Conservatives, I implore you: Do not use the Dobbs case as a springboard to get gay marriage banned

[Seymour Flops]

Here's my reasoning: The Obergefell case, making it mandatory for states to recognize gay marriage has little basis in the constitution, I get that. States have always had the power to regulate marriage, with little interference from the federal government. But I am still glad the court decided it that way for two reasons:

1 - as a libertarian, I believe that people should be able to marry who they choose, as long as both adults, or reasonably close. The states would have been very slow in granting that right protection. Yes, I believe marrying the person that you choose is a natural right, and so it would arguably be in the penumbra of rights in the constitution.

2 - If Obergefell is overturned by what I proudly call the Trump court that overturned Roe, the left will have some justification for their claim that the court is being activist by ignoring precedent.

3 - If Obergefell is overturned, many states will recognize same-sex marriage on their own. Then the "full faith and credit" clause will force the most conservative of states to accept marriages licensed in California, just as states with an 18 year old minimum age must accept marriages licensed in states with a 16 year old minimum age.

If Obergefell is overturned, the left gains new ammo. Deep in their leftie hearts, they always knew that abortion rights are not in the constitution. Their anger at the Dobbs decision is not borne of shock, but of the final eventuality of what they knew was coming.

Don't give them ammo, and alienate gay conservatives, which could lead to court stacking that could bring Roe right back.

 

[Mashmont]

Here's my reasoning: The Obergefell case, making it mandatory for states to recognize gay marriage has little basis in the constitution, I get that. States have always had the power to regulate marriage, with little interference from the federal government. But I am still glad the court decided it that way for two reasons:

1 - as a libertarian, I believe that people should be able to marry who they choose, as long as both adults, or reasonably close. The states would have been very slow in granting that right protection. Yes, I believe marrying the person that you choose is a natural right, and so it would arguably be in the penumbra of rights in the constitution.

2 - If Obergefell is overturned by what I proudly call the Trump court that overturned Roe, the left will have some justification for their claim that the court is being activist by ignoring precedent.

3 - If Obergefell is overturned, many states will recognize same-sex marriage on their own. Then the "full faith and credit" clause will force the most conservative of states to accept marriages licensed in California, just as states with an 18 year old minimum age must accept marriages licensed in states with a 16 year old minimum age.

If Obergefell is overturned, the left gains new ammo. Deep in their leftie hearts, they always knew that abortion rights are not in the constitution. Their anger at the Dobbs decision is not borne of shock, but of the final eventuality of what they knew was coming.

Don't give them ammo, and alienate gay conservatives, which could lead to court stacking that could bring Roe right back.

Gay marriage is immoral and ultimately will be overturned for that reason. Hopefully, soon.

 

[Vastator]

Here's my reasoning: The Obergefell case, making it mandatory for states to recognize gay marriage has little basis in the constitution, I get that. States have always had the power to regulate marriage, with little interference from the federal government. But I am still glad the court decided it that way for two reasons:

1 - as a libertarian, I believe that people should be able to marry who they choose, as long as both adults, or reasonably close. The states would have been very slow in granting that right protection. Yes, I believe marrying the person that you choose is a natural right, and so it would arguably be in the penumbra of rights in the constitution.

2 - If Obergefell is overturned by what I proudly call the Trump court that overturned Roe, the left will have some justification for their claim that the court is being activist by ignoring precedent.

3 - If Obergefell is overturned, many states will recognize same-sex marriage on their own. Then the "full faith and credit" clause will force the most conservative of states to accept marriages in California, just as states with an 18 year old minimum age must accept marriages licensed in states with a 16 year old minimum age.

If Obergefell is overturned, the left gains new ammo. Deep in their leftie hearts, they always knew that abortion rights are not in the constitution. Their anger at the Dobbs decision is not borne of shock, but of the final eventuality of what they knew was coming.

Don't give them ammo, and alienate gay conservatives, which could lead to court stacking that could bring Roe right back.

Marriage is a bad contract anyway; so who gives a shot? Modern marriage is a farce. And not even a real marriage at all in the West. Let the faggots lose half their shit. I’d love to hear more queer divorce story outcomes. It would be hilarious!

 

[Seymour Flops]

Gay marriage is immoral and ultimately will be overturned for that reason. Hopefully, soon.

Yes, when we have "morality court" instead of "court of law."

 

[Mashmont]

Yes, when we have "morality court" instead of "court of law."

You can't separate the two. If a law is immoral as slavery, abortion, and gay marriage, it has to fall. It's just the way it works. The first two fell. The last one will fall.

 

[Blackrook]

Who are these "gay conservatives" you speak of?

