian nation (our documents acknowledging Christ as King).

While I don't personally consider the U.S. to have ever been a "Christian" nation in any formal sense, the cultural context of our founding was steeped in Christian thought and understanding.