Obergefell discussion

[Bacle]

Trad-cons are a huge part of the right. They always will be. Hence why I'm not trying to be on the right, because I disagree with things they believe in. It's really that simple.

It's less trying to be 'on the right', and more that meme Musk shared about the Left just running way far to the Left.

I also am more interested in attracting new/more voters to the Right, and trad-cons purity spirals don't help that.

Because the fact is the modern Right was culturally blind, deaf, and dumb till Trump reinvented it and started caring more about appealing to young voters than catering to the hardcore Right's base.

And as I've said before, I'd love a viable third party to break the two-party system and give us other meaning options besides R and D.

 

[Cherico]

look right now we have a populist uprising against a technocrat elite that is becoming increasingly unhinged and insane.

We need to accept that there are going to be strange alliances that outwardly do not make sense because this is a grand alliance against a group that is losing their fucking marbles.

This means that we might just wake up one day and find a fury, a religious fundamantalist, a gay survivalist, and a litteral cowboy all fighting together in the same fox hole. Shits going to get weird bros expect it and move on.

 

[Simonbob]

This means that we might just wake up one day and find a fury, a religious fundamantalist, a gay survivalist, and a litteral cowboy all fighting together in the same fox hole. Shits going to get weird bros expect it and move on.

Those guys could, and would, find common ground.

 

[Zyobot]

Those guys could, and would, find common ground.

In which case, maybe the various things that divide them will more or less "melt away" as they're forced to get to know one another better and fight alongside each other against a common enemy. Sure, it sounds preposterous now, but considering how maddening the direction of this century has been and how no one's hitting the brakes, odds are some of us will live to see it...

 

[History Learner]

It should be overturned, no questions asked and the relevant political, financial and social institutions attached to it, either culturally or directly, proscribed and leadership arrested. Propagation of such ideas made illegal, with serious consequences for violations, and the utilization of existing social infrastructure to turn back the clock.

 

[King Arts]

Hey this is on topic, but you should all look up modern day debates on youtube. Their newest video is on the roe v wade abortion debate. The pro choice side is Richard Spencer. I laughed out loud.

Edit shit sorry, meant to put this in the other thread sorry.

 

[Bacle]

It should be overturned, no questions asked and the relevant political, financial and social institutions attached to it, either culturally or directly, proscribed and leadership arrested. Propagation of such ideas made illegal, with serious consequences for violations, and the utilization of existing social infrastructure to turn back the clock.

...not sure if serious or trolling.

I mean people can bitch about same-sex marriage all they want, it's not going away and most of the US populace has no problems with it being a thing.

 

[Simonbob]

...not sure if serious or trolling.

I mean people can bitch about same-sex marriage all they want, it's not going away and most of the US populace has no problems with it being a thing.

Honestly, while I'm not affected by it, the issue I'd have is it's "Legislate via the Bench" and I really don't like that. The People should have their say, or it's legitimacy is in doubt.

In Australia, it was done via an "advisory" referendum, then the Gov making up what that meant. I had issues with that approach, too.



The way you get something is sometimes more important than the thing itself.




(And, for those who care, I though marriage was a religous matter, and the various churches were the ones who should make that decision. Anything to get it out of Gov hands, I though at the time.)

 

[Bacle]

Honestly, while I'm not affected by it, the issue I'd have is it's "Legislate via the Bench" and I really don't like that. The People should have their say, or it's legitimacy is in doubt.

In Australia, it was done via an "advisory" referendum, then the Gov making up what that meant. I had issues with that approach, too.



The way you get something is sometimes more important than the thing itself.




(And, for those who care, I though marriage was a religous matter, and the various churches were the ones who should make that decision. Anything to get it out of Gov hands, I though at the time.)

See, we tried that with state-by-state legalization of same-sex marriage.

The reason it was forced to SCOTUS is because certain states would not honor same-sex marriage certificates from states that had it, and thus it lead to a mismatch in the legal systems between states for things like inherentence, next-of-kin paperwork, insurance payouts, and hospital visitation rights.

