cecil77 said:

---

I don't care who puts what where when two people are together.

I don't care who you choose to love.

I don't want to think about what two people do in private, and I'd just as soon they don't think about what my wife and I may do in private.

Just shut up about it.

---

Preach

_mpaul said:

---

tysker said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Its weird how the idea of it gets you excited.

Two consensual adults getting married? BAN ITTTTTTTTT

---

It's weird how inept you are at making reasoned arguments for your position. Nobody said ban it. Like abortion, it should be up to the states.

---

Which is inconsistent with full faith and credit clause of the Constitution

---

Explain how.

---

Dont you think married be remain married regardless of which state they happen to reside in?

Doesn't divorce fall under full faith and credit? If it does, why wouldn't the marriage as well?

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

It's not going to happen.

Look, i'm not super in favor of gay marriage, but one can at least see where the equal protection aspect of it comes in.

Abortion is not a right.

---

Equal protection is not a good argument. Obergefell is terrible constitutional law. If you want gay marriage, codify it.

Marcus Brutus said:

---

1939 said:

---

No, not even close to the same thing, but that will be the dems new talking point.

---

Thomas disagrees

Clarence Thomas, concurring: "in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."

---

He's one of nine. Notably, no one else joined him in that opinion. In fact, the majority addressed it and said that those cases still stand, and would stand if argued before them.

tysker said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

tysker said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Its weird how the idea of it gets you excited.

Two consensual adults getting married? BAN ITTTTTTTTT

---

It's weird how inept you are at making reasoned arguments for your position. Nobody said ban it. Like abortion, it should be up to the states.

---

Which is inconsistent with full faith and credit clause of the Constitution

---

Explain how.

---

Don't you think married be remain married regardless of which state they happen to reside in?

Doesn't divorce fall under full faith and credit? If it does, why wouldn't the marriage as well?

---

Great questions, but not an explanation. Honestly, I'm not familiar with much FFC jurisprudence, but taking it to its extreme would seem to do away with federalism altogether. And that would seem like an absurd result.

If CO wants to treat two people as married under its laws, and TX doesn't want to, I don't see offhand why that's a problem. That is, after all, the essence of federalism. TX doesn't have to recognize CO driver licenses if it doesn't want to. Why is this any different?

cecil77 said:

---

I don't care who puts what where when two people are together.

I don't care who you choose to love.

I don't want to think about what two people do in private, and I'd just as soon they don't think about what my wife and I may do in private.

Just shut up about it.

---

Well said.


Disappointed to see homophobic Aggies, but I guess that's why I usually stay away from this section.

_mpaul said:

---

tysker said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Its weird how the idea of it gets you excited.

Two consensual adults getting married? BAN ITTTTTTTTT

---

It's weird how inept you are at making reasoned arguments for your position. Nobody said ban it. Like abortion, it should be up to the states.

---

Which is inconsistent with full faith and credit clause of the Constitution

---

Explain how.

---

A couple married in one state should be able to move to other states and still be recognized as married.

Charles Coghlan said:

---

With ROE overturned the right has some momentum we get this country back.

---

That battle was lost and doesn't need to be re-fought.. Should have gone with recognizing domestic partnerships, including same sex, when they had the chance in order to preserve "marriage" for the traditional/biblical definition.

Silian Rail said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Charles Coghlan said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Its weird how the idea of it gets you excited.

Two consensual adults getting married? BAN ITTTTTTTTT

---

I dont want to face the wrath of god for the Sodom and Gormah society we have now do you?

---

How self righteous of you. I cam see this is truly a genuine concern and not driven by republican talking points or homophobia.

---

No one is scared of homosexuals. I don't like spiders either but I'm not an arachnophobe.

---

In the immortal words of Calculus Entropy,
"Spiders is good! They eat the cockroaches."

New World Ag said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

tysker said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Its weird how the idea of it gets you excited.

Two consensual adults getting married? BAN ITTTTTTTTT

---

It's weird how inept you are at making reasoned arguments for your position. Nobody said ban it. Like abortion, it should be up to the states.

---

Which is inconsistent with full faith and credit clause of the Constitution

---

Explain how.

---

A couple married in one state should be able to move to other states and still be recognized as married.

---

OK, I get what you think should happen, but that's a policy argument. Now back that up with actual legal reasoning that explains why that must happen under the law.

New World Ag said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

tysker said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Its weird how the idea of it gets you excited.

Two consensual adults getting married? BAN ITTTTTTTTT

---

It's weird how inept you are at making reasoned arguments for your position. Nobody said ban it. Like abortion, it should be up to the states.

---

Which is inconsistent with full faith and credit clause of the Constitution

---

Explain how.

---

A couple married in one state should be able to move to other states and still be recognized as married.

---

So apply for a new marriage license in the new state. Like a drivers license. Seems simple enough.

