\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

When will Obergefell be overturned?

Cons are you saving this to run on in 2028?
Wine offensive corner
  06/03/25
Gay marriage is laughably ridiculous
Cracking insecure point
  06/03/25
It literally does not exist.
Irate international law enforcement agency senate
  06/03/25
Congress codified gay marriage after Thomas suggested going ...
Heady Adulterous Elastic Band Mood
  06/03/25
This person disagrees: https://19thnews.org/2022/12/resp...
Wine offensive corner
  06/03/25
LJL if you think ur ever overturning this, much less gay mar...
Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks
  06/04/25
Just strike down hate speech laws on first amendment grounds...
fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot
  06/03/25
This is one of the kookiest rulings in SCOTUS history. It wa...
histrionic round eye
  06/03/25
...
Cracking insecure point
  06/03/25
Reminds me of when SCOTUS had to create a new presidential i...
Cheese-eating mint kitchen background story
  06/04/25
link?
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
how about a link to a video of your ex wife getting dicked d...
Cheese-eating mint kitchen background story
  06/04/25
so, no link?
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
Cons never put up a viable argument against it. No respectab...
fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot
  06/03/25
Gays were always perfectly free to marry members of the oppo...
Razzle boiling water
  06/04/25
...
Metal stag film
  06/03/25
...
iridescent talented parlour
  06/03/25
That's a lot of words just to say, "I'm a bigoted piece...
Thriller legal warrant heaven
  06/03/25
What basic human rights are we going to discover tomorrow, f...
histrionic round eye
  06/03/25
what's wrong with bigotry against homos?
mentally impaired spruce spot pervert
  06/04/25
I don't hate gays. I also don't think the government should ...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
when given an inch, homos took a mile, then they took severa...
mentally impaired spruce spot pervert
  06/04/25
I mostly agree with this but obviously there are some right ...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
> but obviously there are some right wing gay types who h...
mentally impaired spruce spot pervert
  06/04/25
family man "sam hyde inseminating boner police's mouth ...
Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks
  06/04/25
so?
mentally impaired spruce spot pervert
  06/04/25
His rabbi violently molested him This jew faggot will def...
brindle titillating crackhouse
  06/04/25
https://ibb.co/0pp5zzL3 just a reminder that this little bo...
mentally impaired spruce spot pervert
  06/04/25
^gay jewish guy melting down bc someone was mean to a woman ...
brindle titillating crackhouse
  06/04/25
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&f...
mentally impaired spruce spot pervert
  06/04/25
You are very gay and jewish
brindle titillating crackhouse
  06/04/25
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&f...
mentally impaired spruce spot pervert
  06/04/25
God hates you because you’re a jew and a fag
brindle titillating crackhouse
  06/04/25
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&f...
mentally impaired spruce spot pervert
  06/04/25
Hows your 40s, kike? Still not getting pussy? 😂😂ð...
brindle titillating crackhouse
  06/04/25
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&f...
mentally impaired spruce spot pervert
  06/04/25
Reply if you’re a gay jew
brindle titillating crackhouse
  06/04/25
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&f...
mentally impaired spruce spot pervert
  06/04/25
That settles it
brindle titillating crackhouse
  06/04/25
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&f...
mentally impaired spruce spot pervert
  06/04/25
kikecel
brindle titillating crackhouse
  06/04/25
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733169&f...
mentally impaired spruce spot pervert
  06/04/25
Scott Bissent and Dave Rubins kids are probably relatively n...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
this has no policy implications
mentally impaired spruce spot pervert
  06/04/25
Well it's the sole reason why there isn't a outcry against t...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
"And you're entitled to that view but it's not very pop...
Thriller legal warrant heaven
  06/04/25
what's wrong with bigotry against homos?
mentally impaired spruce spot pervert
  06/04/25
"If they had come in through the front door we wouldn't...
Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks
  06/04/25
"The fact is though that they never pleaded their case ...
Thriller legal warrant heaven
  06/04/25
Nobody claims they're having things "forced" down ...
Exciting jet-lagged university
  06/04/25
The whole chain of logic from Roe to Gay Marriage is built o...
Indigo Abusive Genital Piercing Hospital
  06/04/25
They knew Roe was weak, otherwise they wouldn't have needed ...
fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot
  06/04/25
Cr. It was as simple as we have the votes, we can use this t...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
The opposition was uniquely weak due to Bush making Christia...
fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot
  06/04/25
Stfu nsam you ruin every thread. The adults are talking.
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
Nigga I was in the only room where this got debated at the t...
fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot
  06/04/25
I don't want you to name anybody at all I want you to go awa...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
can you also do that? ur stupid and lower the board's prest...
Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks
  06/04/25
False I have done nothing but spit facts
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
no they're just retarded thoughts and spin that you confuse ...
Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks
  06/04/25
You can still find videos of this person giving speeches on ...
fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot
  06/04/25
lol if you think his posts are shittier than yours, hint: ur...
Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks
  06/04/25
You're really spinning like a ratfuck quotemo scum. You're u...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
how's the polling on this issue for you now? has it reverte...
Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks
  06/04/25
How's your opposition to Kavanaugh going for you? Are you st...
fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot
  06/04/25
The 3 trump appointees all support gay marriage. and they w...
Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks
  06/04/25
What if we're talking about fundamental shit like habeas cor...
fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot
  06/04/25
whats ur point? don't make me regret saying that other poas...
Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks
  06/04/25
I aim to be the shittiest
fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot
  06/04/25
No, and who knows when or if it will. But you have to be myo...
Indigo Abusive Genital Piercing Hospital
  06/04/25
this is retarded and disingenuous "analysis" from ...
Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks
  06/04/25
Even if 70% of states wanted it why should they be able to f...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
LMAO, like you fucking freaks want your gun rights shitting ...
Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks
  06/04/25
^ the paragon of sanity, folks Also I would absolutely lo...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
I was storming the Capitol. oh wait, that's you degens ever...
Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks
  06/04/25
Welcome back Karen
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
" stop being such a retarded fucking fag. " You...
Thriller legal warrant heaven
  06/04/25
"Even if 70% of states wanted it why should they be abl...
Thriller legal warrant heaven
  06/04/25
...
Ocher Sneaky Criminal Toilet Seat
  06/04/25
Prior to 1964 integration was not the law of the land. Johns...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
Nigger, Brown v. Board was decided by SCOTUS in 1954, th...
Thriller legal warrant heaven
  06/04/25
That's not true. Brown v Board famously set the limitation o...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
it's comparable to roe v wade, but not antidemocratic in any...
Hairraiser sinister trailer park
  06/04/25
I will give you one million dollars in crypto right now if y...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
reading problems? i said it's easier to find 2a rights becau...
Hairraiser sinister trailer park
  06/04/25
How do we determine what rights we have that are not specifi...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
gee, what an amazing constitutional scholar you are. when t...
Hairraiser sinister trailer park
  06/04/25
when did the legislature give married people 'additional' ri...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
there are countless laws that grant married couple different...
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
it never opened the door. these rights go back to english co...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
dense fuck. right to inherit. right to get tax breaks. right...
Hairraiser sinister trailer park
  06/04/25
yeah, cons fucked up here by not granting fag marriage the s...
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
This is exactly how it was but libs were like no Texas has t...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
you have a tendancy to interpret a criticism of one thing as...
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
They had no reason to capitulate then, they have no reason t...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&mc=124&...
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
let us all remember that it was Democrats who banned gay mar...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
lmfao bro... what do you think DOMA did? it's insane you...
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
I'm saying why didn't they amend the bill that they wrote? T...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
THEY DID!!! CONSTANTLY!!!!!! you know, with AI, instead o...
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
Huh. Well these assholes should have respected democracy ins...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
let's recap: hatp: "legislature didn't give married ...
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
You're completely taking this out of context and not at all ...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
for once why not make an argument instead of conclusory stat...
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
I already said what you took out of context. You put words i...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
"I already said what you took out of context. You put w...
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
You also have said nothing of substance, hth. Easy to poke h...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
and it would be easy for you to cite one thing i took of con...
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
yes it fucking does lol. which branch of government adju...
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
the courts don't get to create rights, they can only protect...
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
If a 'right' didn't exist at the time the amendment was fram...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
its different than roe because there is a constitutional rig...
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
9A wasn't even applied. And "freedom" in and of it...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
i only bring up the 9a because you keep asking where its wri...
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
all forms of gay sex and many forms of hetero sex (anal, ora...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
so no answer why original intent applies to gays but not sex...
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
there were no limitations on states criminalizing sex with y...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
perhaps if you actually read obergefell youd know the standa...
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
what was his reasoning in a nutshell and how does it differ ...
histrionic round eye
  06/04/25
your argument is all over the place and frequently self-cont...
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
the answer is no because it doesn't matter. being married co...
fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot
  06/04/25
It’s lame but being married is actually just a huge bu...
Indigo Abusive Genital Piercing Hospital
  06/04/25
"filing jointly rarely makes any sense these days"...
bearded boyish toaster theater stage
  06/04/25
Yeah that describes how many gay marriages?
fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot
  06/04/25
Fair. It sounded as if you were arguing that marriage had no...
bearded boyish toaster theater stage
  06/04/25
Is 35k a lot to you?
Arrogant glittery potus
  06/04/25
Yeah
bearded boyish toaster theater stage
  06/04/25
marrieds get a lot of important benefits if you cannot prov...
Hairraiser sinister trailer park
  06/04/25
double retard moment. NSAM is retarded for thinking marri...
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
wrong. pedophilia is illegal whether gay or straight. it in...
Hairraiser sinister trailer park
  06/04/25
so? nothing about equal protection has to do with choice...
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
it's not illegal today making your comparison wrong.
Hairraiser sinister trailer park
  06/04/25
cite a law that ties equal protection to choice
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
that's the point, ace. being a homo is considered to not be ...
Hairraiser sinister trailer park
  06/04/25
my point is that nothing about equal protection is related t...
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
yes
sealclubber
  06/04/25
so how does whether being gay is a choice ot not relevant to...
rape laserdisc
  06/04/25
religion is a protected class by default if homosexuality i...
sealclubber
  06/04/25
it's not rocket science for sure, its babble. choice has ...
rape laserdisc
  06/04/25
of course it does. it protects immutable traits of people no...
sealclubber
  06/05/25
"filing jointly rarely makes any sense these days"...
floppy maniacal patrolman
  06/04/25
mean thread to the many XO poasters who have nothing left in...
buff stimulating generalized bond
  06/04/25
No clever arguments or legal reasoning needed Times will ...
Vivacious hyperactive abode reading party
  06/04/25
...
mentally impaired spruce spot pervert
  06/04/25
EPAH really freaked the fuck out under his quotemo ITT. ...
light mischievous garrison
  06/04/25
What are you waiting for? Don't you already have the votes?
fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot
  06/04/25
why is schizo NSAM spazzing out itt?
navy wrinkle bawdyhouse
  06/04/25
can someone make a bot that poasts this in every thread?
Costumed mewling trump supporter
  06/04/25
Worked fine with Roe, faggot!
vigorous theatre
  06/04/25
Ideally won't be an issue because we'll just kill all the ho...
azure aromatic associate home
  06/04/25
Some real Stephen Miller level legal reasoning on display he...
Orange Confused Field
  06/04/25
Headline: Obergefell has Obergefallen
Pumonymous
  06/04/25
...
mostly peaceful poaster
  06/05/25