SCOTUS made the right call, and forced all the US states to honor same-sex marriage certs from other states.

 

[Zyobot]

...not sure if serious or trolling.

I mean people can bitch about same-sex marriage all they want, it's not going away and most of the US populace has no problems with it being a thing.

Plus, I’m pretty sure outlawing the “propagation of such ideas” would be a serious First Amendment violation.

Besides, is that really a precedent you want to set for “regressive elements” of the US government (read: the Uniparty elite) who’ll wrest that power from you eventually? I don’t think so.

 

[Simonbob]

See, we tried that with state-by-state legalization of same-sex marriage.

The reason it was forced to SCOTUS is because certain states would not honor same-sex marriage certificates from states that had it, and thus it lead to a mismatch in the legal systems between states for things like inherentence, next-of-kin paperwork, insurance payouts, and hospital visitation rights.

SCOTUS made the right call, and forced all the US states to honor same-sex marriage certs from other states.

Isn't that a violation of States Rights?

I though that was a big deal, legally speaking?


Well, this is the same group who did RVW, and that's completely nuts. They should have been impeached of that insane ruling. This just seems a bit strange for a lay person.

 

[History Learner]

...not sure if serious or trolling.

I mean people can bitch about same-sex marriage all they want, it's not going away and most of the US populace has no problems with it being a thing.

110% serious and the only reason its here is because it was socially engineered by our elites-they openly admit this too. It's only here because a generation was brain washed into it and divergence from this orthodoxy is suppressed by State power. The moment you start exercising the levers of the State in the opposite direction is the moment it rapidly goes away, because there is no substance to it beyond as a means of subversion by the aforementioned elites.

Once you start instituting codes on removing it from entertainment, getting it off social media, shutting down the organizations, etc it's going to collapse. Any one too troublesome after that just gets arrested like we used to do, it's that simple.

 

[Bacle]

Isn't that a violation of States Rights?

I though that was a big deal, legally speaking?


Well, this is the same group who did RVW, and that's completely nuts. They should have been impeached of that insane ruling. This just seems a bit strange for a lay person.

Not a violation of States rights, as marriage is an issue where we've had to have deals/decisions made around it in regards to national scale issues.

Mormon's and poly marriages/child brides were an issue back in the day; Utah only was allowed to become a state when they changed the laws to US standard for marriages and age of consent.

And yes, not honoring same-sex marriage certs from other states for all the legal bits they are relevant for was a big deal, and is directly what lead to SCOTUS having to take the case up, instead of leaving it as a state-by-state issue.

 

[Simonbob]

Mormon's and poly marriages/child brides were an issue back in the day; Utah only was allowed to become a state when they changed the laws to US standard for marriages and age of consent.

This, however, says something else.

Age of consent is a seperate issue to poly, one is about protecting kids, the other is about multiple consenting adults. Obergfell is the gate to Utah allowing poly. Poly wasn't culturally accepted, back then.


Is that still going to be a major issue, I wonder? And, when Islamics start pushing, will that affect things?



Well, well. Slippery slope proved again.

 

[Zyobot]

110% serious and the only reason its here is because it was socially engineered by our elites-they openly admit this too. It's only here because a generation was brain washed into it and divergence from this orthodoxy is suppressed by State power. The moment you start exercising the levers of the State in the opposite direction is the moment it rapidly goes away, because there is no substance to it beyond as a means of subversion by the aforementioned elites.

Once you start instituting codes on removing it from entertainment, getting it off social media, shutting down the organizations, etc it's going to collapse. Any one too troublesome after that just gets arrested like we used to do, it's that simple.

Which, as I said, is a power said elites will then turn on you, using and abusing to crush “hate speech” and other forms of “problematic discourse” online, in entertainment, in… anywhere, really, judging by the sweeping ban you advocate.

