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

[miketx]

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

As opposed to the kangaroo venues now playing in a theater near you!

 

[Theowl32]

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.

Ban gay marriage period. There, made it really simple. Also, make abortion illegal and give the same punishment to anyone guilty of first degree murder. Made it even more simple.

 

[JohnDB]

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

It's the legitimacy of moral turpitude.

Coveting was once considered a vice like pride.....but now it's considered just "American "

So....homosexuality is the result of moral turpitude. Legitimizing that is harmful to those who can procreate.

 

[Seymour Flops]

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.

Yes, I've thought that for a long time. Some states allow underage kids to marry, and some don't. That is state business. States that don't allow it, still have to recognize married kids as married. The same should apply to SSM.

But now that we have Obergefell, it would be a mistake for the court to roll it back. The left is already using the talking point that the Dobbs decision was the first time that a USSC ruling took a right from people instead of granting a right. Not true, but plenty believe it. At least with Dobbs, we can say that it took the right to abortion, but gave back the right to life.

What right would overturning Obergefell give back to whom?

 

[martybegan]

Yes, I've thought that for a long time. Some states allow underage kids to marry, and some don't. That is state business. States that don't allow it, still have to recognize married kids as married. The same should apply to SSM.

But now that we have Obergefell, it would be a mistake for the court to roll it back. The left is already using the talking point that the Dobbs decision was the first time that a USSC ruling took a right from people instead of granting a right. Not true, but plenty believe it. At least with Dobbs, we can say that it took the right to abortion, but gave back the right to life.

What right would overturning Obergefell give back to whom?

It would put another nail in the coffin of Substantive due process, a progressive creation that I agree with Justice Thomas is not in the Constitution.

However, since there are maybe only 1-2 other current votes on the SC that agree with me and him, the point is currently moot.

 

[Leviticus]

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.

There are legitimate concerns dealing with guns. There is no legitimate reason for gay couples to not have the right to marry. That is why the ONLY talking point the right has is "God doesn't like it", to which I reply "Fuck you and your god. You're religious views do not dictate the rights of other people."

 

[JohnDB]

There are legitimate concerns dealing with guns. There is no legitimate reason for gay couples to not have the right to marry. That is why the ONLY talking point the right has is "God doesn't like it", to which I reply "Fuck you and your god. You're religious views do not dictate the rights of other people."

Exactly backwards.

Moral turpitude causes homosexuality and I'm never going to legitimize or revere moral turpitude.

And as far as guns go...
They are just a tool. Useful for all kinds of things. Just like a machinists lathe. You have to know how to use one before it's a Useful tool. Not everyone is capable but they are available to those interested in using one.

 

[bendog]

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.

oh come on, we need more reasons to kick these theocrat Justices to the curb.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There are legitimate concerns dealing with guns. There is no legitimate reason for gay couples to not have the right to marry. That is why the ONLY talking point the right has is "God doesn't like it", to which I reply "Fuck you and your god. You're religious views do not dictate the rights of other people."

First off there is no "right" to marriage. Secondly, WTF do you think marriage came from? It's talked about in the Old Testament. Marriage is a religious rite that the government stuck it's nose into. Third is we want to create a normal environment for our children to grow up in, not Fred and Sam tongue kissing on a park bench. It disgusts most people and children don't need to see it.

You can't force people to accept your disgusting ways even by forcing states to accept marriage which most states didn't want. It was voted on by states (including mine) and they overwhelmingly didn't want their state to accept gay marriage.

The problem started long ago when the gays insisted to be let out of the closet. Now look where it's gotten us. They are attacking normal institutions.

 

[bendog]

First off there is no "right" to marriage. Secondly, WTF do you think marriage came from? It's talked about in the Old Testament. Marriage is a religious rite that the government stuck it's nose into. Third is we want to create a normal environment for our children to grow up in, not Fred and Sam tongue kissing on a park bench. It disgusts most people and children don't need to see it.

You can't force people to accept your disgusting ways even by forcing states to accept marriage which most states didn't want. It was voted on by states (including mine) and they overwhelmingly didn't want their state to accept gay marriage.

