Roe gone; is same-sex marriage next?

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
My understanding is that same-sex marriage is a federal law, which Roe never was - it was a SCOTUS decision regarding the right to privacy. Feel free to correct me (not you cultprogs - you tards don't know sh*t about **** so butt out).

The Republicans lose me hard when they start meddling in people's private lives. I get kicking Roe back to the states, but how will they do that with marriage? If some state decides nah, what happens to all the married gays and lesbians in that state?

This is how the GOP lost so many voters - getting involved in chit that's none of their damn business. They need to focus on things that affect ALL Americans, not things that affect NO Americans.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
From what I understand same sex marriage is accepted or not by the States.
From what I read the Congress cannot change that, but they just passed a law that if one state accepts it and the couple move to another that doesn't , that State has to accept it there.
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
There is a Supreme Court precedent, Obergfell, which could be overturned, but I think if that goes than the whole government in marriage idea goes at least to the states or more likely just goes away.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Yeah I don’t know the law but I’m pretty sure that if you marry say, a cousin or someone younger than is allowed in another state that it suddenly becomes illegal in another one.

I don’t see any merit or even any hue and cry for eliminating gay marriage. With those against abortion at least the argument is that it’s actually murdering a defenseless being. For gay marriage it’s either that it offends someone’s beliefs or slippery slope arguments about “what’s next?”. I seriously can’t see a LEGAL argument that works.
 

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
My understanding is that same-sex marriage is a federal law, which Roe never was - it was a SCOTUS decision regarding the right to privacy. Feel free to correct me (not you cultprogs - you tards don't know sh*t about **** so butt out).

The Republicans lose me hard when they start meddling in people's private lives. I get kicking Roe back to the states, but how will they do that with marriage? If some state decides nah, what happens to all the married gays and lesbians in that state?

This is how the GOP lost so many voters - getting involved in chit that's none of their damn business. They need to focus on things that affect ALL Americans, not things that affect NO Americans.

I am not sure where you get the idea that same sex marriage is protected by law. It’s not. It’s a constitutional “right” protected by the Obergefell case. Obergefell is based on the same legal finding upon which Roe is based. Justice Thomas laid out exactly how this is in his opinion he wrote for the Roe overturn case.

This is all basic stuff and you can improve your knowledge by doing nothing more than reading.
 
My understanding is that same-sex marriage is a federal law, which Roe never was - it was a SCOTUS decision regarding the right to privacy. Feel free to correct me (not you cultprogs - you tards don't know sh*t about **** so butt out).

The Republicans lose me hard when they start meddling in people's private lives. I get kicking Roe back to the states, but how will they do that with marriage? If some state decides nah, what happens to all the married gays and lesbians in that state?

This is how the GOP lost so many voters - getting involved in chit that's none of their damn business. They need to focus on things that affect ALL Americans, not things that affect NO Americans.
The short answer to your thread title question is, I think... possibly, but not very likely.

That said, no, same-sex marriage isn't legal nationally because of a federal law but rather because of a Supreme Court decision - Obergefell v Hodges (2015). The legality of same-sex marriage is in much the same posture as that of pre-viability abortion was before the Dobbs decision.

Marriage and abortion have always been understood to be state issues. Some federal regulation has been passed regarding both issues, but the federalism question (i.e. whether states or the federal government had the constitutional authority to regulate in a given area) hasn't really been the issue. Roe, e.g., wasn't about federalism and, despite the commonly pushed narrative, Dobbs didn't return the abortion issue to the states in a federalism sense. Obergefell wasn't about federalism. Even Windsor - the decision which struck down §3 of the DOMA, which had effectively defined marriage for federal law purposes as not including same-sex marriages - wasn't decided on federalism grounds, though it necessarily touched on federalism issues in reaching its Fifth Amendment Equal Protection conclusion.

So, first step, marriage and abortion are firstly and primarily areas in which states have authority to regulate. But as with all regulation - federal and state - such is limited by various individual rights guarantees found in the Constitution. So the question becomes, does the regulation the states have chosen violate the Constitution in some other (i.e. not related to federalism) way? When it comes to the states, most individual rights protections are found in seven - rather vague - words found in the Fourteenth Amendment: privileges or immunities, due process, equal protection.

The questions always revolve around: What do those words mean? Is a given right found or not found in those words? Free speech (again, as it relates to state level restrictions), religious exercise, rights to contract, rights to possess firearms, bodily autonomy, freedom to travel, etcetera, all must be found in those vague words. And such is the case when it comes to supposed abortion and marriage rights.

