Obergefell discussion

[Abhorsen]

Republicans have openly been coming for abortion for decades. They've been passing more restrictions nationwide. If it was a make or break, we would have already hit the whole break thing.

There are prochoice Republicans though, especially in bluer states/places. Massachusetts' governor and Susan Collins, for example. It's more frequent than you'd think.

Like I, in the absence of a decent libertarian candidate, would vote Red for a candidate against gay marriage, cause there's no chance that gets overturned. Until it does, then I really got to consider voting blue

 

[Bacle]

Like I, in the absence of a decent libertarian candidate, would vote Red for a candidate against gay marriage, cause there's no chance that gets overturned. Until it does, then I really got to consider voting blue

So even the idea of RvW being overturned, as it should be, is enough to make you vote blue?

Wow.

 

[Rocinante]

So even the idea of RvW being overturned, as it should be, is enough to make you vote blue?

Wow.

I think he meant he would vote blue if they pulled off anti gay marriage measures

 

[Bacle]

I think he meant he would vote blue if they pulled off anti gay marriage measures

...it didn't seem like that, from the context of his previous posts, but maybe it's just a grammer parsing issue.

 

[Rocinante]

...it didn't seem like that, from the context of his previous posts, but maybe it's just a grammer parsing issue.

he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that he is generally in support of overturning RvW but is afraid it will have people vote blue who might have voted red, and he is using gay marriage as an example of something that would make him do that same, to counter arguments that it isn't going to be a loss for the GOP.

 

[Abhorsen]

So even the idea of RvW being overturned, as it should be, is enough to make you vote blue?

Wow.

No, I'm fine with RvW being overturned. I'm actually very happy about it. Only reason I'm not jumping for joy is fear of the midterms. @Rocinante describes my position accurately.

Again, this is something I really want to be wrong about, I'm not a blackpill kinda person, but I just don't trust victories for some reason.

Maybe I'm just looking at how gay marriage worked out for the Dems? They got it, then 5 years later the LGBTQrazies are making them lose. I really don't know.

 

[Battlegrinder]

I don't recall ever seeing a serious argument being made that Obergfell should be overturned, and IIRC it's not even related to the "reasoning" used in Roe.

Roe: "There's a right to privacy in the constitution somewhere, or there probably is anyway, and part of privacy is being able to kill babies as much as you want, obviously".

Obergfell: "The state has said marriage exists, and extended certain privilege's toward married couples. Having done this, it cannot then go back arbitrary say which couples count as married and which ones can't".

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

I think he meant he would vote blue if they pulled off anti gay marriage measures

But why would he? He's a Libertarian.. if he was true to his convictions he would do what William F Buckley Jr did with desegregation and stand against a federalized mandate because the Supreme Court decision to allow gay marriage utterly raped the 1A and violates the 10A.

Or I guess his Libertarianism ends at some dude in some state he will never move to telling him he can't engage in arguably the most risky and dangerous manuevre a gay man can engage in short of having sex with Anthony Bathhouse Fauci in current year and that's opening himself to the horrors of divorce court? Because I'm with the upper Class gays who opposed that SCOTUS decision on the grounds that their companies already provided benefits that simulated the marriage tax breaks but carried none of the risks of your spouse taking half your shit.

@Abhorsen and we really should have a separate thread on divorce courts and family law one day because nah man, gay, straight whatever all that shit is a blight on humanity.

Take the WIN, IF IT'S actually true. Nothing has happened yet. Write in support of the Justices that they not be swayed by all the crap that's about to come their way.

Roe v Wade today, US vs Miller tomorrow.

Buh bye ATF, buh bye Cali style gun laws.

No more obese baby killers with badges.

Shall not be infringed!

Rochelle Garza: the likely Dem nominee for TX State Attorney General issued this tweet:

Cornyn is kind of a cuck but where exactly is he wrong there? Not the examples cited but his overarching point. That the SCOTUS asspulling rights out of thin air delegitimizes the entire justice system and attacks the rites and rights that underpin our entire civilization.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

I don't recall ever seeing a serious argument being made that Obergfell should be overturned, and IIRC it's not even related to the "reasoning" used in Roe.

Roe: "There's a right to privacy in the constitution somewhere, or there probably is anyway, and part of privacy is being able to kill babies as much as you want, obviously".

Obergfell: "The state has said marriage exists, and extended certain privilege's toward married couples. Having done this, it cannot then go back arbitrary say which couples count as married and which ones can't".

Obergefell absolutely should be overturned. It's legal reasoning is a mess.

Gay marriage should be allowed though, and that is a decently strong constitutional argument for it; it's just not the one made in Obergefell.

Roe was the wrong outcome reached with bad reasoning. Obergefell was (probably) the right outcome reached with bad reasoning.

