Southern Baptists to vote on overturning Obergefell

As I recall, I voted it was none of their business.

Why did they choose their gayest-looking member to introduce the measure?

Is this the same group of Baptist involved in the child rape scandal and cover up?

It's always the same. A righteously offended front covering for a morally bankrupt core.

Fuck them.

r3, yep

Thank you r4. I thought I heard it on NPR.

This group of freaks is misdirecting the focus from their own internal crisis.

They can get fucked with heated iron pitchforks.

Why do they always look like that?

I can't say the words Southern Baptist without putting a goddamn in front.

So what? They have no power here.

Gay face

I can't imagine living amongst these cretins. I dunno how southern gays do it?

Southern Baptists are everywhere, r11

I’m thinking now of the thirtysomething, wildly pro-Trum gay Chicagoan who I saw, driving his car, on Mark Halperin’s OneWay channel last October. And wondering if the real prospect that his marriage could become illegal would even affect his support.

They're only mad at trannys tho...

R14 because they think we are all trannys

Aren't Southern Baptists the ones who apologized for slavery, in 2015, @150 years after slavery was officially ended in the United States?

Our enemies don't distinguish between gay and trans, they see both as the same and equally disgusting. They hate the married lesbian couple with adopted disabled kids as much as the effeminate gay bathhouse queen as much as the respectable gay attorney who "passes" as much as the recently transitioned college student with purple hair and unique pronouns. They don't care, we're all the same to them, something our conservative, anti-trans and Trumper LGBTs never understand until it's too late.

And it's getting pretty damn close to "too late."

First they came for the trans….

The problem is that it is now established law. Gay couples can get married and have. That means legal rights and protections. Tax filing, legal right to medical benefits, etc. You can't undo that. This would require going back years in tax filings, nullifying any divorce decisions made after Obergefell.

It’s the same principle that will protect birthright citizenship. You can’t have a fundamental right apply in one state and not another. Otherwise, the concepts of federalism embedded in the Constitution mean nothing. There aren’t 5 votes for that.

And, yes—citizenship and marriage are different from abortion in the context of federalism. FBOW….

R17 in the gay community very effeminate bottoms , who look a few weeks away from arriving in trans-ville , are looked up to respected and admired the exact same way butch tops who pass for straights are.

That’s a odd riposte

R17 I have never seen straights attack the trans or be obsessed with trans in any way like so many men on DL are or do. Sports and kids issues sure. But the straights I have known are not obsessed with attacking the trans like DL is.

Seriously when I first discovered DL the trans hate surprised me. The straights I know have never brought up the trans ever. Not once. On DL it’s daily and it’s always hate or always negative.

The problem is not always the others,

as long as there is religion, there will be hate. as long as the simple can be told what to think and do, and have their self-worth be woven in, we will have hate. Religion does not function without hate. You have to be better than someone in order for it to make sense. There is a division coming - between the woke and asleep - between the people who respect, love and want people to live their best lives, and the small minded selfish people who need other people to support their house of cards and imaginary friends......

r23, you are assuming that the anti-trans posters are legitimate DL gay people. I suspect most are trolls - possible even Russian trolls. The goal of Russian troll farms is to sow dissension and to divide communities. You can be sure that they are doing something similar in the Latino online communities and among women (feminists vs. trad wives).

Wow, it only took 5 mos.

R23 Straights scream plenty over public bathrooms and trans. I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

R23 Get out and meet real people. never once in the last many decades have I ever heard anyone in real life in person attack the trans like the men of the DL do daily. It’s never lesbians real women attacking supporting or discussing . It’s always the self identified gay men. Most Americans don’t give a flying fuck about the things we claim they are obsessed with and that includes the trans.

You can’t keep reading the NYPost in order for anyone to try and understand straight people. Go out and meet some. Now I find out on DL just above that the anti trans comments from men here on DL are all from Russians. :-)

DL has to be at times the dumbest forum in the history of forums :-)

Do they even have standing? Who is the injured party here? What injury have they suffered?