So, anyway, as with abortion (up to varying points in pregnancies) same-sex marriage was legal in some states before a Supreme Court decision effectively finding that it's a constitutional right (based on the vague words of the 14th Amendment). It was illegal and/or unrecognized in other states. Obergefell changed that just as Roe changed the landscape with regard to abortion, the latter having significantly restricted the ways in which states could regulate abortion. States still had the authority to regulate marriage and abortion, but in doing so there were certain things which they weren't - based on Supreme Court decisions - allowed to do. Similarly, states can regulate firearms and speech. But in doing so there are (not so) certain things which they aren't allowed to do.

Will there be a Dobbs-like decision regarding same-sex marriage, effectively overruling Obergefell? Perhaps. That's one of the possibilities liberals have floated in order cultivate political support. For various reasons I think it's more a tilted-at windmill than a real threat.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I don’t know the law but I’m pretty sure that if you marry say, a cousin or someone younger than is allowed in another state that it suddenly becomes illegal in another one.

I don’t see any merit or even any hue and cry for eliminating gay marriage. With those against abortion at least the argument is that it’s actually murdering a defenseless being. For gay marriage it’s either that it offends someone’s beliefs or slippery slope arguments about “what’s next?”. I seriously can’t see a LEGAL argument that works.

If we're talking about reasons for prohibiting same-sex marriages, they'd be similar to the reasons why we pass so many laws and restrict individual autonomy to such a great degree: The vast majority of people are quite insecure and, often, their insecurities define them more so than their virtuous aspects. So we seek control over others as a substitute for the lack of control over ourselves, and the conditions of our existence, that we feel. It's a poor substitute, sure. But it's one of the ways we try (generally unsuccessfully) to satiate our insecurities. And one of the ways we seek to control others - because it's sometimes easier than trying to acquire such control through free markets - is through government, i.e. by voting for people who say they'll impose the particular controls on others which we want to have imposed.

That said, if we're talking about the reasons why same-sex marriage protections might be removed by a future Supreme Court decision, it would be for much the same reasons abortion protections were removed by Dobbs: The Court would be deciding that such protections weren't found in the seven words (of the Fourteenth Amendment) which I referred to in my previous post in this thread. Regardless of what we think about whether (state-recognized) same-sex marriage should be available, if it isn't a right guaranteed by the Constitution then it isn't a right guaranteed by the Constitution. If anything, I'd say that - based on history and tradition with regard to the rights understood to be part of, e.g., privileges or immunities - abortion rights are a closer call than same-sex marriage rights. Still, I don't think the latter will be removed anytime soon.
 

Kinnakeet

Well-Known Member
Who F'ing cares? what difference does it make if 2 queers want to get married just stay in the closet your coming out has caused alot of turmoil in our great country its time for that chit to stop.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
That said, no, same-sex marriage isn't legal nationally because of a federal law but rather because of a Supreme Court decision - Obergefell v Hodges (2015). The legality of same-sex marriage is in much the same posture as that of pre-viability abortion was before the Dobbs decision.

I had it in my head that Obama signed it into federal law. Not sure why I thought that.

What is it about Republicans that they just love to self-immolate? Everything in the world going for them, and they let out this giant fart that sends them careening around the room. I'd think that this was just progbot keening, but I thought that about Roe, too.

But Roe was overturned because the abortion cult had gotten out of hand. States should have a right to say, "No, you cannot murder your born infant. Go to California if you want to do that chit." I still maintain that this recent acceptance of pedophilia and sexualizing children has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. While you can make a direct relationship between Roe and the abortion fetishists, I'm not sure you can do that with same-sex marriage and pedophilia.

Meanwhile, I'd like to go back to filling up my gas tank for $30 instead of $50. I'd like to get more than a couple of bags for my $100 grocery tab. I'd like drug traffickers and "unaccompanied minors" to stop pouring over our border. I'd like our elections to be efficient and secure. I have a whole big ass list of stuff I want, and overturning same-sex marriage isn't anywhere on it. And I'm pretty sure I speak for most Americans.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
I'm not sure you can do that with same-sex marriage and pedophilia.


until recently wanting to bed down the same gender was considered a mental issue .... once that was normalized now the march is on for MAP, Zoophilia and more sexual deviancy

I don't really care, keep your proclivities in the bedroom and off of main street
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
until recently wanting to bed down the same gender was considered a mental issue .... once that was normalized now the march is on for MAP, Zoophilia and more sexual deviancy

I'm not a fan of the "slippery slope". I think it's bullshit and anyone who has successfully raised teenagers knows how to prevent it because they're all Avenattis in training.

"Consenting adults". Period. The end.

See how easy that was?

No children. No animals. No nothing that isn't a consenting adult.

Progs are all like, "Oh, it's not up to us to judge..." Wow, bitch, really? Because I see you judging the sh*t out of Trump supporters, Christians, and anyone else you disagree with every single day. That's all you people do is judge.
 

StmarysCity79

Active Member
The short answer to your thread title question is, I think... possibly, but not very likely.

