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

[Independentthinker]

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.

In your post you seem to acknowledge that if the law and the Constitution were followed, it is the states which have that authority and not the federal government. I'm not going to take a stand one way or the other but, aren't you admitting that if the federal courts did their jobs (including the Supreme Court), the federal government doesn't really have a say in this? Are you saying that you don't want the federal court system to make decisions solely based on law?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?".

States could only recognize marriage or not. There is not one state I'm aware of where gay marriage was illegal. If you find a religion willing to marry you, then you are married under the eyes of that religion. There was not one Republican entering the church or court house to stop it.

 

[ColonelAngus]

On a personal note, I have no problem with gay marriage.

Seems to me the LGB community should be allowed to be dumb enough to willingly bring the government into their personal lives as hetero couples are.

Also, more work for divorce attorneys.

Go right ahead and make your lives more complicated.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Court decisions should have nothing to do with politics. The job of the SC is to judge whether law was followed or not or if an issue is constitutional. Nowhere in the document will you find the word marriage. They don't make judgements based on the effects on society, the changing attitudes of the public, Democrat or Republican support. Either the Constitution supports X or it doesn't.

Too many times the court has not done that. Roe is a good example. Like marriage, abortion is not in the Constitution nor discussed in debate of any amendment. Church and state another one. It's not in there.

If we are going to change the Constitution without an amendment process for our likes and dislikes, then what's the point in having a Constitution in the first place?

 

[Missourian]

I agree with the OP.

While I don't agree with gay marriage personally...I can see an equal protection argument in favor of gay marriage.

I opposed it.... But it happened, and the world didn't come to an end. What's done is done and should not be undone.

This is exactly the type of decision that test the truth of the convictions of our Republic... that the majority cannot force their convictions on the minority.

If they love their partner as much as I love my wife... we shouldn't get in their way.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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'll make a deal stop with the pride bullshit. Gay parade and trying to change children and you can keep gay marriage.

 

[BS Filter]

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 understand your reasoning, but it's political reasoning. The Supreme Court is supposed to be apolitical.

 

[JohnDB]

I understand your reasoning, but it's political reasoning. The Supreme Court is supposed to be apolitical.

Rights not reserved for the federal government as expressly stated by the constitution are reserved and wholly owned by the individual states.

Which includes such things as Sodomy laws and marriage licensing.

Everyone likes to make fun of West Virginia because they don't have any laws restricting incestuous marriages. (Not that I'm suggesting that they actually have any....I mean ewwww....who actually does that?)
But they never seen the need to actually make such laws in that state. They can or they might not....it's their right to control such things. They have the right to control their citizens in this respect without having the Federal government step in and tell them what they can or can't do.

In some states you can't turn right on red...in other states you can. All a matter of state controlled traffic laws.

 

[chesswarsnow]

One could argue gay marriage led to tranny pedophiles doing drag shows for children in public and a ruination of American society.

What did gay marriage allow? It allowed a normalization of gays and acceptance of gays. What happened then? Well with social media and the internet people became more desperate for attention, to feel like they were different, to stand out and so on and being gay wasn't enough anymore you had to be a tranny. And with feelings being the current generations primary motivation a bunch of pussy ass bitches started being trannies and super fags for attention.

So they very very rapidly shot up, faster than any other weirdo group did. So now it allows a rise in something more, freakzoid fags into kids. There is a reason why pedophiles are being murmured about more in the public. The more immoral behavior you allow the more there will be. All the extreme perverts and sickos are slowly coming out now because we are normalizing it all.

That's how we ended up with shit like this.



Or incredibly smart, savvy, people like Jordan Peterson banned and censored because they say a man pretending to be a woman isn't really a woman.

Men pretending to be women compete and beat actual women in their sports.

People support giving hormone blockers to children and surgeries.

And so on. Maybe legalizing gay marriage was the start of it all. When you allow something that is immoral is there will be a lot more of it to follow.

If someone is gay, I don't care because it has nothing to do with me. I'm just talking is all and opening up something to consider.

Sorry bout that,

1. Give an inch they want a mile.
2. Some pedophile ( Billy Boy Dingus), allowed fags to marry, then this other crap comes forward, with dreams to be accepted.
3. Resnic has touched the edge of the iceberg.
4. Cold hard truth, unless we restore what used to be USA stays a sewer.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[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.

Sorry. You have to take a stand on what is morally right. It's not even a marriage when gays get together. Marriage implies copulation which is impossible here.

This is why libertarianism falls short. It ignores necessary rules regarding human behavior.

"Do what is right, and you can't go wrong."

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

It isn't so much alienation of a particular group of people as it would be an accurate read of the law and what the Constitution says. The court isn't supposed to be here to please people, it is supposed to provide objective guidance on laws that do or do not stay within constitutional bounds.

My question is this:

Do we alienate the law to appease feelings, or, do we appease the law to alienate feelings?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Sorry. You have to take a stand on what is morally right. It's not even a marriage when gays get together. Marriage implies copulation which is impossible here.

This is why libertarianism falls short. It ignores necessary rules regarding human behavior.

"Do what is right, and you can't go wrong."

I'll buy that, when you - Mashmont - can explain why the morality of Mashmont is by definition more correct than the morality of me - Seymour.

The rules necessary regarding human behavior are those which prevent us from violating each other's rights. If we're not doing that, then each of us can decide moral issues on our own, as equal human beings.

 

[Leviticus]

The right to marry is a constitutional right. There is no legitimate reason to exempt same sex couples from exercising this right.

 

[22lcidw]

The right to marry is a constitutional right. There is no legitimate reason to exempt same sex couples from exercising this right.

We diminished Hetero marriages to achieve this. Marriage is work. It is not a joke. We made it so.

 

[Leviticus]

The Republans don't care what the constitution says. They will enforce their ideals no matter what so goodbye gay marriage, hello gay deathcamps.

And you should all be prepared for the court to though ou other rights as well, especially if Trump wins in 2024. No more protesting.....a single state approved press. Manditory PROTESTANT christianity with atheists, jews, catholics, Muslims Mormons, etc being thrown into the death camps with the gays.

 

[Leviticus]

We diminished Hetero marriages to achieve this. Marriage is work. It is not a joke. We made it so.

Name one single way that a gay couple marrying has a negative effect on your marriage.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Name one single way that a gay couple marrying has a negative effect on your marriage.

it's really not about how it affects anybody. It's just a social standard some people don't want. As you might imagine from my avatar, I spend a lot of time in gun discussions. People on the left complaining all the time about us having guns. It doesn't affect their lives any, they just don't like us having them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Republans don't care what the constitution says. They will enforce their ideals no matter what so goodbye gay marriage, hello gay deathcamps.

And you should all be prepared for the court to though ou other rights as well, especially if Trump wins in 2024. No more protesting.....a single state approved press. Manditory PROTESTANT christianity with atheists, jews, catholics, Muslims Mormons, etc being thrown into the death camps with the gays.

You forgot about us bringing back slavery and gassing the Jews.

 

[martybegan]

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.

My only issue with Obergfell is it forced States to ISSUE SSM licenses, it could have just forced them to recognize out of state SSM licenses like full faith and credit requires States to already do so with heterosexual marriages.

That's why the current law being passed by the House doesn't bother me, because all it does is make States recognize existing or future SSM licenses, it doesn't make them issue them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The right to marry is a constitutional right. There is no legitimate reason to exempt same sex couples from exercising this right.

Show me where the word "marriage" appears anywhere in the Constitution.