The problem started long ago when the gays insisted to be let out of the closet. Now look where it's gotten us. They are attacking normal institutions.

actually there is.
The Court listed four distinct reasons why the fundamental right to marry applies to same-sex couples, citing United States v. Windsor in support throughout its discussion. First, "the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy."[121] Second, "the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals," a principle applying equally to same-sex couples.[122] Third, the fundamental right to marry "safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education"; as same-sex couples have children and families, they are deserving of this safeguard—though the right to marry in the United States has never been conditioned on procreation.[123] Fourth, and lastly, "marriage is a keystone of our social order," and "[t]here is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle"; consequently, preventing same-sex couples from marrying puts them at odds with society, denies them countless benefits of marriage, and introduces instability into their relationships for no justifiable reason.[124]

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of course, I personally remain hopeful the the 5 theocrat Justices plus Gorsaidwhat? remove any semblence of stare decisis that is left after Dobbs, because then true anarchy can be achieved and we'll topple Citizens United and mandate funding for elections with public forums required to give free time ....... and then we'll get rid of those pecky xian limits on Obamacare and mandate vaccinations and we could even limit how much money the rich can have .......

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

actually there is.
The Court listed four distinct reasons why the fundamental right to marry applies to same-sex couples, citing United States v. Windsor in support throughout its discussion. First, "the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy."[121] Second, "the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals," a principle applying equally to same-sex couples.[122] Third, the fundamental right to marry "safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education"; as same-sex couples have children and families, they are deserving of this safeguard—though the right to marry in the United States has never been conditioned on procreation.[123] Fourth, and lastly, "marriage is a keystone of our social order," and "[t]here is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle"; consequently, preventing same-sex couples from marrying puts them at odds with society, denies them countless benefits of marriage, and introduces instability into their relationships for no justifiable reason.[124]

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of course, I personally remain hopeful the the 5 theocrat Justices plus Gorsaidwhat? remove any semblence of stare decisis that is left after Dobbs, because then true anarchy can be achieved and we'll topple Citizens United and mandate funding for elections with public forums required to give free time ....... and then we'll get rid of those pecky xian limits on Obamacare and mandate vaccinations and we could even limit how much money the rich can have .......

The best is we do what I've been posting for years, and that is divide this country into two countries instead. We're never going to get along, and if anything, the hatred of each other will increase. We are no longer united and haven't been in decades. It's time to physically split apart and everybody would be happy.........at least those of us on the right would be.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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."

Nice opinion. Let us know when you find a fact.

 

[Lesh]

It's clear that gay marriage is next on the chopping block

 

[Leviticus]

First off there is no "right" to marriage. Secondly, WTF do you think marriage came from? It's talked about in the Old Testament. Marriage is a religious rite that the government stuck it's nose into. Third is we want to create a normal environment for our children to grow up in, not Fred and Sam tongue kissing on a park bench. It disgusts most people and children don't need to see it.

You can't force people to accept your disgusting ways even by forcing states to accept marriage which most states didn't want. It was voted on by states (including mine) and they overwhelmingly didn't want their state to accept gay marriage.

The problem started long ago when the gays insisted to be let out of the closet. Now look where it's gotten us. They are attacking normal institutions.

The right to marry was established by the supreme court. As such, unless there is a clear public policy reason to exempt same sex couples from that right, it must apply equally, per the equal treatment clause, to all consenting adults. The reason why the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage bans were unconstitutiuon was that the lawmakers failed to show that such an exemption was justified.

There are other rights that DO have legitimate public policy exemption. Gun permits are a prime example. Under the constitution, all state licenses, such as marriage licenses, must be recognized in all 50 states and all federal territories. Gun Permits were exempt from this because each state had their own requirements and policies that were often more strict or less strict depending on the state. and requiring a state to recognize gun permits from states that did not meet their requirements to receive a permit violated that state's sovereignty over their own laws.

When it came to gay marriage, the court didn't rule that homosexuality was right or moral. They ruled that the lawmakers in states where gay marriage was banned failed to sufficiently justify the public policy exemption they were using to strip same sex couple of their right to marry.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The right to marry was established by the supreme court. As such, unless there is a clear public policy reason to exempt same sex couples from that right, it must apply equally, per the equal treatment clause, to all consenting adults. The reason why the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage bans were unconstitutiuon was that the lawmakers failed to show that such an exemption was justified.