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: June 3rd, 2025 8:09 PM
Author: Wine offensive corner

Cons are you saving this to run on in 2028?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48984862)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 3rd, 2025 8:12 PM
Author: Cracking insecure point

Gay marriage is laughably ridiculous

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48984866)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 3rd, 2025 9:41 PM
Author: Irate international law enforcement agency senate

It literally does not exist.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985046)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 3rd, 2025 8:36 PM
Author: Heady Adulterous Elastic Band Mood

Congress codified gay marriage after Thomas suggested going after it in Dobbs. SCOTUS would have to go beyond overturning Obergefell and rule that gay marriage violates natural law or something and that statutes recognizing it are unconstitutional.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48984918)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 3rd, 2025 9:24 PM
Author: Wine offensive corner

This person disagrees:

https://19thnews.org/2022/12/respect-for-marriage-act-doesnt-codify-gay-marriage/

Respect for Marriage Act just makes federal law that marriages legal under state law are federally recognized. Seems very ripe for some Dobbs style pwnage.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985021)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:58 AM
Author: Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks

LJL if you think ur ever overturning this, much less gay marriage.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985306)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 3rd, 2025 8:41 PM
Author: fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot

Just strike down hate speech laws on first amendment grounds, make it safe for people to mock gays who get "married"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48984932)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 3rd, 2025 8:44 PM
Author: histrionic round eye

This is one of the kookiest rulings in SCOTUS history. It was federally banned by a bipartisan Congress and a few years later one state decided to do it on their own. 11 years later the High Court ruled that every state in the union has to adopt the views of a minority of states because it would be unfair to grant a right in one place and not observe it somewhere else. They also discovered that it was a basic human right no one had heard of before. And then after bullying the states with this hyperparisan ruling for long enough a bunch of moderate conservatives cucked to the new reality of the situation. This was the most antidemocratic ruling since Roe v Wade which was also the court pulling a rabbit out of a hat for no reason just because they knew they could get away with it. Terrible shit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48984942)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 3rd, 2025 8:45 PM
Author: Cracking insecure point



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48984946)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 4:20 PM
Author: Cheese-eating mint kitchen background story