 

[Abhorsen]

But why would he? He's a Libertarian.. if he was true to his convictions he would do what William F Buckley Jr did with desegregation and stand against a federalized mandate because the Supreme Court decision to allow gay marriage utterly raped the 1A and violates the 10A.

Um, no. Buckley wasn't a libertarian. I only really care about federalism to the extent it preserves freedom. There shouldn't be a government recognized marriage, but there is, so while it does exist, it should recognize gay civil marriage. And civil gay marriage doesn't hit 1A at all.

Or I guess his Libertarianism ends at some dude in some state he will never move to telling him he can't engage in arguably the most risky and dangerous manuevre a gay man can engage in short of having sex with Anthony Bathhouse Fauci in current year and that's opening himself to the horrors of divorce court? Because I'm with the upper Class gays who opposed that SCOTUS decision on the grounds that their companies already provided benefits that simulated the marriage tax breaks but carried none of the risks of your spouse taking half your shit.

I live in the first state that would ban it: Alabama.

And the upper class gays didn't like it because they were leftists that hated the family. They thought the bathhouses were sacred, and felt that marriage would lead to an end to no-commitments free love. And it did, but that's a good thing.

Cornyn is kind of a cuck but where exactly is he wrong there? Not the examples cited but his overarching point. That the SCOTUS asspulling rights out of thin air delegitimizes the entire justice system and attacks the rites and rights that underpin our entire civilization.

It really doesn't delegitimize it, though it is badly written. Decisions, right or wrong, that settle an issue that's contentious bring the country together and are looked on by the average person as the right decision looking back a decade. The issue with Roe is that SCOTUS thought they'd done that with abortion. It's one of the few glaring times they didn't (another is Dred Scott).

Obergefell absolutely should be overturned. It's legal reasoning is a mess.

Gay marriage should be allowed though, and that is a decently strong constitutional argument for it; it's just not the one made in Obergefell.

Roe was the wrong outcome reached with bad reasoning. Obergefell was (probably) the right outcome reached with bad reasoning.

This. Obergefell is just atrocious reasoning. Basically a Bostock argument applied on top of the ruling that found that that sex discrimination in the law violates the 14th would do it. There's a reason I really like the reasoning in Bostock despite disagreeing with discrimination laws applied to private citizens/corporations. It's beautifully written.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Um, no. Buckley wasn't a libertarian. I only really care about federalism to the extent it preserves freedom. There shouldn't be a government recognized marriage, but there is, so while it does exist, it should recognize gay civil marriage. And civil gay marriage doesn't hit 1A at all.

Buckley was one of the first conservatives to libertarian, he just wasn't a lolbert like Justice Douglas was.

As to the one A thing, any government intrusion into marriage of any sort is an assault on religion.

I live in the first state that would ban it: Alabama.

Move? It's not hard, I did it when commies took over my country.

And the upper class gays didn't like it because they were leftists that hated the family. They thought the bathhouses were sacred, and felt that marriage would lead to an end to no-commitments free love. And it did, but that's a good thing.

No I'm talking about the ones on NPR the day the thing was passed who were flailing because now they were gonna lose those benefits and had to actually marry their spouses and risk eating a 50 percent asset loss.

They may also have been anti family commies but they were mostly sounding like MGTOW/MRA types. I was just having a nostalgic laugh.

It really doesn't delegitimize it, though it is badly written. Decisions, right or wrong, that settle an issue that's contentious bring the country together and are looked on by the average person as the right decision looking back a decade. The issue with Roe is that SCOTUS thought they'd done that with abortion. It's one of the few glaring times they didn't (another is Dred Scott).

No I mean when SCOTUS does that in any period for any reason whether gay marriage or not. It's a usurpation of the people.

 

[Abhorsen]

Buckley was one of the first conservatives to libertarian, he just wasn't a lolbert like Justice Douglas was.

As to the one A thing, any government intrusion into marriage of any sort is an assault on religion.

If the government has a concept of marriage (which it shouldn't have), it better include gay marriage, as it at least starves the government of some tax money (US v Windsor which killed DOMA was about inheritance tax) along with ensuring that the government is keeping government marriage as a civil thing, not a religious thing.

What I am adamantly against, though, is trying to force non-government employees to participate in a gay marriage (or any marriage, for that matter).

Move? It's not hard, I did it when commies took over my country.

Yeah, I'd probably move (I mean, I moved to Alabama from MA, so its not that hard), just wanted to point out your assumption isn't true. I'll probably move to NH in a few years anyway even when that doesn't happen. The free state project is in full swing there, and I gotta go help out..

No I'm talking about the ones on NPR the day the thing was passed who were flailing because now they were gonna lose those benefits and had to actually marry their spouses and risk eating a 50 percent asset loss.

They may also have been anti family commies but they were mostly sounding like MGTOW/MRA types. I was just having a nostalgic laugh.

Lol! Didn't know about those. I just knew about a bunch of them that were scared it would lead to the death of gay 'culture'. And it did, in the best way possible.