That said, no, same-sex marriage isn't legal nationally because of a federal law but rather because of a Supreme Court decision - Obergefell v Hodges (2015). The legality of same-sex marriage is in much the same posture as that of pre-viability abortion was before the Dobbs decision.

Marriage and abortion have always been understood to be state issues. Some federal regulation has been passed regarding both issues, but the federalism question (i.e. whether states or the federal government had the constitutional authority to regulate in a given area) hasn't really been the issue. Roe, e.g., wasn't about federalism and, despite the commonly pushed narrative, Dobbs didn't return the abortion issue to the states in a federalism sense. Obergefell wasn't about federalism. Even Windsor - the decision which struck down §3 of the DOMA, which had effectively defined marriage for federal law purposes as not including same-sex marriages - wasn't decided on federalism grounds, though it necessarily touched on federalism issues in reaching its Fifth Amendment Equal Protection conclusion.

So, first step, marriage and abortion are firstly and primarily areas in which states have authority to regulate. But as with all regulation - federal and state - such is limited by various individual rights guarantees found in the Constitution. So the question becomes, does the regulation the states have chosen violate the Constitution in some other (i.e. not related to federalism) way? When it comes to the states, most individual rights protections are found in seven - rather vague - words found in the Fourteenth Amendment: privileges or immunities, due process, equal protection.

The questions always revolve around: What do those words mean? Is a given right found or not found in those words? Free speech (again, as it relates to state level restrictions), religious exercise, rights to contract, rights to possess firearms, bodily autonomy, freedom to travel, etcetera, all must be found in those vague words. And such is the case when it comes to supposed abortion and marriage rights.

So, anyway, as with abortion (up to varying points in pregnancies) same-sex marriage was legal in some states before a Supreme Court decision effectively finding that it's a constitutional right (based on the vague words of the 14th Amendment). It was illegal and/or unrecognized in other states. Obergefell changed that just as Roe changed the landscape with regard to abortion, the latter having significantly restricted the ways in which states could regulate abortion. States still had the authority to regulate marriage and abortion, but in doing so there were certain things which they weren't - based on Supreme Court decisions - allowed to do. Similarly, states can regulate firearms and speech. But in doing so there are (not so) certain things which they aren't allowed to do.

Will there be a Dobbs-like decision regarding same-sex marriage, effectively overruling Obergefell? Perhaps. That's one of the possibilities liberals have floated in order cultivate political support. For various reasons I think it's more a tilted-at windmill than a real threat.


You leave out the fact the Thomas specifically opened the door to that possibility in his decision on Hobbs. Otherwise a very thorough and thoughtful analysis.
 

StmarysCity79

Active Member
Who F'ing cares? what difference does it make if 2 queers want to get married just stay in the closet your coming out has caused alot of turmoil in our great country its time for that chit to stop.


Just like ending slavery did right? How did gay marriage effect you or cause you turmoil?
 

StmarysCity79

Active Member
I had it in my head that Obama signed it into federal law. Not sure why I thought that.

What is it about Republicans that they just love to self-immolate? Everything in the world going for them, and they let out this giant fart that sends them careening around the room. I'd think that this was just progbot keening, but I thought that about Roe, too.

But Roe was overturned because the abortion cult had gotten out of hand. States should have a right to say, "No, you cannot murder your born infant. Go to California if you want to do that chit." I still maintain that this recent acceptance of pedophilia and sexualizing children has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. While you can make a direct relationship between Roe and the abortion fetishists, I'm not sure you can do that with same-sex marriage and pedophilia.

Meanwhile, I'd like to go back to filling up my gas tank for $30 instead of $50. I'd like to get more than a couple of bags for my $100 grocery tab. I'd like drug traffickers and "unaccompanied minors" to stop pouring over our border. I'd like our elections to be efficient and secure. I have a whole big ass list of stuff I want, and overturning same-sex marriage isn't anywhere on it. And I'm pretty sure I speak for most Americans.


If that is the case then you should vote for people who don't announce their first order of business is investigating Hunter Biden's laptop if you want them to be taken seriously and to be elected in the future.

Where were any of the Rep candidates plans for inflation?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
"Consenting adults". Period. The end.


yeah good luck with that ... 16 is old enough to vote or decide their gender .. old enough for some love struck 16 yr old to boink her teacher ...

this will be normalized 1st ..... women teachers hooking up with teen boys
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
If that is the case then you should vote for people who don't announce their first order of business is investigating Hunter Biden's laptop if you want them to be taken seriously and to be elected in the future.

Where were any of the Rep candidates plans for inflation?

Ahem

(not you cultprogs - you tards don't know sh*t about **** so butt out).

If you were smarter you'd understand that Hunter Biden's laptop is about Joe Biden getting his palm greased by a foreign country. But you're not, which means I have no interest in your cult babble.
 
Top