- 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 12:20 pm to td01241
Posted on 8/11/25 at 12:20 pm to td01241
No one opposed to gay "marriage" was saying they didn't think that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to do the legal thing. Call it civil unions or some sort of legal partnership to do the health insurance, beneficiary thing.
Just don't call it "marriage", because by definition it cannot be.
Just don't call it "marriage", because by definition it cannot be.
2
Posted on 8/11/25 at 12:25 pm to Esquire
Pretty sure i saw a stat for divorce rates by sex.
Man+man=~25% divorce rate.
Man+woman=~50% divorce rates.
Woman+woman=~75% divorce rates.
Spousal abuse rates followed a similar pattern.
I'm spotting a trend.
Man+man=~25% divorce rate.
Man+woman=~50% divorce rates.
Woman+woman=~75% divorce rates.
Spousal abuse rates followed a similar pattern.
I'm spotting a trend.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 12:28 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
No one opposed to gay "marriage" was saying they didn't think that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to do the legal thing. Call it civil unions or some sort of legal partnership to do the health insurance, beneficiary thing.
Just don't call it "marriage", because by definition it cannot be.
It seems no matter what you don't get your way.
Keep marriage a state issue? Gotta allow gays because the state can't discrimination.
Remove marriage from the states power? Now it's toothless and churches can still marry gay people, so you're back to square one having to shout at the rest of society that gays can't get married while they are, in fact, getting married. Who cares if your church doesn't recognize it?
This post was edited on 8/11/25 at 12:29 pm
Posted on 8/11/25 at 12:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
That's because of DOMA
Posted on 8/11/25 at 12:32 pm to td01241
Terrible timing yet again. Just hand the left a life raft in a storm
Posted on 8/11/25 at 12:35 pm to td01241
quote:government just needs to get out of the marriage game all together. Find another vehicle for 2,3,4,5, however many people to combine property and assets and call it a day.
Supreme Court being formally asked to overturn Obergefell; gay marriage will fall
Posted on 8/11/25 at 12:35 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Terrible timing yet again.
Naw. You don't need to worry about this case.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 12:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
So when or if it comes before the court in the fall will you self ban?
Posted on 8/11/25 at 12:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Also Tim Pool is being over-dramatic.
Probably still getting paid by the Russians
Posted on 8/11/25 at 12:43 pm to thejuiceisloose
Was this ever actually confirmed or just alleged by woke freaks? I have a feeling if it had been confirmed he would’ve been banned from all platforms like Lauren Chen was, who actually was proven to have been essentially a Russian asset, whereas other people associated with her company tenet like Tim and Matt Christianson have been banned from nothing
Posted on 8/11/25 at 12:43 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
No one opposed to gay "marriage" was saying they didn't think that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to do the legal thing. Call it civil unions or some sort of legal partnership to do the health insurance, beneficiary thing.
This is patently false.
Before Obergefell, 2000-2014, Gallup, Pew, ABC polling at the time showed support for Civil Unions anywhere between 45-60% among Americans. So that’s quite a lot of Americans at the time who didn’t want gays to even be able to do the “legal thing” as you say.
That’s not even addressing the fact that Civil Unions did not provide gay couples the same benefits and protections as marriages (Federally speaking). Often times expensive legal documents had to be drawn up, and even then, these still did not offer the same protections.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 12:43 pm to td01241
quote:
So when or if it comes before the court in the fall will you self ban?
No. WTF
Did you just try to make me do a one-sided ban bet? With no upside?
Posted on 8/11/25 at 12:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
It was worth a shot
Posted on 8/11/25 at 12:46 pm to td01241
quote:
like Lauren Chen was, who actually was proven to have been essentially a Russian asset,
I’ve been told the Russians dont engage in this kind of chicanery and anyone suggesting otherwise is committing treason.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 12:49 pm to boosiebadazz
I don’t think anyone serious ever actually said the Russians don’t do anything like that. It’s been known that like to meddle about in our politics and cause a bit of chaos specifically online.
What’s denied and we all knew from the beginning of the hoax is that Russia was somehow capable of hacking our machines or in anyway in league with Donald Trump, when they’re the ones who actually hacked Hilary’s emails meaning they actually had the means to blackmail her, not Orange.
On a side note I used to really really like Lauren Chen. I felt duped when it came out what she was. She even refused to testify in court her actual name was Lauren Chen . She’s still fricking hot though.
What’s denied and we all knew from the beginning of the hoax is that Russia was somehow capable of hacking our machines or in anyway in league with Donald Trump, when they’re the ones who actually hacked Hilary’s emails meaning they actually had the means to blackmail her, not Orange.
On a side note I used to really really like Lauren Chen. I felt duped when it came out what she was. She even refused to testify in court her actual name was Lauren Chen
. She’s still fricking hot though. This post was edited on 8/11/25 at 12:57 pm
Posted on 8/11/25 at 12:49 pm to UptownJoeBrown
quote:
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.
In 2022 Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act, which requires all states to recognize the validity of same sex marriages. It is a federal issue
Posted on 8/11/25 at 12:53 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Would be as unconstitutional as obergefell.
I guess you are saying that the feds can't dictate to the states concerning powers not granted to the feds? If so, that ship sailed long ago. It's possible scotus could enforce that, and a proper reading of the constitution would support that, but it would greatly surprise me.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 1:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
Clarence Thomas has expressed disdain for Substantive Due Process cases, in general.
But I’m not sure that SCOTUS will go so far as to overturn. It could be a close case that upholds, but gives the dissent a chance to vent together frustration…
But I’m not sure that SCOTUS will go so far as to overturn. It could be a close case that upholds, but gives the dissent a chance to vent together frustration…
Posted on 8/11/25 at 1:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why would Loving not be the chosen precedent to rely on?
It's the only thing that would be chosen. So the idiots could claim "its a civil rights issue just like interracial marriage and only the bigots would disagree reeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"
Posted on 8/11/25 at 1:05 pm to td01241
Los Angeles Tiger (who was gay) was against this. He said civil unions were recognized by many states and the couples had pretty much the same benefits as married couples had. The left just wanted to do everything they could to destroy traditional values and dilute the meaning of marriage.
Page 7 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News