GOP Senator Celebrates His Vote Against Gay Marriage By Attending Son's Gay Marriage

[Couchpotato]

I have no idea what this means

The Obergfell decision created legal dependencies, ie all the SSM marriages that have happened in States that would have otherwise outlawed them. If SCOTUS were to overturn that decision it would create legal issues surrounding those marriages which would have to be resolved. And those dependencies get greater every day, right, because people are getting married faster than older marriages are breaking up/dying out. It's something courts have to consider when they overturn past rulings. There is a term for it like Stare Decisis which I cant recall at the moment.

 

[Couchpotato]

That is something I suppose. But I thought that such legislation was not needed because gay people already have equal rights since they can marry someone of the opposite sex.

Also, what would you do about those states that would never pass such legislation?

They had the ability to get married. I never said they necessarily had the ability to marry whomever they wanted. That's always been the case with marriage though, and still is BTW. You cant just get married to anyone you like.

Why would I do anything about those states unless I lived in them?

 

[Couchpotato]

That is something I suppose.

LOL what if you don't defend this special issue at all costs disregarding all other considerations you're a bigot?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The Obergfell decision created legal dependencies, ie all the SSM marriages that have happened in States that would have otherwise outlawed them. If SCOTUS were to overturn that decision it would create legal issues surrounding those marriages which would have to be resolved. And those dependencies get greater every day, right, because people are getting married faster than older marriages are breaking up/dying out. It's something courts have to consider when they overturn past rulings. There is a term for it like Stare Decisis which I cant recall at the moment.

Wow! A coherent and rational post. Proud of you my boy! You seem to be assuming that states that impose new bans on same sex marriage will invalidate existing marriages and you might be right.

My guess is that some states would let those marriages stand but it seems likely that some would seek to invalidate them. Now that would be chaos, and cruel. Would this court consider the way in which they could upend so many lives? I would not bet on it. I suppose that they could include a provision that the states cannot ban the marriages retrocativly, but again, don't bet on that either.

In any case, many people who wish to get married in the future would be shut out. If Obergefell is overturned, their only hope would be the pssage of the Respect for Marriage Act which would require states, through the Full Faith and Credit provisions of the Constitution to allow people require states to reccogognize marriages from states that allow gay marriage, but even that has its pitfalls.

Such a provision would most likely be challlanged up to the SCOTUS with an uncertain fate.

States may have residency requirements inorder to get married, so a couple from Misssisippi may not be able to just waltz over to a free state and then go back home as a mrried couple

 

[Couchpotato]

Wow! A coherent and rational post. Proud of you my boy! You seem to be assuming that states that impose new bans on same sex marriage will invalidate existing marriages and you might be right.

My guess is that some states would let those marriages stand but it seems likely that some would seek to invalidate them. Now that would be chaos, and cruel. Would this court consider the way in which they could upend so many lives? I would not bet on it. I suppose that they could include a provision that the states cannot ban the marriages retrocativly, but again, don't bet on that either.

In any case, many people who wish to get married in the future would be shut out. If Obergefell is overturned, their only hope would be the pssage of the Respect for Marriage Act which would require states, through the Full Faith and Credit provisions of the Constitution to allow people require states to reccogognize marriages from states that allow gay marriage, but even that has its pitfalls.

Such a provision would most likely be challlanged up to the SCOTUS with an uncertain fate.

States may have residency requirements inorder to get married, so a couple from Misssisippi may not be able to just waltz over to a free state and then go back home as a mrried couple

I said basically the same thing 10 pages ago in post 131......

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

They had the ability to get married. I never said they necessarily had the ability to marry whomever they wanted. That's always been the case with marriage though, and still is BTW. You cant just get married to anyone you like.

Oh good grief! Just when I thought that we were making some progress , you revert toi this crap again with a new twist. A False equivalency logical fallacy and Non Sequitur logical fallacy

Of course no one can just marry anyone at all who thy wish to marry! Did you even have to say that?

But since you seem to be having a major brain fart, let me try to help you by coming down to your grade level and stating the obvious:

A straight person who develops a mutual attraction with someone of the opposite sex can marry that person if that person feels the same.

In the absence of same sex marriage, a gay person who develops a mutual attraction with someone of the same sex can NOT marry that person EVEN IF that person feels the same.

Conclusion: You are still a bigot and will be a bigot until you recant your statement that "They already had equality because...."

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I said basically the same thing 10 pages ago in post 131......

Sort of.....

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

LOL what if you don't defend this special issue at all costs disregarding all other considerations you're a bigot?

We used to say in the 60's If you are not part of the solution, you're part of the problem

 

[Couchpotato]

We used to say in the 60's If you are not part of the solution, you're part of the problem

Cool Story. Don’t really give a shit what drug addled hippies said in the 60’s.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Cool Story. Don’t really give a shit what drug addled hippies said in the 60’s.

Are you ready to repent for saying that gasy already had equality?

 

[Orangecat]

Yea and I was told by cucks like you that "Nobody cares about gays getting married" -- seems as tho you cucks were lying...

You seem rather obsessed with cuckholds, Biffanie.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

there is no contradiction here…believing marriage is a protected constitutional right, that the federal govt has no power to regulate, and go to your son’s wedding are comparable


but silly dembot cultist need click bait and their cult leases need wedge issues cause they can’t run on their failed economy and weak leadership around the globe

Actually you have no idea what he believes. He would not comment on why he voted "no"

You say that he believs that marriage is a "constitutional right " but that Federal Government has no power to regulate? Hello!! The Constitution is a Federal Document and the Suprememe Court (SCOTUS) that rules on matters of constitutionality is a branch of the Federal Government.

And while Congress has limited ability to intervene in state marriage laws, the SCOTUS has done so numerous times when state marriage laws ran afoul of the constitution . There was Loving v Virginia and about a dozen others that had nothing to do with gay marriage.

It is you fuckers who need a wedge issue to call atention away from the stench of Trump. Good luck with that. He is your zombie apacalyps.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

LOL what if you don't defend this special issue at all costs disregarding all other considerations you're a bigot?

Wow, drama queen.

 

[Couchpotato]

Are you ready to repent for saying that gasy already had equality?

Repent?

 

[Couchpotato]

Wow, drama queen.

You 2 are dating aren’t you? Otherwise why would both keep getting involved in each other’s conversations with other people.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You 2 are dating aren’t you? Otherwise why would both keep getting involved in each other’s conversations with other people.

It's a public forum. Or is that another thing you didn't know?

 

[lantern2814]

The problem lefturds have is that they can’t understand that a parent can support their child in their decision, while also not personally approving of the decision.

 

[struth]

Actually you have no idea what he believes. He would not comment on why he voted "no"

You say that he believs that marriage is a "constitutional right " but that Federal Government has no power to regulate? Hello!! The Constitution is a Federal Document and the Suprememe Court (SCOTUS) that rules on matters of constitutionality is a branch of the Federal Government.

And while Congress has limited ability to intervene in state marriage laws, the SCOTUS has done so numerous times when state marriage laws ran afoul of the constitution . There was Loving v Virginia and about a dozen others that had nothing to do with gay marriage.

It is you fuckers who need a wedge issue to call atention away from the stench of Trump. Good luck with that. He is your zombie apacalyps.

you’re right i wasn’t the one that started the thread

yes i need a wedge issue…who started this thread?

 

[Couchpotato]

It's a public forum. Or is that another thing you didn't know?

Its cool if you want to defend you BF.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Its cool if you want to defend you BF.

Religious nutball ^^ thinks calling me gay is an insult.