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

States should be sued if they discriminate. Unless they don't tax homosexuals.

I’m not a Christian dumbass. Not religious at all. Although I do recognize the importance of the church in society as a pillar for a strong moral country.

I oppose gay marriage for the same reason I oppose the legalization of weed, both retroactively as I got older and learned. The slippery slope isn’t an argumentative fallacy but an objective fact. In the case of the former, it was used as a Trojan horse to bring the fusion of post modernism and gender ideology into the mainstream (which luckily is largely being yeeted back to thinnest edges of the margins where it belongs but still persists.) and the latter has resulted in our cities becoming reminiscent of zombie movies

quote:

---

Also as things currently stand if it’s returned to the states like Roe 35 states currently have marriage equality ban laws meaning gays could only be married in 15 states.

---

I’m not sure that’s how that’s going to work.

Unlikely the USSC overturns Obergefell for this. Unlike Roe, Obergefell was decided on Equal Protection clause and Due Process clause of the 14th.

Roe only had Due Process (for privacy) which even RBG said was very shaky legal grounds.

The majority in the Dobbs decision explicitly said that ruling would not impact Obergefell. Only Thomas has said he’d like to revisit it, but none of the other justices have said so.

quote:

---

This SC is certainly going to come down 5-4 and just like with Roe say if you want gay marriage legal, pass it in the legislature. Expected to take this up in the fall

---

This will be good to get scotus from making bad decisions, but rinos helped the dem solidify it into fed law.

The kicker about the case is how it overturned the vote of the people. So democrats really have no ability to speak about “mUh democracy” and importance of voting.

quote:

---

I’m not a Christian dumbass.

---

That was more aimed at the entire thread, not you specifically. My mistake for not making that clear.

quote:

---

Although I do recognize the importance of the church in society as a pillar for a strong moral country.

---

Same. There should still be a wall separating church and state, though.

quote:

---

I oppose gay marriage for the same reason I oppose the legalization of weed, both retroactively as I got older and learned. The slippery slope isn’t an argumentative fallacy but an objective fact. In the case of the former, it was used as a Trojan horse to bring the fusion of post modernism and gender ideology into the mainstream (which luckily is largely being yeeted back to thinnest edges of the margins where it belongs but still persists.) and the latter has resulted in our cities becoming reminiscent of zombie movies

---

There are always extremists that want more, so every political move could be labeled as a "slippery slope". Example: want to increase police funding? Slippery slope to the militarization of the police force because some radicals want that increase in funding plus more.

Gays (5ish% of the pop--and not all of which supported that crap)alone didn't make all of the post modernism and gender ideology policies possible. Many more heterosexuals backed it too.

I agree.

We should wield power unapologetically to do what we believe is right, not shy away from it out of fear of losing. Acting without the conviction of your morals and principles is how you lose, just look at the democrats. It maybe yield short term benefits but it’s very fake and people can see through it.

Now arguing on if doing this is the morally right thing to do or not is a completely separate argument that’s not related to the above. I think I’ve made my stance on it clear though

quote:

---

That was more aimed at the entire thread, not you specifically. My mistake for not making that clear

---

Apologies for being a bit rude with the dumbass comment. Thanks for the thoughtful reply

quote:

---

Can you point to said Law stating this WALL? No, you can't.

Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion. The tenet of the Freedom of Religion was simply nothing more than the forbidance of their being one governmental religion. To insure no Church of England scenario.

---

If you want to keep slamming your dick in a door I'm not going to stop you. Just telling you how things went.

Glad you're on the record as saying there's no freedom from religion. I'll remember that when Minnesota state Reps start opening government meetings with Muslim prayers.

quote:

---

blacks hate gays.

---

And Jews, and Asians, blacks really are just racists against everyone on a macro scale. Ofc there are individual good blacks but my god my young scholar fatigue is at all time highs

quote:

---

A lot (and I mean A LOT) of gay marriages have ended in very very messy divorces.

---

So we should make divorce illegal again. Allowing no-fault divorces was the real start of the slippery slope we are on.