- 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 10:42 am to Bourre
Posted on 8/11/25 at 10:42 am to Bourre
quote:
The government should not be in the marriage business. The government should recognize civil unions and leave marriage to the churches
This line of thinking is how trannies became mainstream.
0
Posted on 8/11/25 at 10:42 am to TwoFace
quote:
Just in time to frick up midterms.
Yep
No diff than overturning the abortion thing last time. There are NO coincidences.
Both sides are in on it.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 10:44 am to td01241
Oh, geez. Nutjob Rosie O'Donnell is already tweeting out insane messages like "Blackout the system." Her head might LITERALLY explode if she hears about this.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 10:44 am to SlowFlowPro
I've always said that religious conservatives and the Republicans in particular opened themselves up to things like Obergefell when they passed DOMA. Which essentially incorporated marriage onto the federal level by Congress going on record and defining marriage. Once that happened, Congress created an avenue for advocates of Gay Marriage to attack. They essentially created a class.
But this is nothing more than Kim Davis wanting a few bucks. Guarantee if you showed up at her door this morning with 350K cash and a release, she'd take the money and sign the release.
But this is nothing more than Kim Davis wanting a few bucks. Guarantee if you showed up at her door this morning with 350K cash and a release, she'd take the money and sign the release.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 10:51 am to SlowFlowPro
"I want to see Clarence Thomas revisit Loving v. Virginia, which he curiously left out of his concurrence in Dobbs."
Wasn't Loving decided on both equal protection and substantive due process grounds, such that it is not as problematic (in terms of legal reasoning, I am not talking about the result) as Griswold? I do remember people piling on Thomas for not listing Loving because he is married to a white woman, but isn't Loving different?
Wasn't Loving decided on both equal protection and substantive due process grounds, such that it is not as problematic (in terms of legal reasoning, I am not talking about the result) as Griswold? I do remember people piling on Thomas for not listing Loving because he is married to a white woman, but isn't Loving different?
This post was edited on 8/11/25 at 10:57 am
Posted on 8/11/25 at 10:56 am to SlowFlowPro
With Congress providing cover with DOMA. If Congress does not pass DOMA, you don't get Obergefell.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 10:57 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
I literally argued how insane it was to use loving for obergefell when the case was before the court , because it is.
Why would Loving not be the chosen precedent to rely on?
This all goes back to Griswold, anyway, which is why Thomas referenced it in his concurrence in Dobbs
quote:
The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)1*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of Thomas, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66.
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (Thomas, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.
Why did he leave out Loving, is the question, as it's another SDP case in the progeny of Griswold.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 10:58 am to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
Wasn't Loving decided on both equal protection and substantive due process grounds
So was Ogberfell
Posted on 8/11/25 at 10:59 am to td01241
I dont know about the 90% data. And honestly, i wouldnt suspect any of the gay people i know to be kid diddlers. That seems to be more trans people, who can easily pretend to be whatever gender to get married. Hell, it seems like half the dudes in livingston parish are kid diddlers based off of the recent sting operations.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 11:05 am to td01241
I hope they don't overturn the result of Obergefell, but I would like to see them clean up some of the language used in the majority opinion which could be used to justify all nature of things that should NEVER be legal like polygamy, bestiality, and incest. While I liked the result of Obergefell (a clear, bright line legalization of same sex marriage), the legal scholar in me saw the means of how the majority accomplished that as a slippery slope to a lot of potentially messed up things becoming legal.
In an ideal world, no government would have a say in marriage because no government would have any reason to care whether someone is married or not (i.e. no property or income taxes, no insurance, and no entitlement systems), but in the current world, having some states recognize same sex marriage and others not recognize it was a very lousy system even if it was the Constitutionally correct one. Personally, I would want my state to legalize it (something that NEVER would have happened), so I didn't mind the standardization granting a universal right nationwide.
In an ideal world, no government would have a say in marriage because no government would have any reason to care whether someone is married or not (i.e. no property or income taxes, no insurance, and no entitlement systems), but in the current world, having some states recognize same sex marriage and others not recognize it was a very lousy system even if it was the Constitutionally correct one. Personally, I would want my state to legalize it (something that NEVER would have happened), so I didn't mind the standardization granting a universal right nationwide.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 11:21 am to udtiger
There is a bunch of data that has shown support for overturning Obergefell, or as the question is usually asked just overturning legalizing gay marriage, has shown a strong correlation in rising alongside the more the they thems impressed themselves onto society.
Its above 50% nationwide now, which is more than abortion.
Its above 50% nationwide now, which is more than abortion.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 11:23 am to theliontamer
Matt walsh just did a video recently on gay people adopting kids. I think I was being slightly hyperbolic with 90% but its somewhere in the 80% that they choose boys, and again we all know why.
It might not necessarily be in all cases they want to rape them, although this has happened even very recently in GA, but it seems highly likely many want to groom them into being gay themselves.
It might not necessarily be in all cases they want to rape them, although this has happened even very recently in GA, but it seems highly likely many want to groom them into being gay themselves.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 11:27 am to TwoFace
quote:
Just in time to frick up midterms.
It's almost like the Republicans want to lose
Posted on 8/11/25 at 11:37 am to theliontamer
quote:
I don't really see an issue with gay marriage. I think everyone should have a partner/spouse that they share and build a life with. And it makes sense in the current world that even same sex couples need healthcare benefits, life insurance payouts, and ability to serve their partner in times of need.
Said everyone who denied the concept of the slippery slope applied to this issue 15 years ago.
It's one thing to deny it when the effects are theoretical. It's quite another to deny it now that the slippery slope has produced effects in reality right before our eyes that are worse than anything anybody predicted back then.
You're not denying that mayhem will ensue. You're somehow ignoring the fact that it already has.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 11:44 am to td01241
Gotta do this after midterms if republicans want a shot at keeping power,
Would ensure Dems winning
Would ensure Dems winning
Posted on 8/11/25 at 11:45 am to td01241
quote:
It might not necessarily be in all cases they want to rape them, although this has happened even very recently in GA, but it seems highly likely many want to groom them into being gay themselves.
It's probably a combination of both. A lot of homosexuals are most definitely peds and are attracted to young kids.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 11:47 am to td01241
I'll be praying that this is overturned.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 11:47 am to td01241
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.
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.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 11:50 am to td01241
Marriage is a State issue just like abortion. If Roe was overturned, Obergefell should be as well.
The Supreme Court always said marriage was a State issue and then suddenly a woke Court said it wasn’t. Before they were extremely reluctant to touch family law issues and left it all up to the States.
The Supreme Court always said marriage was a State issue and then suddenly a woke Court said it wasn’t. Before they were extremely reluctant to touch family law issues and left it all up to the States.
This post was edited on 8/11/25 at 11:51 am
Posted on 8/11/25 at 11:51 am to UptownJoeBrown
quote:
The Supreme Court always said marriage was a State issue and then suddenly a woke Court said it wasn’t.
In Loving v. VA, not Obergefell
Page 5 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News