So, assuming some future populist administration (somehow) got this passed before leaving office—and they won’t be in there forever, especially since the elites have shown they’re not interested in populism—don’t be surprised when their successor(s) or a subsequent Congress uses The Subversive Speech and Content Act to shut down conservative sites and speakers—including The Sietch—and have Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, and others who disseminate “partisan disinformation” arrested. Plus, even if the initial law only covers gender ideology, it’s not like that’ll stop them from amending it to include other things, even if “only” retroactively. People here like to talk about slippery slopes, and how one concession now is a gateway to lots of concessions later. I hope they realize the same principle applies to the law, too.

 

[King Arts]

See, we tried that with state-by-state legalization of same-sex marriage.

The reason it was forced to SCOTUS is because certain states would not honor same-sex marriage certificates from states that had it, and thus it lead to a mismatch in the legal systems between states for things like inherentence, next-of-kin paperwork, insurance payouts, and hospital visitation rights.

SCOTUS made the right call, and forced all the US states to honor same-sex marriage certs from other states.

Bacle how far do you think full faith and credit should go? If one state allows incest marriage should every other state be forced to allow it?

Isn't that a violation of States Rights?

I though that was a big deal, legally speaking?


Well, this is the same group who did RVW, and that's completely nuts. They should have been impeached of that insane ruling. This just seems a bit strange for a lay person.

The court did not use the right reasons. If they used full faith and credit clause it would be different since if you are married in one state then move to another you don’t have to get remarried.

 

[Bacle]

This, however, says something else.

Age of consent is a seperate issue to poly, one is about protecting kids, the other is about multiple consenting adults. Obergfell is the gate to Utah allowing poly. Poly wasn't culturally accepted, back then.


Is that still going to be a major issue, I wonder? And, when Islamics start pushing, will that affect things?



Well, well. Slippery slope proved again.

No, the Mormon thing was settled before the Civil War.

I used it as an example of why the US gov has a vested interest in regulating marriages within its borders so that all states are in effective compliance with the same standard.

Same-sex marriage ended up in front of SCOTUS because of the legal issues between states, as I mentioned before, and the Utah/Mormon thing was the best way to show a historical example of the US gov having to deal with different marriage standards in different areas of the US.

Edit:

Bacle how far do you think full faith and credit should go? If one state allows incest marriage should every other state be forced to allow it?

Well, theoretically...they wouldn't have to allow it in thier state, as long as they honored legal documentation from states where it is legal.

That is why Obergfell went to SCOTUS after all; because some states would not honor legal paperwork from states where it was legal.

I don't approve of incest, and think your example is a bit of a stretch, but I understand the point you seem to be trying to make.

If certain states had swallowed thier pride and just honored the legal paperwork around same-sex marriage from other states, they could have kept this a state-by-state issue where all states would have to honor the paperwork, but only legal states would actually preform the ceremonies and issue marriage paperwork.

 

[Simonbob]

If certain states had swallowed thier pride and just honored the legal paperwork around same-sex marriage from other states, they could have kept this a state-by-state issue where all states would have to honor the paperwork, but only legal states would actually preform the ceremonies and issue marriage paperwork.

I think the point's been made. Why should they "swallow their pride" if their people don't like it?

Shouldn't the locals opinion matter?

 

[Bacle]

I think the point's been made. Why should they "swallow their pride" if their people don't like it?

Shouldn't the locals opinion matter?

Because the state's do not get to pick and chose which legal paperwork from other state's they are willing to accept, particularly when the paperwork is needed for cross-state issues or business.

The fact is same-sex marriage went to SCOTUS because some states wanted to ignore legal paperwork from other states, and they were told "Not only no, but now same-sex marriage is legal at the Federal level, so you have to accept all paperwork, allow ceremonies, and do all the other legal bits hetero couples had."

 

[Simonbob]

The fact is same-sex marriage went to SCOTUS because some states wanted to ignore legal paperwork from other states, and they were told "Not only no, but now same-sex marriage is legal at the Federal level, so you have to accept all paperwork, allow ceremonies, and do all the other legal bits hetero couples had."

I think that means states can't have things outlawed on their own?

Couldn't that mean things like different speed limits and local laws on some drugs might get hit?


Weird.