Probably the most SCOTUS can do - and they probably will - is overturn it on some process technicality and then turn it back to the States, maybe?

The ruling has already been codified by both chambers of Congress as The Respect for Marriage Act, passed in 2022.

There’s really not much SCOTUS can do about this. Their previous position when overturning contentious rulings is to say Congress can pass legislation if they want. In this case, Congress has already done that.

Sorry haterz, same sex marriage is here to stay.

Marriage was not invented by Christians.

[quote]They can get fucked with heated iron pitchforks.

Instead of getting fucked by their relatives, for once.

[quote] Why did they choose their gayest-looking member to introduce the measure?

It’s always the closet cases who are obsessed with homosexuality.

Can the rest of us vote on having the Southern Baptists designated as a Hate Group?

R33 yes as long as you can start winning national elections once again. If not then the answer to your question is obvious.

It’s too late to stop this with elections. Conservative Christians own the Supreme Court now and they are determined to overturn Obergefell. It is inevitable.

R35 you may need to get in touch with this self help group if you re that down.

Jimjoneshadtheanswer.com you will find them super friendly and welcoming,

"Awful nice church you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it."

"Sorry haterz, same sex marriage is here to stay."

Trump will pay for his crimes, you wait and see!

No, R35. There’s no inevitability to this at all. There’s no grounds for overturning it.

Make the case, if you wish. But don’t just call it inevitable. What are the legal and judicial underpinnings of that?

You want a cogent analysis from a random screamer on the DL?

Proving hat Southern Baptists are a political faction, not a religious group

Have you been paying attention to this Court? They are overturning long-standing and important precedents left and right, sometimes without any explanation using their “shadow docket.” The only justification they need is their conviction that the precedent was “wrongly decided.”

You might remember Roe v. Wade?

You might not understand that the marriage and abortion cases are fundamentally different.

How so? They were founded on the same constitutional theory. Thomas even said in the decision overturning Roe that Obergefell should be next.

You’re out of your depth, my friend.

Gays sshould have equal rights based on religious liberty in the first amendment. The notion that a religious group that only exists to enforce segregation would be against that is hardly a surprise.

R42, believe me, I have a far more granular understanding of what is happening on the Supreme Court. Staying a national injunction is not the same as a binding ruling.

In the Dobbs decision, the majority determined that the acknowledged constitutional right to privacy did not include a woman’s right to choose. Women’s reproductive rights have never been codified into federal law. Thus, the authority for determining these rights fell to the individual states. There is no federal abortion ban. There are state-wide bans.

As already mentioned, Obergfell was codified into federal law in 2022 in the Respect for Marriage Act. As we approach the 10th anniversary of this decision and the legalisation of same-sex marriage, who is the injured party? Ten years on, the world still turns. With an over 40% divorce rate for straight couples, there’s hardly a case to be made that they do it any better.

The good thing to remember is that while important rights may disappear for the rest of your lives at least we Dems did not go out and try to get more votes from people we don’t agree with.

That’s the sort of shit the gop does those gop who have little in the way of principles.

We have kept our principles. So if marriage goes or camps come we should at least feel good that we refused to compromise just to win,

R21

The significance of Obergefell was that it REQUIRED every state to allow gay marriage just as Roe required every state to permit abortion. Overturning Obergefell will not end gay marriage since marriage is (historically) a matter of state law. Nor will it affect the rights of married people under federal law, at least as long as the Respect for Marriage Act remains in place.

However, there would be some risk that conservative states might refuse to honor gay marriages from other states. That would be contrary to the Constitution’s due faith and credit clause, but that’s no guarantee that this Court won’t find a way to allow it

The dude at OP's photo looks like he yearns for cock every second of every day.

^i guess I should say the significance of Obergefell IS, but is is doomed if the makeup of the Court isn’t radically changed.

The Respect for Marriage Act includes:

State Recognition: It requires all U.S. states, territories, and possessions to recognize the validity of same-sex and interracial marriages performed in any other U.S. jurisdiction.

Ask yourself why Congress was able to pass a federal law codifying Obergfell into law but was never able to propose federal legislation codifying Roe?

