rihannabiggestfan Posted July 19, 2022 Posted July 19, 2022 Lol, I'm more fit and spry than you despite never learning how to ride a bike, Pete. I don't see how that's a vital skill to have and be glad about, especially for a president 20 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said: You politicizing and catastrophizing AOC complying with officers by putting her hands behind her back… nnn
Sergi91 Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 2 hours ago, Espresso said: Of all the things he could’ve use to dragged Biden, but instead used a photo of Biden “shaking hands with a ghost” https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRhoFrLK/?k=1
TheLastChord Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 2 hours ago, Kassi said: The answer is no… This is like Trump’s second impeachment all over again, where I lost $800 in a truly optimistic bet. Lesson was to never trust the GOP to do the right thing. Even when it’s easy. They’re agonizing over the possibility of there being 60 votes because there isn’t. If there was, they’d proudly declare it. And I think a major reason why there aren’t 60 votes is because the GOP has tied their 2022 campaign to the “groomer” narrative about LGBT people. Now they have to lay in the grave they made. The truth is that BOTH paries are scared about the outcome. Republicans know that thanks to the Democrats being a dumpster fire of mess they're actually building a diverse coalition for the first time in modern American politics, so they don't want to ruin it. Not only that, they keep repeating that this isn't an issue, yet they refuse to act accordingly. Democrats are terrified that this bill passes because they know they're losing minorities over the economy and "codifying it" would mean that they no longer would have a hold on same sex couples. Voters don't care about the past. So, yes, they're ALSO hoping this fails because it would allow them to keep this going. This bill, in my opinion, is a coward position from the Democrats because it doesn't "codify Obergefell," it has a smaller scope than Obergefell actually and it's probably the reason why I think both sides think there's a decent chance of it passing. I think right now there's 54 votes, but there's like 8-9 "I don't know"s and that's where it'll be decided.
Kassi Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 15 minutes ago, TheLastChord said: The truth is that BOTH paries are scared about the outcome. Republicans know that thanks to the Democrats being a dumpster fire of mess they're actually building a diverse coalition for the first time in modern American politics, so they don't want to ruin it. Not only that, they keep repeating that this isn't an issue, yet they refuse to act accordingly. Democrats are terrified that this bill passes because they know they're losing minorities over the economy and "codifying it" would mean that they no longer would have a hold on same sex couples. Voters don't care about the past. So, yes, they're ALSO hoping this fails because it would allow them to keep this going. This bill, in my opinion, is a coward position from the Democrats because it doesn't "codify Obergefell," it has a smaller scope than Obergefell actually and it's probably the reason why I think both sides think there's a decent chance of it passing. I think right now there's 54 votes, but there's like 8-9 "I don't know"s and that's where it'll be decided. Smaller in scope how? Just curious. My take is that Dems assumed Obergefell was settled law, because, like the butt sex case, Texas v Lawrence, it hadn't been disturbed until Justice Thomas made his little threats. Now they know it's under threat and are making the move to secure it. As far as I know, Dems were using the fact that gays still face discrimination outside of the marriage context to rally the gays before Republicans could write "religious exceptions" into federal laws, ergo The Equality Act. I think everyone basically considered Gay Marriage a win in 2015 and then moved on.
Kassi Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 On 7/18/2022 at 9:53 AM, Kassi said: Like, who cares that Paul Pelosi is at home stroking his dick while gambling on his Fidelity Investment account? Mess, I was trying to match my stock portfolio to Nancy's cause just the other day the gworls made it seem like it was a boon. Come to find out Paul PeLOSER is doing more dick stroking than investing. Since 2018 Nancy's portfolio performance is ~0%, while the market is up ~50%. You know what, let me just keep my money in an index fund.
TheLastChord Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Kassi said: Smaller in scope how? Just curious. Simple, Obergefell uses the due protection and acts as a shield for gay couples being denied a marriage license in all 50 states. This bill doesn't force all 50 states to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, it simply says that all states are forced to recognize marriage licenses issued in other states. So, if Obergefell falls in the next 5-10 years, Texas or Kansas or Alabama could very well ban same sex marriage and no same sex marriage licenses would be issued there. But if a same sex couple moved from a state that did issue marriage licenses, those state would be obligated to recognize to validity of the license for all intends and purposes. Same thing for a gay couple who hypothetically lived in these states and couln't get married, they could go to Colorado, get married and come back. So, the bill relies on there always being some states in which same sex marriage is legal, which is a really shaky ground to stand on because technically same sex marriage is not even legal in California state law (Which tells you how useless Democrats are) And as for the lie that Obergefell isn't in any danger lie, Thomas is openly against it, as is Alito as late as 2020 in a public statement, whatever he might have said in Dobbs. Amy is literally a religious right-winger. Chief Roberts voted against it(As did Alito and Thomas) back in 2015, and Kavanaugh and Gorsurch are Trump appointees. I actually think there's an argument for Gorsurch to be considered pretty liberal for a conservative appointee but Kavanaugh is pretty much unreadable. So, yes, if a case makes its way, I'd bet it's gone in like 80%. There's 4 FOR SURE votes. The problem is, why would a case make it to the Supreme court? You need to find an affected party, and it's very difficult to make the case that someone is affected by someone else's marriage, I guess they'll go for religious freedom, but if these idiotic Justices make the reasoning that someone else getting married is violating someone else's religious freedom you could claim ANY religion existing is then a violation of someone else's religious freedom So, we'll see. Edited July 20, 2022 by TheLastChord