Probably not. From Kavanaugh's concurrence:

Quote:

---

When precisely should the Court overrule an erroneous constitutional precedent? The history of stare decisis in this Court establishes that a constitutional precedent maybe overruled only when (i) the prior decision is not just wrong, but is egregiously wrong, (ii) the prior decision has caused significant negative jurisprudential or real-world consequences, and (iii) overruling the prior decision would not unduly upset legitimate reliance interests. See Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ______ (2020) (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part) (slip op., at 78).

---

Overturning Obergfell or Lawrence v. Texas (both of which are wrong) would have a ton of reliance consequences. Even if you overturned Lawrence, there would be a lot of states that would not outlaw gay sex and sanction gay marriage, so when those gay couples move to states that do not, you have a full faith and credit problem. Essentially, once one state legalized gay marriage, it was virtually inevitable that other states would at least be required to recognize marriage licenses from those states, if not grant them outright.

DTP02 said:

---

Charles Coghlan said:

---

With ROE overturned the right has some momentum we get this country back.

---

That battle was lost and doesn't need to be re-fought.. Should have gone with recognizing domestic partnerships, including same sex, when they had the chance in order to preserve "marriage" for the traditional/biblical definition.

---

Disagree. You've been suckered into playing their game under their rules. That would not have stopped anything. It would have only delayed what happened a little longer. This is why Republicans rarely get anything meaningful done. They think they can compromise with the left.

_mpaul said:

---

tysker said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

tysker said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Its weird how the idea of it gets you excited.

Two consensual adults getting married? BAN ITTTTTTTTT

---

It's weird how inept you are at making reasoned arguments for your position. Nobody said ban it. Like abortion, it should be up to the states.

---

Which is inconsistent with full faith and credit clause of the Constitution

---

Explain how.

---

Don't you think married be remain married regardless of which state they happen to reside in?

Doesn't divorce fall under full faith and credit? If it does, why wouldn't the marriage as well?

---

Great questions, but not an explanation. Honestly, I'm not familiar with much FFC jurisprudence, but taking it to its extreme would seem to do away with federalism altogether. And that would seem like an absurd result.

If CO wants to treat two people as married under its laws, and TX doesn't want to, I don't see offhand why that's a problem. That is, after all, the essence of federalism. TX doesn't have to recognize CO driver licenses if it doesn't want to. Why is this any different?

---

There is precedence for accepting divorce under FFC from like 70 years ago. Wouldn't marriage fall under the same framework?

tysker said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

tysker said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

tysker said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Its weird how the idea of it gets you excited.

Two consensual adults getting married? BAN ITTTTTTTTT

---

It's weird how inept you are at making reasoned arguments for your position. Nobody said ban it. Like abortion, it should be up to the states.

---

Which is inconsistent with full faith and credit clause of the Constitution

---

Explain how.

---

Don't you think married be remain married regardless of which state they happen to reside in?

Doesn't divorce fall under full faith and credit? If it does, why wouldn't the marriage as well?

---

Great questions, but not an explanation. Honestly, I'm not familiar with much FFC jurisprudence, but taking it to its extreme would seem to do away with federalism altogether. And that would seem like an absurd result.

If CO wants to treat two people as married under its laws, and TX doesn't want to, I don't see offhand why that's a problem. That is, after all, the essence of federalism. TX doesn't have to recognize CO driver licenses if it doesn't want to. Why is this any different?

---

There is precedence for accepting divorce under FFC from like 70 years ago. Wouldn't marriage fall under the same framework?

---

Gimme the case. I've always had questions about the FFC clause because it seems to run counter to the very notion of federalism.

Kvetch said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

It's not going to happen.

Look, i'm not super in favor of gay marriage, but one can at least see where the equal protection aspect of it comes in.

Abortion is not a right.

---

Equal protection is not a good argument. Obergefell is terrible constitutional law. If you want gay marriage, codify it.

---

Oh i agree to a point. I view the gay marriage idea much like a driver's license. you get issued one in texas, but it's considered valid in oklahoma. If you get married in texas, it's considered valid in oklahoma if you opt to get divorced there. If you get gay married in texas, its considered valid in oklahoma if you opt to get dovrced there. But i am with in that this stuff should be codified, and not rely upon judicial activism to get there.

_mpaul said:

---

tysker said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

tysker said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

tysker said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Its weird how the idea of it gets you excited.

Two consensual adults getting married? BAN ITTTTTTTTT

---

It's weird how inept you are at making reasoned arguments for your position. Nobody said ban it. Like abortion, it should be up to the states.

---

Which is inconsistent with full faith and credit clause of the Constitution

---

Explain how.

---

Don't you think married be remain married regardless of which state they happen to reside in?

Doesn't divorce fall under full faith and credit? If it does, why wouldn't the marriage as well?

---

Great questions, but not an explanation. Honestly, I'm not familiar with much FFC jurisprudence, but taking it to its extreme would seem to do away with federalism altogether. And that would seem like an absurd result.

If CO wants to treat two people as married under its laws, and TX doesn't want to, I don't see offhand why that's a problem. That is, after all, the essence of federalism. TX doesn't have to recognize CO driver licenses if it doesn't want to. Why is this any different?