If I went on safari in Africa, might I spot one?

 

[Vastator]

Yes, when we have "morality court" instead of "court of law."

As long as the “family court” exists… You’re in no danger of a “Morality Court” coming into play…

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. No to the, Hell No!
2. Its got to end!
3. Get your fag asses back in the closets.
4. Its decaying our society.
5. Whats more important, society or fags feelings?
6. Sure we tried to see if it would work for many years, now they want the children, I say no.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[DGS49]

Wake-up call...

The Federal Government CANNOT prevent the states from recognizing gay marriage. The Feds have no role in family law. Nothing done at the federal level could ever void existing gay marriages.

Under the "full faith and credit" provision, EVERY state MUST recognize marriages that are legally created in any other state. If one state decided that it would not permit gay marriages under its jurisdiction, that state would still have to recognize marriages that were legally performed in other states.

What Obergefell did was create a "Constitutional" argument to guarantee a right to marry someone of your same gender, nationally. But it was and remains bullshit.

In order for a case to come up before the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell, some state agency would have to sue a gay couple in court to have their marriage annulled.

AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

There are many Leftist politicians who fear the November mid-term elections, and one of the dozens of nonsense threats they are repeating is that "gay marriage is vulnerable," or some such bullshit.

It is nonsense.

 

[fncceo]

Conservatives, I implore you: Do not use the Dobbs case as a springboard to get gay marriage banned​

I'm not so sure this is about law anymore. It's about mutually assured destruction. A policy of which I've always been a huge supporter.

The question before the court shouldn't be if same-sex, or two sex, or group, or open marriage should be legal or illegal.

The question is ... "Why should the state have the power to dictate anything about marriage given that it is a personal choice between consenting adults?".

Marriage itself in this day and age is an antiquated concept. Originally created to provide financial security and societal cohesiveness ... today it provides neither.

Any woman, or man, who enters a marriage believing they will achieve financial security is highly deluded. The average marriage has a shorter shelf life than dried pasta and it creates more financial hardships for both parties than it provides benefits.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Wake-up call...

The Federal Government CANNOT prevent the states from recognizing gay marriage. The Feds have no role in family law. Nothing done at the federal level could ever void existing gay marriages.

Under the "full faith and credit" provision, EVERY state MUST recognize marriages that are legally created in any other state. If one state decided that it would not permit gay marriages under its jurisdiction, that state would still have to recognize marriages that were legally performed in other states.

What Obergefell did was create a "Constitutional" argument to guarantee a right to marry someone of your same gender, nationally. But it was and remains bullshit.

In order for a case to come up before the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell, some state agency would have to sue a gay couple in court to have their marriage annulled.

AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

There are many Leftist politicians who fear the November mid-term elections, and one of the dozens of nonsense threats they are repeating is that "gay marriage is vulnerable," or some such bullshit.

It is nonsense.

Yes, all of that is true and stated better than I stated it.

So, conservatives, please! Find a better cause, like the Dems ruining our children and grandchildren's economic futures.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The question before the court shouldn't be if same-sex, or two sex, or group, or open marriage should be legal or illegal.

The question is ... "Why should the state have the power to dictate anything about marriage given that it is a personal choice between consenting adults?".

Yes, as an ideological libertarian, I believe that states should have no role in "licensing" marriage. Let churches or secular groups perform marriages, or simply let a couple agree between themselves to be married.

All adults should choose their "next of kin" for things like health insurance, intestate deaths, and medical decisions.

 

[Rogue AI]

Gay marriage needs to be overturned. It was a gross overreach by the same federal government that said the federal government can't define marriage. That leaves only the states. It must return to the states.

 

[eagle7-31]

Here's my reasoning: The Obergefell case, making it mandatory for states to recognize gay marriage has little basis in the constitution, I get that. States have always had the power to regulate marriage, with little interference from the federal government. But I am still glad the court decided it that way for two reasons:

1 - as a libertarian, I believe that people should be able to marry who they choose, as long as both adults, or reasonably close. The states would have been very slow in granting that right protection. Yes, I believe marrying the person that you choose is a natural right, and so it would arguably be in the penumbra of rights in the constitution.

2 - If Obergefell is overturned by what I proudly call the Trump court that overturned Roe, the left will have some justification for their claim that the court is being activist by ignoring precedent.

3 - If Obergefell is overturned, many states will recognize same-sex marriage on their own. Then the "full faith and credit" clause will force the most conservative of states to accept marriages licensed in California, just as states with an 18 year old minimum age must accept marriages licensed in states with a 16 year old minimum age.