Because the support for same sex marriage is bi-partisan and held by a majority of voters.

That’s the difference.

The Respect for Marriage Act is NOT a codification of Obergefell. It clarifies the federal government’s treatment of gay marriage under federal law, repeals DOMA and requires all states to recognize the validity of gay marriages performed in other states. It does not require states to perform gay marriages under state law as Obergefell does.

gay marriage is one of the most popular issues in the country today. Across political parties, Even DL has not been able to change that.

We don’t care.

Well R54 but with the Respect for Marriage Act it doesn’t matter where you’re married. The state where you live has to recognise that marriage.

Both can be true.

It shouldn’t matter where you are married, but do you want to rely upon a statute that can be overturned? Even if the law remains, there is the question of compliance. Conservatives will be aching to declare the Respect for Marriage Act is a violation of their religious liberty and this Court has not only been eviscerating Constitutional rights that are not explicitly protected by the Constitution, but it has also been expanding the rights of religious people to discriminate in various ways against gay people as a protected “free exercise of religion.” For example the woman who claimed she was deterred from opening a wedding website design business by the threat that the law would make her work for gay couples and the baker who didn’t want to be forced to make gay wedding cakes.

R44 on no one jones him

The Court has been intentionally stacked with conservative Catholics by the Federalist Society which seized control over Republican court appointments decades ago. It’s leader, Leonard Leo has always been a conservative Catholic, but later in life became a member of the extremist sect Opus Dei.

It is not a coincidence that all 6 of the Republican-appointed justices are conservative Catholics.

I wish the US would join the rest of the Western World and leave organized religion behind. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen anytime soon.

R62 if you want that to change I suggest daily prayer.

You’d think the Southern Baptists would object to a court stacked with Catholics, but they don’t have the intellectual heft for the job. W. Tried to appoint a Southern Baptist, but she couldn’t answer basic questions from Senators and he was forced to withdraw the nomination and appoint Samuel Alito.

Bush was forced to withdraw Harriet Miers’ nomination because she wasn’t on the Federalist Society’s list of approved judicial nominees. She was just Bush’s White House counsel and had never served as a judge before. Bush made the error of thinking he was the actual President.

Her nomination never progressed to a hearing. Her knowledge of anything was never questioned. The Federalist Society wasn’t going to allow another Souter to ascend to the court.

So how would this mess be handled: if you're married already, you stay legally married? Just no new gay marriages?

That’s a theory, but she also did very poorly in her initial meetings with Senators. If she had been more competent, he might have been able to get her through.

[quote]if you want that to change I suggest daily prayer.

"Dear God and Jesus, your followers are a bunch of fucking cunts. Please smite them. Amen."

"Oh, and can you do something about the Muslims, too? They're also a bunch of fucking cunts. Thanks."

There would continue to be new gay marriages, but not in every state. Like abortion now. But whether or not gay marriages would continue would be up to state legislatures and state courts interpretations of state constitutions

Existing marriages would almost certainly have to be honored because anything else would be tremendously unfair and create massive legal uncertainties. And federal law and the Constitution would continue to force states that chose not to permit gay marriage to recognize marriages performed elsewhere, but couples living in red states might face more friction getting those right recognized.

So overturning Obergefell might not have massive practical consequences except for gays in red states who want to be married in their home state. They would need to travel and maybe not be able to have all friends and family in attendance.

But the future would depend on public opinion unless state courts find that state constitutions protect gay marriage rights, which many will.

With all the things that are going on in the US, these piece of shit Southern Baptists are worried about two people of the same sex getting married. It's so insanely stupid.

It’s also conceivable (though not inevitable) that some state authorities might rule that the free exercise of religion should allow individuals within a state, if not the state itself, to refuse to recognize out-of-state marriages in certain circumstances and it is conceivable (though not inevitable) that the US Supreme Court might permit this.

For example, a religious hospital might be allowed to let a parent to make medical decisions for an incapacitated patient rather than a gay spouse, or a religious landlord might be allowed to refuse to rent to a gay couple even if they are married.