---

There is precedence for accepting divorce under FFC from like 70 years ago. Wouldn't marriage fall under the same framework?

---

Gimme the case. I've always had questions about the FFC clause because it seems to run counter to the very notion of federalism.

---

I'll have to find it so I apologize in advance for not responding quickly.

But also consider parental rights. States would also be removing parental rights and responsibilities based on the status of marriage. What would the court do if a gay married couple with kids were to be forced to relinquish their parental rights and responsibilities because they have moved to a different state, say because one of the parents is in the military? FFC helps normalize the due process standards.

Charles Coghlan said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Its weird how the idea of it gets you excited.

Two consensual adults getting married? BAN ITTTTTTTTT

---

I dont want to face the wrath of god for the Sodom and Gormah society we have now do you?

---

Why didn't God smite us immediately after the decision? I can only wonder.

Williams v North Carolina 1945.
Didn't take that after all

atmtws said:

---

We deserve the right to be just as miserable as the heteros.

---

This conservative agrees. As a person that values freedom, I will always oppose legislated morality.

Silian Rail said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Charles Coghlan said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Its weird how the idea of it gets you excited.

Two consensual adults getting married? BAN ITTTTTTTTT

---

I dont want to face the wrath of god for the Sodom and Gormah society we have now do you?

---

How self righteous of you. I cam see this is truly a genuine concern and not driven by republican talking points or homophobia.

---

No one is scared of homosexuals. I don't like spiders either but I'm not an arachnophobe.

---

Homophobia is the lamest term ever.

You don't like grits?! What are you some sort of cornophobe?

cecil77 said:

---

I don't care who puts what where when two people are together.

I don't care who you choose to love.

I don't want to think about what two people do in private, and I'd just as soon they don't think about what my wife and I may do in private.

Just shut up about it.

---

Obviously thats not going to happen considering the fundamental right to marry is now being potentially put off the table by the same court that granted it.

Its going to be pride year round now. Hornets nest is definitely shaken.

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Abortion is not a right.

---

This points need to be hammered home again and again and again

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

I don't care who puts what where when two people are together.

I don't care who you choose to love.

I don't want to think about what two people do in private, and I'd just as soon they don't think about what my wife and I may do in private.

Just shut up about it.

---

Obviously thats not going to happen considering the fundamental made-up Constitutional right to marry is now being potentially put off the table by the same court that granted it.

Its going to be pride year round now. Hornets nest is definitely shaken.

---

FIFY. Also, courts don't grant rights. Legislatures do.

This is stupid. Let consenting adults do as they please.

Get government out of marriage altogether.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

I don't care who puts what where when two people are together.

I don't care who you choose to love.

I don't want to think about what two people do in private, and I'd just as soon they don't think about what my wife and I may do in private.

Just shut up about it.

---

Obviously thats not going to happen considering the fundamental right to marry is now being potentially put off the table by the same court that granted it.

Its going to be pride year round now. Hornets nest is definitely shaken.

---

Go for it. The more people are subjected to that filth, the more they are against it.

tysker said:

---

Williams v North Carolina 1945.
Didn't take that after all

---

Cool. I'll look at it over the weekend with a glass of cheap wine, after reading Dobbs.

gbaby23 said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

I don't care who puts what where when two people are together.

I don't care who you choose to love.

I don't want to think about what two people do in private, and I'd just as soon they don't think about what my wife and I may do in private.

Just shut up about it.

---

Obviously thats not going to happen considering the fundamental right to marry is now being potentially put off the table by the same court that granted it.

Its going to be pride year round now. Hornets nest is definitely shaken.

---

Go for it. The more people are subjected to that filth, the more they are against it.

---

I'd love for you to meet the many gay married friends I have that have very happy children and great lives and for you to say that to their face.

Somehow, I think you'll just say it behind the keyboard.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

atmtws said:

---

We deserve the right to be just as miserable as the heteros.

---

This conservative agrees. As a person that values freedom, I will always oppose legislated morality.

---

All legislation is a reflection of morality. Otherwise, there's no basis for laws. HTH.

Just make it to where any two people can enter into a civil union and declare it for all tax, insurance, inheritance, and property decisions.

My recommendation would be you can only do it 3 times. After that, the state is no longer concerned about trying to protect your assets behind a veil of marriage because clearly the individual doesn't care either.

Obama Care should be next.
Another massive overstep of the federal govt and wrongly adjudicated.

1939 said:

---

No, not even close to the same thing, but that will be the dems new talking point.

---

Well, in his opinion Thomas said it should be revisited.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

1939 said:

---

No, not even close to the same thing, but that will be the dems new talking point.

---

Well, in his opinion Thomas said it should be revisited.

---

As I pointed out, above, even if Lawrence and Obergfell were overturned, that doesn't mean that we would return to the status quo ante. There are other doctrines, besides 14th Amendment "privacy" which would likely yield the same, or a similar result, just on more sound reasoning.