- 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 1:08 pm to td01241
Posted on 8/11/25 at 1:08 pm to td01241
All they have to do is distinguish between religious marriages and civil unions. Most people nowadays dont even go to a church they go to their local magistrate to get married.
Marriages and civil unions should have never been classified as the same things. They are not.
Marriages and civil unions should have never been classified as the same things. They are not.
0
Posted on 8/11/25 at 1:10 pm to VOR
You mean like every case basically since Trump took office which the dissent has nearly 100% just been a chance for 3 cat ladies to screech into the void? One of which, the DEI hire who doesn’t understand biology, is so fricking stupid she’s been called out twice in formal legal opinions once by her own friend the wise Latina?
Posted on 8/11/25 at 1:12 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
t'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!"
I mean, Obergfell literally relied heavily on Loving, for good reason.
It's not about gotchas. Loving opened the door. Now, if you're arguing Loving is woke nonsense, feel free.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 1:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
In 2025 yes it is woke nonsense. We no longer need legal protections for mixed race marriages. They happen all the time naturally and no one bats an eye. Hell my GF of 11 years is a 4’11 Cuban because they’re based women who aren’t insufferable feminist
Posted on 8/11/25 at 1:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
The USSC being asked to overturn a case is close to a nothing burger.
The case is being argued by Liberty Council who've presented and won cases before SCOTUS.
Just curious..... How many cases have you presented to SCOTUS and won?
quote:
That has nothing to do with my comment
Of course it does! For myself and others...
You said this is a "nothing burger". I pointed out the folks arguing the case in front of SCOTUS are competent and have actually won cases before SCOTUS. Obviously, these folks don't see this as a nothing burger.
So, why should we put any stock in your legal opinion of this issue?
Posted on 8/11/25 at 1:19 pm to td01241
quote:
We no longer need legal protections for mixed race marriages. They happen all the time naturally and no one bats an eye.
No one bats an eye until they see an interracial couple in a laundry detergent commercial.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 1:20 pm to Esquire
That’s propaganda. An entirely different thing. Commercials would have you believe every married straight couple in the west is a white woman and a black man when they’re actually an incredibly small %
This post was edited on 8/11/25 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 8/11/25 at 1:23 pm to Azkiger
quote:
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.
This is staggering in a drunken stupor of religious neutrality myth. Are you suggesting we should condone child sacrifice and prayers offered to Molech?
Posted on 8/11/25 at 1:24 pm to Azkiger
quote:
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.
This is staggering in a drunken stupor of religious neutrality myth. Are you suggesting we should condone child sacrifice and prayers offered to Molech?
Posted on 8/11/25 at 1:25 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Glad you're on the record as saying there's no freedom from religion.
Our constitution makes no effort to provide you with freedom FROM religion.
Freedom FROM religion was never the intent.
This post was edited on 8/11/25 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 8/11/25 at 1:32 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
You said this is a "nothing burger".
The status of requesting a writ with the USSC is close to a nothing burger. Over 97% of writ requests are denied. Who requests them doesn't change the odds.
quote:
I pointed out the folks arguing the case in front of SCOTUS are competent and have actually won cases before SCOTUS
And they just lost unanimously at the appellate level, with 2 of the judges being appointed by GOP Presidents.
quote:
So, why should we put any stock in your legal opinion of this issue?
Just read the quotes from the article I posted about the appellate case.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 1:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Obergfell literally relied heavily on Loving,
Correct
quote:
good reason.
Incorrect
Posted on 8/11/25 at 1:55 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Who shoved it into the government in the first place?
The Founding Fathers.
Unless you can give me a secular humanistic basis for "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights..."
This post was edited on 8/11/25 at 1:59 pm
Posted on 8/11/25 at 1:58 pm to Esquire
quote:
So we should make divorce illegal again.
When was divorce ever illegal?
quote:
Allowing no-fault divorces was the real start of the slippery slope we are on.
Actually it was feminism, but your point is taken. No fault divorces just helped feminism do its work.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 2:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
Isn’t Loving a rather obvious equal protection case post Brown v Board in that it addresses a racial distinction? I can see Thomas viewing it differently.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 2:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Now, if you're arguing Loving is woke nonsense, feel free.
Are you arguing that had obergefell failed, the resulting ruling would have overturned Loving?
I assume not. So why would overturning obergefell require overturning Loving?
Posted on 8/11/25 at 2:05 pm to kingbob
quote:
that should NEVER be legal like polygamy, bestiality, and incest.
Why should those things never be legalized?
For example, if two adult brothers wanted to get married, what would be the societal harm in allowing it?
Gay marriage is always argued on the basis of, "Consenting adults," "equal rights," and "they aren't hurting you."
Two adult brothers checks all of those boxes. So would a father and adult daughter if one or both had been sterilized. Etc.
Why don't they deserve equal rights to love who they want to?
Likewise, why not six women married to one guy? Or two men and three woman all marries to each other. Again, it checks the same boxes as allowing gays to marry.
Posted on 8/11/25 at 2:05 pm to td01241
quote:
So why are you commenting in a thread you’re actively admitting you aren’t even putting in the most minimal effort into looking into the OP?
to:SLOWFLOWPRO
Seriously, where have you been?Posted on 8/11/25 at 2:07 pm to RohanGonzales
I’ve been here since 2012 I know his MO well lol. Still deserves to be called out
Posted on 8/11/25 at 2:13 pm to td01241
The jews who blackmail the justices on the court would like nothing more than a homo revolt in these USA
Page 8 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News