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

There is no “gay marriage,” there’s just “marriage.” It’s a civil contract. Any opposition to marriage between two consenting adults is a problem with the objector, not a problem with the civil contract that is marriage.

quote:

---

Any opposition to marriage between two consenting adults is a problem with the objector

---

Well, in the case of two consenting adult brothers or three consenting adult woman and two men who want to get married, the objector is the state.

Now what?

This is as stupid as Miss Lindsey proposing an amendment to outlaw abortion right before midterms.

quote:

---

s meaning gays could only be married in 15 states.

---

but they have to be recognized in all…

quote:

---

I would even challenge that conclusion.

Remember, the states ratified the Constitution. The federal government was established by the states, not the other way around. The states were what legitimized the federal government. Not the other way around.

At that time, if I am not mistaken, every single state charter had very strong language affirming not just vague Deist language, but very specific Christian language, with some of them going so far as to use the words "Jesus Christ" in their charters

---

I get that and actually agree that most of the colonies considered themselves Christian in a very formal sense, as their charters testified to with the overt language regarding the Christian faith. However, that language was not included in the federal/national Constitution.

In that formal sense, I don't believe we were founded as a Christian nation. The colonies were individualistic and not part of one nation with one governing document (thus the U.S. Constitution) prior to the unionization.

I will say, though, that the state charters are an evidence that the 1st amendment didn't outlaw states being overtly Christian, as it seems today. Ratification of the U.S. Constitution did not automatically mean that the newly-formed states had to change their charters, including any religious tests they had. They did change them over time to follow the language of the U.S. Constitution, but they weren't compelled to do so, which would have been the case if the founders interpreted the 1A the way a lot of anti-religion people do today.

quote:

---

Wait. It seems like this is primarily about the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and is almost only tangentially related to Obergefell, ie, if Obergefell is deemed invalid, her actions would not violate any constitutional right, nullifying the basis for the suit and damages, but doesn't actually challenge Obergfell directly. Am I off base?

---

I think she has to challenge Obergfell because her actions in her capacity as clerk don’t fall under the first and the court isn’t going to take the case to review that

She is going to have to argue Obergerfell is wrong and this retroactively she never should have had to issue the marraige license.

But I don’t think that’s even an argument. The law at the time was pretty clear and she refused to do her duty.

idk if the court will take a civil case and retroactively change their own decision because someone didn’t follow it.

If the SCOTUS wants to take this case it will be solely because they want to overturn Obergerfell.

quote:

---

Which God though

---

The only true God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

quote:

---

Again, unless someone thinks it's reasonable that they meant aliens or some other non-Divine Being, it doesn't change the logic regardless of which word they used

---

How about a divine being that may or may not be God?

The identity doesn't matter if all you care about is defining the rights in question.

quote:

---

Support for overturning gay marriage has ticked up above 50% nationally

---

Poll? Thought it was around 25-30%.

I must have mis remembered the number being that high I think I was conflating Republican support with national support on the whole. What I believe I was referencing was a Gallup poll done in may. I’ll link the news week article discussing below but here’s some quotes

quote:

---

The poll also found that while 64 percent of Americans considered gay relations to be morally acceptable, only 38 percent of Republicans shared that view—marking a decline from 2022, when 56 percent of Republicans believed homosexuality was morally acceptable.

---

quote:

---

Among Democrats, 86 percent believed it is morally acceptable, and 69 percent of independents held that view.

---

I think if you combine these numbers and if these trends continue over time where support is declining it’s likely currrntly support is like around high 50s in % to very low 60s like 57-63%ish.

Newsweek

So yeah I was overestimating my thoughts but it appears you were underestimating it

The end of the article also discussed the various ways people have been increasingly pushing for Obergefell to be overturned