No I mean when SCOTUS does that in any period for any reason whether gay marriage or not. It's a usurpation of the people.

It's a right against the government. That's 100% what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. I don't really care about majority votes when it comes to rights.

 

[WolfBear]

@Abhorsen I don't want Obergefell to get overturned, and it's extremely unlikely that it will, but out of curiosity: Do you also think that SCOTUS should legally require US states to legalize incestuous marriages between consenting adults, at least when these marriages were not done in exchange for any kind of favors?

 

[WolfBear]

Obergefell absolutely should be overturned. It's legal reasoning is a mess.

Gay marriage should be allowed though, and that is a decently strong constitutional argument for it; it's just not the one made in Obergefell.

Roe was the wrong outcome reached with bad reasoning. Obergefell was (probably) the right outcome reached with bad reasoning.

Obergefell = sex discrimination?

I don't recall ever seeing a serious argument being made that Obergfell should be overturned, and IIRC it's not even related to the "reasoning" used in Roe.

Roe: "There's a right to privacy in the constitution somewhere, or there probably is anyway, and part of privacy is being able to kill babies as much as you want, obviously".

Obergfell: "The state has said marriage exists, and extended certain privilege's toward married couples. Having done this, it cannot then go back arbitrary say which couples count as married and which ones can't".

I do wonder if SCOTUS would be willing to uphold the constitutionality of an adultery ban after this. Such bans have never had their constitutionality tested; with Lawrence v. Texas, they were presumed unconstitutional, but if Roe will indeed be overturned, as now seems likely, then SCOTUS might be willing to uphold the constitutionality of adultery bans.

Though there is also a distinction between adultery that occurs with the consent of one's spouse and adultery that occurs without their consent. Open marriages do exist, after all. Monogamy isn't actually for everyone.

 

[Floridaman]

Obergefell = sex discrimination?



I do wonder if SCOTUS would be willing to uphold the constitutionality of an adultery ban after this. Such bans have never had their constitutionality tested; with Lawrence v. Texas, they were presumed unconstitutional, but if Roe will indeed be overturned, as now seems likely, then SCOTUS might be willing to uphold the constitutionality of adultery bans.

Though there is also a distinction between adultery that occurs with the consent of one's spouse and adultery that occurs without their consent. Open marriages do exist, after all. Monogamy isn't actually for everyone.

I mean adultery bans shouldn’t be enforced by prison but adultery is breach of contract, so I would be fine with such bans having a punative effect on the individual in a divorce hearing.

 

[WolfBear]

I mean adultery bans shouldn’t be enforced by prison but adultery is breach of contract, so I would be fine with such bans having a punative effect on the individual in a divorce hearing.

Do you believe that everyone who wants an open (non-monogamous) marriage should have this explicitly written into their marriage contract?

 

[Floridaman]

Do you believe that everyone who wants an open (non-monogamous) marriage should have this explicitly written into their marriage contract?

Written or even explicit oral agreement if it can be proven, same as with any other contract. But if they both explicitly agree sure, same with polygamy for that matter.

 

[Abhorsen]

@Abhorsen I don't want Obergefell to get overturned, and it's extremely unlikely that it will, but out of curiosity: Do you also think that SCOTUS should legally require US states to legalize incestuous marriages between consenting adults, at least when these marriages were not done in exchange for any kind of favors?

I don't think SCOTUS should do it, but I do think it should be legal between consenting adults in a hypothetical perfect world where that wouldn't be exploited by abusers. Which we aren't in. I also don't see a constitutional argument against it, which another reason why I don't want a SCOTUS ruling against it.

Obergefell = sex discrimination?

No, lack of same sex marriage while having opposite sex marriage is sex discrimination.

 

[King Arts]

I don't think SCOTUS should do it, but I do think it should be legal between consenting adults in a hypothetical perfect world where that wouldn't be exploited by abusers. Which we aren't in. I also don't see a constitutional argument against it, which another reason why I don't want a SCOTUS ruling against it.


No, lack of same sex marriage while having opposite sex marriage is sex discrimination.

It depends on what you define marriage as. Even if you go full secular if the definition the government uses is an alliance between two people with the expectation that they will have each other’s biological children to pass on their DNA and bloodline. Sorry gays can’t do it because they can’t have their own real children only adopt.

 

[Abhorsen]

It depends on what you define marriage as. Even if you go full secular if the definition the government uses is an alliance between two people with the expectation that they will have each other’s biological children to pass on their DNA and bloodline. Sorry gays can’t do it because they can’t have their own real children only adopt.

So by your logic, woman post menopause can't be married then? What about people who are infertile? See, that's not the reason government uses for marriage, and those explanations failed as arguments in court.

Also, there's surrogacy and adoption, as well as science getting closer every day to being able to create a biological child that has two dads as parents.