Kassi Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 1 hour ago, TheLastChord said: Simple, Obergefell uses the due protection and acts as a shield for gay couples being denied a marriage license in all 50 states. This bill doesn't force all 50 states to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, it simply says that all states are forced to recognize marriage licenses issued in other states. So, if Obergefell falls in the next 5-10 years, Texas or Kansas or Alabama could very well ban same sex marriage and no same sex marriage licenses would be issued there. But if a same sex couple moved from a state that did issue marriage licenses, those state would be obligated to recognize to validity of the license for all intends and purposes. Same thing for a gay couple who hypothetically lived in these states and couln't get married, they could go to Colorado, get married and come back. So, the bill relies on there always being some states in which same sex marriage is legal, which is a really shaky ground to stand on because technically same sex marriage is not even legal in California state law (Which tells you how useless Democrats are) Fair point. I was mostly asking rhetorically to see why you felt it was a coward position for Democrats not to "codify Obergefell". And I can totally see how you'd arrive at that position. But simple reason why the Respect for Marriage Act is smaller in scope than Obergefell is because: The 10th Amendment assigns state governments all power not explicitly given to the federal government in the Constitution -- in this case, defining marriage for their state. In the case of United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court ruled explicitly that state governments are the primary authority for defining marriage and its benefits in their states. And used that as the basis to strike down DOMA, cause it said that the federal government was arbitrarily recognizing some states' definition of marriage (that didn't allow gay marriage) over others (that did allow gay marriage) for receiving federal benefits. In the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruled that, while state's had authority over marriage, it could not be used to violate a civil right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment -- equal protection of the law. Because the Constitution trumps state and federal law. So basically, the federal government doesn't have the authority to force all 50 states to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples. In light of this, the aim of the Respect for Marriage Act is to ensure that, if Obergefell is struck down, and to a waaaaay lesser extent Windsor (since it recognizes state's rights and the GOP Justices love that ****), DOMA will already be repealed, and states that allow gay marriage can be used as a proxy for the federal government to extend federal benefits out to gay couples living in non-gay marriage state.
Kassi Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 In a sense, the threat of Obergefell being struck down will always be there. If the Respect for Marriage Act passes, the worst outcome would be that gays have to travel to another state to get married first. But Democrats can use that little inconvenience in perpetuity to get out the gay vote. They'll have f*****s voting Democrat for life. The anti-Democrat homosexuals in here lost!
Thuggin Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 1 hour ago, TheLastChord said: Simple, Obergefell uses the due protection and acts as a shield for gay couples being denied a marriage license in all 50 states. This bill doesn't force all 50 states to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, it simply says that all states are forced to recognize marriage licenses issued in other states. So, if Obergefell falls in the next 5-10 years, Texas or Kansas or Alabama could very well ban same sex marriage and no same sex marriage licenses would be issued there. But if a same sex couple moved from a state that did issue marriage licenses, those state would be obligated to recognize to validity of the license for all intends and purposes. Same thing for a gay couple who hypothetically lived in these states and couln't get married, they could go to Colorado, get married and come back. So, the bill relies on there always being some states in which same sex marriage is legal, which is a really shaky ground to stand on because technically same sex marriage is not even legal in California state law (Which tells you how useless Democrats are) And as for the lie that Obergefell isn't in any danger lie, Thomas is openly against it, as is Alito as late as 2020 in a public statement, whatever he might have said in Dobbs. Amy is literally a religious right-winger. Chief Roberts voted against it(As did Alito and Thomas) back in 2015, and Kavanaugh and Gorsurch are Trump appointees. I actually think there's an argument for Gorsurch to be considered pretty liberal for a conservative appointee but Kavanaugh is pretty much unreadable. So, yes, if a case makes its way, I'd bet it's gone in like 80%. There's 4 FOR SURE votes. The problem is, why would a case make it to the Supreme court? You need to find an affected party, and it's very difficult to make the case that someone is affected by someone else's marriage, I guess they'll go for religious freedom, but if these idiotic Justices make the reasoning that someone else getting married is violating someone else's religious freedom you could claim ANY religion existing is then a violation of someone else's religious freedom So, we'll see. You think? Tbh I think Kavanaugh would definitely vote to overturn Obergefell. And maybe he didn’t want to commit to any position or show his hand, but I still think if it came down to it he would vote with the majority of the conservative justices.
Archetype Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 16 minutes ago, Thuggin said: You think? Tbh I think Kavanaugh would definitely vote to overturn Obergefell. And maybe he didn’t want to commit to any position or show his hand, but I still think if it came down to it he would vote with the majority of the conservative justices. Of course he would, but I don't think they'll actually ever try overturning it. I actually think abortion is more controversial than marriage equality in the US, at least to Republicans and some Democrats.
TheLastChord Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 22 minutes ago, Thuggin said: You think? Tbh I think Kavanaugh would definitely vote to overturn Obergefell. And maybe he didn’t want to commit to any position or show his hand, but I still think if it came down to it he would vote with the majority of the conservative justices. Yeah, true but Gorsuch's decision a couple of years ago on protections was very progressive and Kavanaugh got on board. So, I absolutely, as you do, can totally see him siding with Alito and Thomas on whatever decision, but I honestly don't know. That's why he's, as of now, unreadable, to me. Not the case with the other 4. So, for me, I think he'd be the deciding vote, most likely.
Recommended Posts