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)

no such thing as a normal homo family

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

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)

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)

Do you menstruate?

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

😂😂😂😂

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

it involves a victim.

gaydom for adults does not.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)