Reminds me of when SCOTUS had to create a new presidential immunity rule no one had ever heard of before just so the stuff Trump does on a daily basis would no longer be illegal

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986973)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 4:25 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

link?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986990)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 4:29 PM
Author: Cheese-eating mint kitchen background story

how about a link to a video of your ex wife getting dicked down by her new man?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987000)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 4:53 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

so, no link?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987056)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 3rd, 2025 8:56 PM
Author: fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot

Cons never put up a viable argument against it. No respectable lawyer would say any of that shit at the time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48984972)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 2:55 PM
Author: Razzle boiling water

Gays were always perfectly free to marry members of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. Equal protection satisfied.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986724)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 3rd, 2025 8:58 PM
Author: Metal stag film



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48984977)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 3rd, 2025 9:28 PM
Author: iridescent talented parlour



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985028)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 3rd, 2025 10:37 PM
Author: Thriller legal warrant heaven

That's a lot of words just to say, "I'm a bigoted piece of shit"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985128)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 3rd, 2025 10:52 PM
Author: histrionic round eye

What basic human rights are we going to discover tomorrow, fam? The "right to not get shot" ie ban all guns? The human right to kill your baby ie bring back universal abortions? I bet you people can do this all day. Anything libs want there's a "universal human right" to it we just haven't discovered it in 5000 years of civilization.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985158)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:47 AM
Author: mentally impaired spruce spot pervert

what's wrong with bigotry against homos?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985284)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:54 AM
Author: histrionic round eye

I don't hate gays. I also don't think the government should confer special rights upon their degenerate lifestyles, especially when voters never got the chance to vote on it. Not all gays are bad parents or in weird freaky relationships, but a lot of them are into so much weird stuff it's obvious that kids shouldn't grow up around it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985297)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:02 AM
Author: mentally impaired spruce spot pervert

when given an inch, homos took a mile, then they took several hundred more until public schools and children's television shows became instruments of grooming. homos have neither the future orientation nor the vested interest of normal families. a healthy society cannot coexist with a culture of open and out homosexuality.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985317)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:04 AM
Author: histrionic round eye

I mostly agree with this but obviously there are some right wing gay types who have normal families. The fact is though that they never pleaded their case with the general public over whether they ought to have these new rights conferred upon them. Instead they took the low road so like a poisoned tree their rhetoric is Ruined. If they had come in through the front door we wouldn't be here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985321)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:06 AM
Author: mentally impaired spruce spot pervert

> but obviously there are some right wing gay types who have normal families.

no such thing as a normal homo family

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985325)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:08 AM
Author: Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks

family man "sam hyde inseminating boner police's mouth via gjr" who is probably a fat, bald mid 40's, low income weirdo in Jersey, poasted.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985330)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:10 AM
Author: mentally impaired spruce spot pervert

so?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985341)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 10:50 AM
Author: brindle titillating crackhouse

His rabbi violently molested him

This jew faggot will defend homosexuality and will have meltdowns over fag hate

All jews are gay

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986043)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:12 AM
Author: mentally impaired spruce spot pervert

https://ibb.co/0pp5zzL3

just a reminder that this little boner police cuck talks a lot of shit here, but didn't utter a peep for years while GJR posted all sorts of details about him and their relationship, including his crippling insecurity at the fact that sam hyde, well, see my moniker. or at least he didn't dare make a post under his moniker. he did talk plenty of shit about GJR as a quotemo, though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986099)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:23 AM
Author: brindle titillating crackhouse

^gay jewish guy melting down bc someone was mean to a woman on the internet at some point (very gay and simpy)

Do you menstruate?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986116)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:27 AM
Author: mentally impaired spruce spot pervert

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2#48986099)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986128)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:27 AM
Author: brindle titillating crackhouse

You are very gay and jewish

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986131)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:28 AM
Author: mentally impaired spruce spot pervert

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2#48986099)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986133)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:28 AM
Author: brindle titillating crackhouse

God hates you because you’re a jew and a fag

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986136)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:34 AM
Author: mentally impaired spruce spot pervert

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2#48986099)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986152)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:35 AM
Author: brindle titillating crackhouse

Hows your 40s, kike? Still not getting pussy?

😂😂😂😂

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986157)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:44 AM
Author: mentally impaired spruce spot pervert

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2#48986099)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986185)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:46 AM
Author: brindle titillating crackhouse

Reply if you’re a gay jew

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986190)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:55 AM
Author: mentally impaired spruce spot pervert

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2#48986099)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986212)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:17 PM
Author: brindle titillating crackhouse

That settles it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986285)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:43 PM
Author: mentally impaired spruce spot pervert

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2#48986099)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986344)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 2:32 PM
Author: brindle titillating crackhouse

kikecel

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986667)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 2:49 PM
Author: mentally impaired spruce spot pervert

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733169&forum_id=2#48985281)



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986704)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:09 AM
Author: histrionic round eye

Scott Bissent and Dave Rubins kids are probably relatively normal and their dads probably don't take them to pride parades. You could probably do a lot worse.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985334)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:12 AM
Author: mentally impaired spruce spot pervert

this has no policy implications

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985345)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:35 AM
Author: histrionic round eye

Well it's the sole reason why there isn't a outcry against the decision. Because a lot of people know some gay couple with kids who appear normal and dedicated to raising their children. The thought of separating families at this point is unappealing to a lot of voters. You're right there's no test to figure out who are degenerate gays and who aren't. But your argument boils down to the notion that they're all bad and we should never risk it. And you're entitled to that view but it's not very popular. And in order to effect real change you'll have to persuade other people to your side of the argument. You have an uphill battle based on your current position.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985369)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 9:11 AM
Author: Thriller legal warrant heaven

"And you're entitled to that view but it's not very popular"

That's a polite way to describe someone who is a bigoted piece of shit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985683)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 10:39 AM
Author: mentally impaired spruce spot pervert

what's wrong with bigotry against homos?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986006)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:07 AM
Author: Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks

"If they had come in through the front door we wouldn't be here."

LMAO @ u acting like you have an ounce of power. "here" = them having gay marriage rights and you screeching impotently on a racist chat board about it. hth u fucking moron.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985328)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 9:14 AM
Author: Thriller legal warrant heaven

"The fact is though that they never pleaded their case with the general public over whether they ought to have these new rights conferred upon them"

Look, you can either be disingenuous, or you can be a bigoted piece of shit, but don't be both.