Decisions like these are not necessarily impossible under Obergefell, but it is a finger on the scale in favor of marriage rights that would be removed if Obergefell is overruled

It is also possible that some especially religious states will attempt a broader assault on the laws that require them to recognize out-of-state marriages, but I don’t think that kind of blanket challenge will be successful given federal law and the Constitution.

Also, without Obergefell, a future Congress might modify or repeal the Respect for Marriage Act leaving some of the issues that law resolves up to various courts to settle on a case-by-case basis.

R55, under 50% of Republicans support gay marriage

It's popular with independents and Democrats

R53, the majority of people support Roe, too. The filibuster is the reason why we can't codify it

R47, wtf? We did try to get more votes but unfortunately a lot of voters are not very intelligent so they voted for Trump, who won't do anything for them

R73 I doubt anyone would be surprised that gay marriage has stronger support from the Dems and independents over the GOP members. But their support is not insignificant. As I remember around 40%. ?

R75 Trump is trying to give every newborn kid in America a brand new $1000 investment fund. Some, let’s call them potential new parents, might see that as doing something,

That $1000 goes to every new child. Bidens loan forgiveness went to college elites who ran up debt. If Trump keeps coming up with ideas people like, that will be a very bad indeed.

And no tax on tips, y’all!

These last two , things Trump is doing for people posts , are exactly the type of things the democrats should have been doing for years ..

Compare that to “ every federal prisoner deserves the best in trans care” or we will give factory workers tax money to pay for school debt for NYU dance majors.

The times they are not a-changing they have changed.

No tips on taxes makes zero sense in terms of tax policy. It is indefensible and will inevitably lead to investment bankers and corporate executives claiming that they should only be taxed on their (small) salaries and not on their (massive) bonuses.

“ inevitably”

R80 Like for sure? I bet you thought Harris was for sure as well.

Some can worry about tax policy and some can worry about doing what ever it takes to be elected. Like forgiving college loans.

Who wins is the only real question to worry about or is the least bit important.

.

[quote]So how would this mess be handled: if you're married already, you stay legally married? Just no new gay marriages?

Under the Respect for Marriage Act, all existing legal marriages would remain valid. New marriages done in states where it's legal would have to be recognized in all other states, regardless of whether it's legal there.

[quote] Like for sure?

The Supreme Court has already ruled that you can’t prosecute an elected official who is rewarded after taking action because the payment is a “gratuity” and not a “bribe.” The Republican Party exists to protect the interests of the rich. They own the Court and the Congress. So, yes, I’m sure.

R83 Tell the truth now were you also sure Harris was going to win or were you called a Nazi maga for suggesting the vote might be close?

And if you knew Trump would win did you tell anyone here. Don’t tell me how smart you will be in the future tell me about your track record so far.

My inclination so far is if DL says it’s going to be up I am betting the down,

Why would you make any assumptions about who I thought was going to win the 2024 elections on the basis of my thoughts about no tax on tips?

Well , I thought the election was too close to call, but one thing has nothing to do with the other. I’m not claiming to be Miss Cleo.

Sorry it’s been a long day :-)

R72, after next year’s midterms, there isn’t going to be a future MAGA Congress capable of doing so for a long, long time.

They’ve already lost the House (there’s only a 3 seat majority so just the NY contests will see to that) and the Senate is now creeping into play.

[quote]Also, without Obergefell, a future Congress might modify or repeal the Respect for Marriage Act leaving some of the issues that law resolves up to various courts to settle on a case-by-case basis.

Any such attempt would almost certainly be opposed by every Democrat in both houses. And bear in mind a good number of Republicans voted for it as well.

The future is a long time.

I wouldn't worry about existing marriages. Marriage is a contract, legally entered into. On what grounds could a court abrogate a legally entered contract?

[quote]On what grounds could a court abrogate a legally entered contract?

Because God and Jesus don't like it!

How naive R92.

R92 is correct. Existing marriages would not be nullified. The question is whether gay marriages will continue.