There are other rights that DO have legitimate public policy exemption. Gun permits are a prime example. Under the constitution, all state licenses, such as marriage licenses, must be recognized in all 50 states and all federal territories. Gun Permits were exempt from this because each state had their own requirements and policies that were often more strict or less strict depending on the state. and requiring a state to recognize gun permits from states that did not meet their requirements to receive a permit violated that state's sovereignty over their own laws.

When it came to gay marriage, the court didn't rule that homosexuality was right or moral. They ruled that the lawmakers in states where gay marriage was banned failed to sufficiently justify the public policy exemption they were using to strip same sex couple of their right to marry.

Yes, the famous "gun permit" clause of the constitution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The right to marry was established by the supreme court. As such, unless there is a clear public policy reason to exempt same sex couples from that right, it must apply equally, per the equal treatment clause, to all consenting adults. The reason why the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage bans were unconstitutiuon was that the lawmakers failed to show that such an exemption was justified.

There are other rights that DO have legitimate public policy exemption. Gun permits are a prime example. Under the constitution, all state licenses, such as marriage licenses, must be recognized in all 50 states and all federal territories. Gun Permits were exempt from this because each state had their own requirements and policies that were often more strict or less strict depending on the state. and requiring a state to recognize gun permits from states that did not meet their requirements to receive a permit violated that state's sovereignty over their own laws.

When it came to gay marriage, the court didn't rule that homosexuality was right or moral. They ruled that the lawmakers in states where gay marriage was banned failed to sufficiently justify the public policy exemption they were using to strip same sex couple of their right to marry.

Gun rights are mentioned in the US Constitution--marriage is not.

Nobody banned anything. If you and your other found a church to marry you, then under the eyes of that religion, you were married. Not one Republican went into that church to try and stop it.

The courts were wrong just like they were on Roe. There is no right to marriage, necessity to marry, or advantage to marry. I've been single all of my life and didn't miss a thing. All this is is an attack on our institutions. Under this ruling brother and sister could marry, father and daughter, man and his dog.

It's like I've always said, you are not a true leftist unless you are ruining things for other people.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Nobody banned anything. If you and your other found a church to marry you, then under the eyes of that religion, you were married. Not one Republican went into that church to try and stop it.

This is not about the eyes of a religion, this is about the benefits the Fed Govt ties to marriage. Nobody gives a fuck what church thinks. Quit with the ignorant strawmen.

There is no right to marriage, necessity to marry, or advantage to marry. I've been single all of my life and didn't miss a thing.

There are benefits the Fed Govt ties to marriage. This cannot be ignored.

It's like I've always said, you are not a true leftist unless you are ruining things for other people.

How does two people of the same sex getting married impact my marriage to my wife? How is my marriage ruined by what other people do?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is not about the eyes of a religion, this is about the benefits the Fed Govt ties to marriage. Nobody gives a fuck what church thinks. Quit with the ignorant strawmen.



There are benefits the Fed Govt ties to marriage. This cannot be ignored.



How does two people of the same sex getting married impact my marriage to my wife? How is my marriage ruined by what other people do?

Correct, government benefits. The court should have ruled government has no place in religious institutions and they should remove all or any benefits to marriage. Governments did not ban marriage, it's just states refused to recognize it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Correct, government benefits. The court should have ruled government has no place in religious institutions and they should remove all or any benefits to marriage. Governments did not ban marriage, it's just states refused to recognize it.

The Govt has no place in religious institutions, but it does in civil ones. Not all marriages are religious. Using your fucked up logic two atheist could never be married.

I am all for getting rid of all benefits to marriage and child bearing and home owning and college going and all the rest. But until we do the Govt cannot discriminate who gets those things based on sex.

 

[Mashmont]

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.

See, this is where you err. There is only one morality for all of us. And one definition of immorality is an action that results in very bad consequences for individuals and society. Some immorality is obvious and some is not. And that is why we need, say the Catholic Church, to help us with the ones that are not obvious. Masturbation is a perfect example. To the irreligious, masturbation doesn't seem have any negatives. But to the educated mind, we see it leads to apathy, laziness, and robs the desire to 'do what it takes' to make relationships go forward. It also turns people inward, makes them selfish, makes them obsess on gratification. It's the opposite of sharing.