You know good and fucking well if Gay Marriage was approved via individual state elections, bigots like you would STILL be pissed and complain about it being "Forced" down voters throats just like you do everytime a state codifies the right to an abortion.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985686)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:13 PM
Author: Exciting jet-lagged university

Nobody claims they're having things "forced" down their throat with codified abortion. to be realistic, most only care about abortion in the abstract. If Laqueefah wants her fetus vacuumed out no one needs to be any the wiser

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986266)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:39 AM
Author: Indigo Abusive Genital Piercing Hospital

The whole chain of logic from Roe to Gay Marriage is built on the myth that history is some march toward a shitlib world order and that courts could speed it up. They never once considered that cultural norms may revert (even though it’s thousands of years vs a couple decades).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985267)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:46 AM
Author: fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot

They knew Roe was weak, otherwise they wouldn't have needed Casey to patch it up, and even then they needed to found all these abortion rights clinics at Harvard and Columbia. If anyone had confidence those opinions would hold up on their own, they didn't act like it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985283)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:49 AM
Author: histrionic round eye

Cr. It was as simple as we have the votes, we can use this tool, and everyone will accept it. It was brazen, bold, and for a time they pulled it off. We're going to swing for the fences, force it down everybody's throats, and by the time they're in position to react everybody will have completely given up on fighting it. They largely won, for the current generation at least. Future generations may have a different say. Just like Roe this one has no basis in the Constitution and can be overturned.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985289)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:50 AM
Author: fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot

The opposition was uniquely weak due to Bush making Christianity toxic for any lawyer. Everyone forgets how crazy religious that administration was. Ted Fucking Olson was arguing for the other side, that's how bad Bush fucked up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985290)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:51 AM
Author: histrionic round eye

Stfu nsam you ruin every thread. The adults are talking.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985292)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:52 AM
Author: fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot

Nigga I was in the only room where this got debated at the time. I know who was willing to show their faces at those FedSoc events. I can name one legal academic who stood up but you can't.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985293)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:55 AM
Author: histrionic round eye

I don't want you to name anybody at all I want you to go away and stop talking please.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985300)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:56 AM
Author: Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks

can you also do that? ur stupid and lower the board's prestige by virtue of your "analysis"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985302)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:01 AM
Author: histrionic round eye

False I have done nothing but spit facts

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985315)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:06 AM
Author: Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks

no they're just retarded thoughts and spin that you confuse with facts because you happen to be stupid. there's a difference.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985323)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:02 AM
Author: fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot

You can still find videos of this person giving speeches on this topic during that era. Like 2006, when it was really hot. If you wanted a conservative legal scholar to come give a lecture in opposition to a constitutional right to gay marriage, one person was happy to do it, and the videos are still on Youtube.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985318)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:55 AM
Author: Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks

lol if you think his posts are shittier than yours, hint: ur stupid.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985299)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:00 AM
Author: histrionic round eye

You're really spinning like a ratfuck quotemo scum. You're unhinged and losing it while I'm completely calm.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985313)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:54 AM
Author: Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks

how's the polling on this issue for you now? has it reverted?

how you guys doing on your abortion referendums? you get it banned in Nebraska yet?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985298)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:55 AM
Author: fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot

How's your opposition to Kavanaugh going for you? Are you still convinced he's hardcore shitcon itching to make Trump emperor, not a closet shitlib willing to hear you out?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985301)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:56 AM
Author: Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks

The 3 trump appointees all support gay marriage. and they won't ever vote to ban gay marriage. they'll "leave it up to the states" so the GOP can slowly lose on this issue state by state over the next 20 years.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985304)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:57 AM
Author: fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot

What if we're talking about fundamental shit like habeas corpus or the actual powers conferred to the POTUS under Article II? Why didn't libs read any of Kav's opinions when he was on the DC Circuit?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985305)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:58 AM
Author: Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks

whats ur point? don't make me regret saying that other poaster is shittier than you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985308)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:58 AM
Author: fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot

I aim to be the shittiest

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985309)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:07 AM
Author: Indigo Abusive Genital Piercing Hospital

No, and who knows when or if it will. But you have to be myopic to think that shitlib values will never revert or will always win and therefore should be enshrined in our constitution via judicial fiat. These are extremely new ideas. Libs seem to take it for granted that their worldview is going to win forever because they had success for a few decades. That kind of thinking seems to have made them legit surprised when people were like Jesus Christ this whole thing has jumped the shark when tranny stuff came along.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985327)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:53 AM
Author: Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks

this is retarded and disingenuous "analysis" from an aptly named poli-sci midwit.

the federal ban was 20 years earlier. and while it was banned in a majority of states through referenda, this midwit selectively fails to point out that gay marriage passed in statewide votes the last several times it was on the ballot. it was very clear that the majority of states were going to vote it in at that point anyway. and now it's got like 70% support. but yes by all means run on this issue. I'm sure it will be as popular as abortion, cons.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985295)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:58 AM
Author: histrionic round eye

Even if 70% of states wanted it why should they be able to force the remaining ones to accept it? Also if it was so widely accepted why didn't anyone on your side run on it for Congress in 2014 as a big campaign issue. You think I'm disingenuous, then why did you slide this in through the back door rather than going to Congress? You didn't have the votes to overturn DoMA. So you begged the SCOTUS to oppress the rural minority in this country who did nothing wrong. Never not imposing your point of view on others.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985307)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:05 AM
Author: Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks

LMAO, like you fucking freaks want your gun rights shitting up and imposed on the civilized states where tax payers live?

like you fucking freaks want to regulate doctors in NY who do tele health visits? stop being such a retarded fucking fag.

As was posted above, congress broke a filibuster to pass gay marriage. The solution is obviously for you freakshow states to just secede. You freaks would be begging to get back into the union the second you realize you're poor as shit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985322)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:07 AM
Author: histrionic round eye

^ the paragon of sanity, folks

Also I would absolutely love to know where you were in November tho night Trump won. How much percocet and wine did you drown your sorrows in?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985329)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:10 AM
Author: Saffron Self-absorbed Business Firm Wagecucks

I was storming the Capitol. oh wait, that's you degens every time you lose.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985338)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:35 AM
Author: histrionic round eye

Welcome back Karen

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985371)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 9:18 AM
Author: Thriller legal warrant heaven

" stop being such a retarded fucking fag. "

You can't ignore the irony of a fag being staunchly opposed to other fags getting married.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985694)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 9:17 AM
Author: Thriller legal warrant heaven

"Even if 70% of states wanted it why should they be able to force the remaining ones to accept it?"

"EVEN IF 70% OF STATES WANTED INTEGRATION, WHY SHOULD THEY BE ABLE TO FORCE THE REMAINING ONES TO ACCEPT IT? IF IT WAS SO ACCEPTED, WHY DIDN'T ANYBODY RUN ON IT FOR CONGRESS IN 1954?"

Do you realize how fucking stupid you sound with this argument?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985693)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 10:52 AM
Author: Ocher Sneaky Criminal Toilet Seat



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986046)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:07 AM
Author: histrionic round eye

Prior to 1964 integration was not the law of the land. Johnson made his whole campaign about desegregation. He said if you elect me I'm going to pass a federal law banning segregation. He won with 60% of the vote and signed the Civil Rights Act into law.