If Obergefell is overturned, the left gains new ammo. Deep in their leftie hearts, they always knew that abortion rights are not in the constitution. Their anger at the Dobbs decision is not borne of shock, but of the final eventuality of what they knew was coming.

Don't give them ammo, and alienate gay conservatives, which could lead to court stacking that could bring Roe right back.

Marriage is not a federal matter anymore than abortion. I was against Roe for that reason and against DOMA as well.

 

[lennypartiv]

Conservatives, I implore you: Do not use the Dobbs case as a springboard to get gay marriage banned​

Obergefell is next, then Griswold.

 

[fncceo]

Obergefell is next, then Griswold.

Nooooooo!

 

[lennypartiv]

Marriage itself in this day and age is an antiquated concept. Originally created to provide financial security and societal cohesiveness ... today it provides neither.

Too bad people don't respect marriage like they did in the fifties. Things were a whole lot better back then.

 

[fncceo]

Too bad people don't respect marriage like they did in the fifties. Things were a whole lot better back then.

I honestly don't think people respected marriage any more in the 1950's than they do today. They were just better and keeping their issues hidden...

 

[scruffy]

Here's my reasoning: The Obergefell case, making it mandatory for states to recognize gay marriage has little basis in the constitution, I get that. States have always had the power to regulate marriage, with little interference from the federal government. But I am still glad the court decided it that way for two reasons:

1 - as a libertarian, I believe that people should be able to marry who they choose, as long as both adults, or reasonably close. The states would have been very slow in granting that right protection. Yes, I believe marrying the person that you choose is a natural right, and so it would arguably be in the penumbra of rights in the constitution.

2 - If Obergefell is overturned by what I proudly call the Trump court that overturned Roe, the left will have some justification for their claim that the court is being activist by ignoring precedent.

3 - If Obergefell is overturned, many states will recognize same-sex marriage on their own. Then the "full faith and credit" clause will force the most conservative of states to accept marriages licensed in California, just as states with an 18 year old minimum age must accept marriages licensed in states with a 16 year old minimum age.

If Obergefell is overturned, the left gains new ammo. Deep in their leftie hearts, they always knew that abortion rights are not in the constitution. Their anger at the Dobbs decision is not borne of shock, but of the final eventuality of what they knew was coming.

Don't give them ammo, and alienate gay conservatives, which could lead to court stacking that could bring Roe right back.

Your logic is sound and politically sound.

I would repeat the SAME message to the righties that I delivered to the lefties: don't push the buttons.

Nix the activist bullshit.

We don't need a bunch of fucking little vigilantes running around enforcing their opinions, blowing up abortion clinics and threatening Supreme Court Justices

Use the system. Use the process. Do NOT make religious excuses. Pushing moralism will only earn you hatred.

The OP has it right. There are sound practical and ethical reasons for allowing marriage, gay or otherwise.

As a libertarian, I'm not interested in the partisan activity of crushing lefties, I'm only interested in protecting my family. Live and let live, if they want to get married who am I to say no? As long as they're not after my kids, that's all I care about.

In other words, I'm not an absolutist, but I do have boundaries. Children are one of them. If you're not messing with the kids, then you be you as far as I'm concerned.

And, what's the alternative to marriage? Hook up culture? Which is better?

 

[BackAgain]

Here's my reasoning: The Obergefell case, making it mandatory for states to recognize gay marriage has little basis in the constitution, I get that. States have always had the power to regulate marriage, with little interference from the federal government. But I am still glad the court decided it that way for two reasons:

1 - as a libertarian, I believe that people should be able to marry who they choose, as long as both adults, or reasonably close. The states would have been very slow in granting that right protection. Yes, I believe marrying the person that you choose is a natural right, and so it would arguably be in the penumbra of rights in the constitution.

2 - If Obergefell is overturned by what I proudly call the Trump court that overturned Roe, the left will have some justification for their claim that the court is being activist by ignoring precedent.

3 - If Obergefell is overturned, many states will recognize same-sex marriage on their own. Then the "full faith and credit" clause will force the most conservative of states to accept marriages licensed in California, just as states with an 18 year old minimum age must accept marriages licensed in states with a 16 year old minimum age.

If Obergefell is overturned, the left gains new ammo. Deep in their leftie hearts, they always knew that abortion rights are not in the constitution. Their anger at the Dobbs decision is not borne of shock, but of the final eventuality of what they knew was coming.

Don't give them ammo, and alienate gay conservatives, which could lead to court stacking that could bring Roe right back.

I’m a conservative. Imploring me won’t help. I’m not a legislator. To whatever limited extent I have any input into the determinations made by the elected folks, though, I agree that we should leave this win as well enough alone.