Now can you see any differences between this and how fag marriage came to be? Hmm?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986090)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:46 AM
Author: Thriller legal warrant heaven

Nigger,

Brown v. Board was decided by SCOTUS in 1954, thus ending government-sanctioned segregation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986194)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:16 PM
Author: histrionic round eye

That's not true. Brown v Board famously set the limitation of federal government, but did not instruct. Segregation continued in many ways until the Civil Rights Act was enforced. Brown v Board sparked the begging of the main period of the Civil Rights movement. It did not say the government has to desegregate schools. Segregation was around until the late 60s when the government started enforcing the law which was passed in 1964.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986283)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 10:49 AM
Author: Hairraiser sinister trailer park

it's comparable to roe v wade, but not antidemocratic in any legitimate sense.

rights are rights. the court's job is to protect rights. while states have rights, an individual's rights should be superior when applicable

this is similar to 2a legislation. states don't get to infringe on an individual's rights just because the majority is a bunch of shitlib losers

yes, it's easier to find an individual's right to own a firearm than have an abortion or get married to someone of the same sex, but it's the same principle

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986039)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:05 AM
Author: histrionic round eye

I will give you one million dollars in crypto right now if you can point to anywhere in the Constitution that enshrines the right to fag marriage.

Ljl sealclubber you outdo yourself. Let me help you with this chart:

Actually in the Constitution: Right to bear arms

Not in the Constitution anywhere: fag marriage, abortion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986084)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:08 AM
Author: Hairraiser sinister trailer park

reading problems? i said it's easier to find 2a rights because they are specifically written

that doesn't mean people don't have other individual rights, shit for brains

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986095)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:12 AM
Author: histrionic round eye

How do we determine what rights we have that are not specifically enshrined in the text? Are you insinuating that we have some kind of mystical penumbra of rights no one can detect but everyone knows is there?

This is the exact slippery slope mentality that allowed Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy to make up a bunch of bullshit. It's called legislating from the bench and everyone knows it's horseshit. The liberal justices think we have a bunch of rights that are determined by culture and change with the times. It's utter nonsense. You are a fool.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986098)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:28 AM
Author: Hairraiser sinister trailer park

gee, what an amazing constitutional scholar you are.

when the legislature gave certain people

marrieds

additional rights, it opened the door for the courts to chime in. it did. you don't like what it ruled. cry me a river.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986132)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:32 AM
Author: histrionic round eye

when did the legislature give married people 'additional' rights? when all did this happen? this is a stunning revelation, if true

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986145)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 2:24 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

there are countless laws that grant married couple different rights. which is why your wife will inherit your estate. sealclubber is just saying that once they did that they opened the door to defining what marriage is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986633)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 2:33 PM
Author: histrionic round eye

it never opened the door. these rights go back to english common law. they're not some separate right for special people. they don't make gays into 2nd class citizens by not granting these rights. this is painfully obvious. if two men had sued the court for the right to marry at any point in American history from the Mayflower to 2014 they would have been laughed out of court for over 400 years. insane that anyone thinks this 'opens the door' to anything. Congress even passed a law agreeing with me in the 90s and it was still abused by a shitlib court. it's garbage tier and everyone knows it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986670)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 3:44 PM
Author: Hairraiser sinister trailer park

dense fuck. right to inherit. right to get tax breaks. right to make decisions for their children. right to assets of the other. right to presumption of parentage for cuck babies.

they are separate rights to which non-marrieds are not and were not entitled.

the perception of and understanding of homosexuality has evolved.

just because you want to make some durr durr argument doesn't change that fact.

personally, marriage should be distinct from a couple's status who receives 'rights' from the government.

married + domestic partnerships should be basically overlapping venn diagrams with domestic partnerships, a government creation, being the only status that the government gives additional rights to



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986855)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 5:02 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

yeah, cons fucked up here by not granting fag marriage the same federal rights. all they had to do is pass a law that said:

"the validity of marriage and civil unions are defined by the states, and any federal laws related to marriage shall apply if the couple has a valid marriage or civil union of the state."

texas doesn't want to let fags get married? fine, they can't, and they don't get whatever federal rights that come from it. maine wants to let fags marry? fine, you queers can file a joint tax return.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987077)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 5:11 PM
Author: histrionic round eye

This is exactly how it was but libs were like no Texas has to accept fag marriage licenses from other states... Which they had never done before. There was no precedent. That's why this is absurd. Making a state do something they don't want to do, how is that a con fuckup?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987087)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 5:29 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

you have a tendancy to interpret a criticism of one thing as a criticism of the whole thing. im not saying cons are responsible for obergefell.

im saying that by refusing to recognize state marriages under federal law that created a big incentivize for people to fight for federal legal gay marriage across the board. perhaps live free or die fags in NH that skew very libertarian would not want to impose their will on texans. but they were also being denied their rights as a married couple under federal law.

this is a good example of cons imposing their will onto states. instead of letting adam and steve file a joint tax return in san francisco they died on that hill. and died they did, because without rescinding doma a scotus decision was the only option. and despite obama appointing arch-dyke kagan they decided to break not bene. and now you've got pride parades in austin.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987115)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 5:32 PM
Author: histrionic round eye

They had no reason to capitulate then, they have no reason to capitulate now. No state should be forced to change its laws because of the behavior of another state. That's the whole point of state sovereignty. They should never have gotten ahead of it. It was never their issue. If libs wanted to codify their believes into law at the federal level why didn't they go through Congress? Why didn't they repeal DoMA and replace it with a federal law enshrining gay marriage? Instead they went like snakes to the SCOTUS which they controlled at the time and said, get this done for us. It was so slimey. It was ruthlessly slimey. They should never be forgiven for this. For imposing their will on others and not even doing it democratically. They are scum.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987119)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 5:47 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&mc=124&forum_id=2#48987087

oh, i interpreted "that's exactly how it was" as you saying "you're right but they didn't have to force it to be mandated across all states" and so i explained why that was their only option.

i see now you were saying "that's exactly how it was" meaning "fags in maine could file joint tax returns?" in that case you're just factually wrong. same sex marriages in other states were not recognized under federal law, therefore if adam and steve in maine wanted to file a joint tax return they could not.

you seem to think the only options are:

fed mandates legal gay marriage

fed bans gay marriage

but the default option is "fed applies the marriage laws of the state the person is in." doma prevented that, in so in order for gays married and living in other states to get the federal rights they were entitled to they had to overturn doma (wasn't happening)_or win at scotus. what i'm saying is perhaps if cons allowed fag couples in lib states to fag it up there wouldn't have been as much motivation to change the law. you know, states rights?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987155)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 6:07 PM
Author: histrionic round eye

let us all remember that it was Democrats who banned gay marriage in the first place LOL

yeah I guess some kind of compromise to amend DoMA to where states that legalized it could get federal recognition. That would have been a more honorable proposition from the left, and it would have been honorable for the right to consider. But the left never even made a play for that they just went over everybody's heads so Biden could run around the Capitol in a rainbow flag and WaPo could call it the greatest day in American history.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987188)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 6:31 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

lmfao bro... what do you think DOMA did?

it's insane you're saying "the left didn't even try to amend it to just get federal recognition."

ALL DOMA DID WAS DEFINE MARRIAGE AND PREVENT LEGALLY MARRIED GAYS FROM GETTING FEDERAL BENEFITS!!!

how are you talking about the left's legislative efforts here!? what do you think should have been left in after the "states that legalized it could get federal recognition"? THAT'S THE ENTIRE LAW!!! you didn't read the law, you certainly don't know the nitty gritty about failed legislative efforts proposed regarding it.

it's like a page long dude: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-104publ199/html/PLAW-104publ199.htm

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987231)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 6:32 PM
Author: histrionic round eye

I'm saying why didn't they amend the bill that they wrote? They passed DoMA. Then states didn't like it. Why didn't they go after DoMA? Why did they go to the SCOTUS?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987232)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 6:37 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

THEY DID!!! CONSTANTLY!!!!!!

you know, with AI, instead of just imagining what happened, you can get answers to simple questions fairly easy:

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) faced multiple legislative attempts for repeal through the introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act and related bills across several U.S. Congress sessions. Based on available records, at least six distinct bills were proposed to repeal DOMA, specifically identified in the 111th, 112th, 113th, 114th, and 117th Congresses. These include:

111th Congress (2009–2011): The Respect for Marriage Act was introduced in the House on September 15, 2009, by Representatives Jerrold Nadler, Tammy Baldwin, and Jared Polis, with 91 original co-sponsors. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Senators Dianne Feinstein, Patrick Leahy, and Kristen Gillibrand.

112th Congress (2011–2013): The Respect for Marriage Act was reintroduced in the House and Senate, with the Senate bill (S. 598) introduced on March 16, 2011, by Senator Feinstein. It gained significant attention, including a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on July 20, 2011, and a committee vote in November 2011.

113th Congress (2013–2015): The Respect for Marriage Act was reintroduced on June 26, 2013, as H.R. 2523 in the House by Representative Nadler and as S. 1236 in the Senate by Senator Feinstein, following the Supreme Court’s United States v. Windsor decision.

114th Congress (2015–2017): The Respect for Marriage Act was introduced again on January 6, 2015, as S. 29 in the Senate by Senator Feinstein and as H.R. 197 in the House by Representative Nadler.

117th Congress (2021–2023): The Respect for Marriage Act was introduced as H.R. 8404 in the House and S. 4556 in the Senate, both in July 2022. This bill successfully passed both chambers and was signed into law by President Joe Biden on December 13, 2022, fully repealing DOMA.

Each of these bills aimed to repeal DOMA, with the 117th Congress’s H.R. 8404 being the one that ultimately succeeded. While the Respect for Marriage Act was the primary vehicle, it’s possible that additional related bills or amendments were proposed but not explicitly documented in the provided sources. However, based on the clear legislative history, at least six bills (across the House and Senate in multiple sessions) were introduced with the explicit goal of repealing DOMA.

Final Answer: At least six bills were proposed to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, spanning the 111th, 112th, 113th, 114th, and 117th Congresses, with the Respect for Marriage Act being the primary legislative effort.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987250)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 6:46 PM
Author: histrionic round eye

Huh. Well these assholes should have respected democracy instead of pushing the court to do the dirty work for them. Sounds like they didn't have the votes and so they said hey wait a minute we have all the Justices we need. Slimeballs. This never would have happened.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987273)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 7:12 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

let's recap:

hatp: "legislature didn't give married people additional rights."

gunner: "there are countless laws granting rights to married couples."

hatp: "that doesn't open the door for the court to interpret what marriage is."

gunner: "it's explicitly their job, without laws about marriage the court would have nothing to decide. cons should have respected states rights and let them decide what marriage is."

hatp: "that's exactly how it was."

gun: "no, it's literally the exact opposite."

hatp: "well libs and cons should have compromised to amend doma to allow legally married gays to get federal rights."

gunner: "literally all DOMA does is deny this, there is nothing to amend."

hatp: "well libs should have tried to overturn it legislatively."

gunner: "they did, constantly."

hatp: "huh, well they should have tried longer."

does being wrong about facts at every single juncture cause you to reflect on how well-informed your opinions are?

btw -- do you think cons are scum for getting the courts to reverse roe rather just getting the votes necessary to delegate abortion policy to the states?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987329)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 7:17 PM
Author: histrionic round eye

You're completely taking this out of context and not at all what I said. I unequivocally deny that courts amending marriage laws opened the door for Obergefell. That's absolutely silly and absurd.

I didn't know how hard libs tried and failed to overturn their own law but that should still be the law of the land. Cons should never have given them an inch.

Roe was wrongly decided from the beginning so the Court reversing their own error was the only option. It's the only option now too with Obergefell because this ruling is above the Congressional ruling. It's de novo Constitution legislation.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987347)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 7:24 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

for once why not make an argument instead of conclusory statements followed by a non-sequitor?

what did i misrepresent and take out of context in that recap?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987363)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 7:35 PM
Author: histrionic round eye

I already said what you took out of context. You put words in my mouth recapping a bunch of concession I never made. It's impossible arguing with you because you never agree to the terms at hand and endlessly shift the goal posts. It's like arguing with a shape-shifting blob. I already made dozens of cogent arguments none of which you addressed and your main debate tactic is instead of addressing my points to accuse me of not addressing any of your points which is why 90% of our debates end exactly like this except this time I'm not mad at all but if I had infinite cognitive energy I could easily go back and copy and paste the half dozen arguments I've made that you haven't begun to push back on. Instead you said I said a bunch of things I didn't say, and one thing that I did which is I forgot that Dems tried to repeal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987385)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 7:48 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

"I already said what you took out of context. You put words in my mouth recapping a bunch of concession I never made."

conclusory statement

"It's impossible arguing with you because you..."

rambling non-sequitur

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987405)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 8:02 PM
Author: histrionic round eye

You also have said nothing of substance, hth. Easy to poke holes at the other guy without addressing any of the arguments.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987441)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 8:51 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

and it would be easy for you to cite one thing i took of context. i try to hone in on a single argument but all i get is conclusory statement + non-sequiturs. it's much easier if you just answer a question and then ask your own rather than rambling past onto other things.

i invited you to just state your argument plainly here, but you ignored it.

https://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&mc=137&forum_id=2#48986854

you don't make arguments, it's an ADHD mishmash of various nonresponsive things. tackling them all individually would take forever and come off as insulting. that's why i keep trying to focus in on ONE topic (like i've done multiple times here), but you never address is beyond "you're putting words in my mouth" (no argument explaining this assertion).

here, i'll go through your first poast to me in this thread to demonstrate. i started off by saying there are many rights for married couples and that this opens to door for court interpretation. here's your response, and i'll respond line by line:

https://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&mc=138&forum_id=2#48986670

"it never opened the door. these rights go back to english common law"

the issue was federal courts interpreting what marriage means, and common law rights derived from english common law are handled by the states. the issue here is opening the door for federal courts through federal benefits like social security benefits and tax returns, which is what gives federal courts the ability to interpret the laws, i.e. "opens the door." right from the outset you've shown you've completely missed the point.

"they're not some separate right for special people. they don't make gays into 2nd class citizens by not granting these rights."

they are "special" rights for "special" people, i.e. rights only for married people. that's exactly what's at issue here: married gays getting federal rights afforded to married couples.

"this is painfully obvious."

i have no idea what is "painfully obvious" but rhetoric like this diminishes any argument, it's just juvenile jabs, ironic because you were the one that missed sealclubber (of all poaster's) point.

"if two men had sued the court for the right to marry at any point in American history from the Mayflower to 2014 they would have been laughed out of court for over 400 years."

more non-responsive stuff, you may feel like these are arguments but the issue is making marriage a federal issue that the federal courts can hear, but you're stuck on the "gay marriage was never a right", which has nothing to do with the comment you're responding to, but you keep just providing examples of how some marriage rights are old, which 1) something everyone knows and doesn't need to be proven, 2) irrelevant, and 3) needlessly repetitive.

"insane that anyone thinks this 'opens the door' to anything."

but it does, legally. and you've already said this. imagine if you took out repetitive conclusions "it never opened the door" and insults "this is painfully obvious" and repetitive examples "mayflower! english common law!" you could sum up the entire argument here in one sentence "it doesn't open the door because marriage rights derive from ancient common law."

"Congress even passed a law agreeing with me in the 90s and it was still abused by a shitlib court."

i assume you're talking about DOMA here, which is funny because later it becomes clear you don't even know what DOMA did. and how does it mean congress agrees with you that it "doesn't open the door for the courts to chime in?" it's 100% the opposite: congress defining marriage creates an issue to litigate the constitutionality of. you're proving sealclubber's point here but think it's some slam dunk.

"it's garbage tier and everyone knows it."

and again back to the broader issue that's irrelevant to the poast you're responding to: obergefell is shit. that's not the issue in the comment you're responding to. in addition to that you know i agree with it. and i bet sealclubber does too. you seem to think because he's pointing out flaws and factual errors in your argument that he's for the legal argument supporting obergerfel but nothing he's said indicates that. you frequently confuse people pointing out problems with your argument as arguing against your conclusion. (otoh sealclubbber is very dumb and biased so he may be for it, but that would go against all the other legal arguments i've seen him make over the years). in any case, it's also completely non-responsive to the topic: "when the legislature gave married people rights it opened the door for the courts to chime in."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987551)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 4:18 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

yes it fucking does lol.

which branch of government adjudicates disputes and interprets the law? if you pass a law the courts job is to interpret it.

you're arguing that the courts should interpret it as "that's not what marriage means." that's still fucking interpreting the definition of marriage.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986969)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:47 AM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

the courts don't get to create rights, they can only protect rights enshrined by the constitution.

first you have enumerated rights, like 2a, which clearly exist because its on the page.

then you have stuff like "fundamental rights" like "liberty" in the 14a. much more open to interpretation. few would argue that that doesnt include sex and marriage, and few would argue its limitless. no animals or kids seems obvious. same sex and previously opposite race is thornier.

roe is very different in that it created a right and then applied to something barely related and enshrined it completely, privacy to abortion.

obergerfell is much more tolerable than roe from a legal perspective. and from a social perspective as fags always will and have existed, and on its own doesnt hurt anyone. abortion kills the babby.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986197)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:00 PM
Author: histrionic round eye

If a 'right' didn't exist at the time the amendment was framed it's not a right at all. It's a cultural innovation. No one who wrote 14A thought gay marriage, interracial marriage, or no fault divorce was a fundamental human right. Not one of them. It was inconceivable at the time that 14A would be applied centuries later in this manner. It's therefore not a right but an innovation. The correct thing to do is to persuade the electorate to enshrine it, not to force it on everyone by decree. That's why it's an antidemocratic practice. It's as bad as Roe from a legal standpoint. Less bad than Roe culturally which is why it will likely stand.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986230)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:25 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

its different than roe because there is a constitutional right to liberty. the 9th amendment also established that the enumerated rights arent *all* our rights. marriage and coupling has always been an established right. and its up to the courts to decide where that begins and ends.

im an originalist and agree with some of your analysis, but thats not the end all be all of interpretation. especially when it can't be used for new innovations. under your interpretation only muskets would be allowed under the 2A.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986299)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:33 PM
Author: histrionic round eye

9A wasn't even applied. And "freedom" in and of itself is too broad. Every Constitutional right has limitations, especially the 'right to freedom' which is so broad it could include anything. That's something I expect SP would invoke at his trial.

I definitely think the right to carry a long gun openly in public is the most historically accurate interpretation of 2A. Even though rifling wasn't broadly adopted, I think the strength of 2A covers it. It's an innovation within an enshrined right. The right to carry around a nuclear warhead, less so, which we obviously don't allow. Gay marriage on the other had isn't even an innovation within an enshrined right, it's simply outside the spectrum of anything that was previously agreed upon.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986316)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 2:10 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

i only bring up the 9a because you keep asking where its written but the founders explictly did not intend for only enumerated rights to be considered individual rights, not because it was relied on in this clase.

you also have no reasoning about *why* you think the 2A applies to new weapons (but not all, no explanation there either). your argument is completely conclusory.

marriage and fornication has always been a considered a fundemental right that the 14th amendment protected. when passed the minimum age for fornication with a woman was as low as 7. does that mean the age of consent for a woman at 7 is constitutionally protected?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986600)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 2:20 PM
Author: histrionic round eye

all forms of gay sex and many forms of hetero sex (anal, oral) were illegal for most of US history and only found legal basis in the 21st century, another disastrous de novo 'right' libs discovered.

I have never once in all my days heard of an AOC as low as 7 anywhere in the world so would be floored by any evidence of this. Even the pervy French kings of yore had to wait til they were 12.

I know that when the Constitution was ratified the punishment for any felony was death and the age of majority was 13, so yes, the government did hang 13 year olds for felonies. I believe Scalia said that the government reserves this right although it is no longer practiced anywhere. On the contrary the SCOTUS has found more de novo rights of minors to be protected from capital punishment. This is also certainly absurd.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986614)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 2:32 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

so no answer why original intent applies to gays but not sex with 7 (or 12 or 14) years?

my point isnt you havent explained any framework for how amd why scotus is supoosed to define rights beyond original intent, which youre happy to deviate frkm when it suits your preferences. youre not making any legal or rationally cogent arguments, it all just comes down to the law should be what hatp thinks is best.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986666)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 2:37 PM
Author: histrionic round eye

there were no limitations on states criminalizing sex with young people as far as I know. and there still isn't. that's 10A there - states decide what is and isn't a crime according to the values of the local people of those states and regions.

as for me having to define what unenumerated rights we can all agree on, that's a facile argument. The impetus is on the plaintiff to explain why he has the de novo right that previously did not exist in any codified manner. this is obvious. you have to explain why we have rights no one has ever heard of before. I don't have to explain what the standard is for testing unenumerated rights. That's just silly. I'm sure there is a test somewhere in case law but I know it's not, "one state decided to confer this right a few years ago and now everyone has to enforce it whether they like it or not." I'm sure any FedSoc member reading this would agree with me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986678)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 3:01 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

perhaps if you actually read obergefell youd know the standard seeing as the entire case is about applying it.

you know that i am an officer in fedsoc. i can assure you no one would agree with your legal analysis. i completely agree with alitos dissent and think its a bad decision.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986748)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 3:22 PM
Author: histrionic round eye

what was his reasoning in a nutshell and how does it differ from mine. "Yes, we have unenumerated rights, yes fag marriage is one of them, BUT..."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986800)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 3:44 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

your argument is all over the place and frequently self-contradictory or misstating the law you're applying.

if you can cogently state your legal argument i'll tell you how it differs.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986854)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:48 AM
Author: fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot

the answer is no because it doesn't matter. being married confers no real benefit unless you're marrying someone for a green card, and that's entirely at the discretion of Congress. Being married gives you hospital visitation rights, and I guess inheritance rights? Insurers were already letting people put same-sex couples on the same plan, and filing jointly rarely makes any sense these days, so what's left to fight over? The right to sue for alimony? What?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985288)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:10 AM
Author: Indigo Abusive Genital Piercing Hospital

It’s lame but being married is actually just a huge burden not a benefit at all (unless you are the weaker party in the relationship).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985339)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:35 AM
Author: bearded boyish toaster theater stage

"filing jointly rarely makes any sense these days"

It makes a tremendous difference if you have a higher earner married to someone who doesn't work (stay-at-home mom). I married recently and it quite literally makes like a $35k difference in my tax liability every year.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985370)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 1:44 AM
Author: fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot

Yeah that describes how many gay marriages?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985374)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:15 AM
Author: bearded boyish toaster theater stage

Fair. It sounded as if you were arguing that marriage had no real benefits to anyone.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986104)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 7:38 AM
Author: Arrogant glittery potus

Is 35k a lot to you?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985584)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:16 AM
Author: bearded boyish toaster theater stage

Yeah

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986107)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 10:54 AM
Author: Hairraiser sinister trailer park

marrieds get a lot of important benefits

if you cannot prove gayness is a choice, then gays should not be precluded from those benefits. equal protection.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986049)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 4:14 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

double retard moment.

NSAM is retarded for thinking marriage doesn't confer any significant benefits. it confers some of the most significant benefits. if your partner was on her deathbed and her family wanted to pull the plug, the benefit of being the decider as her husband versus no input as a boyfriend would be pretty fucking significant.

you're retarded for basing it on whether it's a choice. pedophilia is almost certainly not a choice either.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986960)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:07 PM
Author: Hairraiser sinister trailer park

wrong. pedophilia is illegal whether gay or straight.

it involves a victim.

gaydom for adults does not.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987898)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:26 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

so?

nothing about equal protection has to do with choice. religion is a choice too.

whether something is illegal is a policy decision. homosexuality used to be illegal. and illegal groups don't qualify for equal protection. if being gay was outlawed again they would not get equal protection. thats my whole point in using pedophilia as an example. choice has no impact.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987934)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:29 PM
Author: Hairraiser sinister trailer park

it's not illegal today making your comparison wrong.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987938)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:30 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

cite a law that ties equal protection to choice

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987940)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:34 PM
Author: Hairraiser sinister trailer park

that's the point, ace. being a homo is considered to not be a choice these days

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987950)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:35 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

my point is that nothing about equal protection is related to choice. is religion subject to eqaul protection?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987954)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:38 PM
Author: sealclubber

yes

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987959)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:41 PM
Author: rape laserdisc (gunneratttt)

so how does whether being gay is a choice ot not relevant to equal protection?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987966)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:45 PM
Author: sealclubber

religion is a protected class by default

if homosexuality is some legal deviant choice, they are not similarly situated to straights. they could get married to opposite sex.

if homosexuality is not a choice, then you put gays in an untenable situation to have the same rights as straights.

this ain't rocket science

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987975)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:55 PM
Author: rape laserdisc (gunneratttt)

it's not rocket science for sure, its babble.

choice has no impact on equal protection. if im wrong, cite a law. ive already cited an example: religion. wtf does "by default" mean here? that we decided religion gets equal protection? wow, so it seems like choice has nothing to do with equal protection!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987990)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 5th, 2025 1:21 PM
Author: sealclubber

of course it does. it protects immutable traits of people not voluntary ones.

the only exception is religion

gorsuch twisted and turned to say sexual orientation is the same as sex for job discrimination, but it's really because

no choice

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48989273)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:32 PM
Author: floppy maniacal patrolman

"filing jointly rarely makes any sense these days"

Was with you until this needlessly out-of-the-way weird and wrong statement.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986314)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 12:51 AM
Author: buff stimulating generalized bond

mean thread to the many XO poasters who have nothing left in this gay earth to do but get fag married

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985291)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 7:48 AM
Author: Vivacious hyperactive abode reading party

No clever arguments or legal reasoning needed

Times will get very hard, violent men will take control, and gays will be eliminated

Lol at “arguing” with shit libs

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985591)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 10:41 AM
Author: mentally impaired spruce spot pervert



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986015)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 8:59 AM
Author: light mischievous garrison

EPAH really freaked the fuck out under his quotemo ITT.

It's worth striking it down just to see shitlibs freak out and suffer.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985668)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 3:30 PM
Author: fear-inspiring meetinghouse idiot

What are you waiting for? Don't you already have the votes?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986819)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 9:19 AM
Author: navy wrinkle bawdyhouse

why is schizo NSAM spazzing out itt?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48985698)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 4:15 PM
Author: Costumed mewling trump supporter

can someone make a bot that poasts this in every thread?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986963)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:08 AM
Author: vigorous theatre

Worked fine with Roe, faggot!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986096)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 2:11 PM
Author: azure aromatic associate home

Ideally won't be an issue because we'll just kill all the homos first

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986602)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 8:19 PM
Author: Orange Confused Field

Some real Stephen Miller level legal reasoning on display here

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987481)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 4th, 2025 11:39 PM
Author: Pumonymous

Headline: Obergefell has Obergefallen

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48987961)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 5th, 2025 12:14 AM
Author: mostly peaceful poaster (✅ðŸ‘)



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48988018)