When will Obergefell be overturned?
| Appetizing ungodly state | 06/03/25 | | Vivacious church | 06/03/25 | | violet tattoo | 06/03/25 | | carnelian insecure forum cumskin | 06/03/25 | | Appetizing ungodly state | 06/03/25 | | shivering maniacal pocket flask | 06/04/25 | | Painfully honest site mother | 06/03/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/03/25 | | Vivacious church | 06/03/25 | | Copper stage | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | Copper stage | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | Painfully honest site mother | 06/03/25 | | marvelous cerise national | 06/04/25 | | Tan trump supporter | 06/03/25 | | Splenetic chest-beating house | 06/03/25 | | Stirring Wagecucks | 06/03/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/03/25 | | Crimson razzmatazz athletic conference trailer park | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | Crimson razzmatazz athletic conference trailer park | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | Crimson razzmatazz athletic conference trailer park | 06/04/25 | | shivering maniacal pocket flask | 06/04/25 | | Crimson razzmatazz athletic conference trailer park | 06/04/25 | | Cobalt Stag Film | 06/04/25 | | Crimson razzmatazz athletic conference trailer park | 06/04/25 | | Cobalt Stag Film | 06/04/25 | | Crimson razzmatazz athletic conference trailer park | 06/04/25 | | Cobalt Stag Film | 06/04/25 | | Crimson razzmatazz athletic conference trailer park | 06/04/25 | | Cobalt Stag Film | 06/04/25 | | Crimson razzmatazz athletic conference trailer park | 06/04/25 | | Cobalt Stag Film | 06/04/25 | | Crimson razzmatazz athletic conference trailer park | 06/04/25 | | Cobalt Stag Film | 06/04/25 | | Crimson razzmatazz athletic conference trailer park | 06/04/25 | | Cobalt Stag Film | 06/04/25 | | Crimson razzmatazz athletic conference trailer park | 06/04/25 | | Cobalt Stag Film | 06/04/25 | | Crimson razzmatazz athletic conference trailer park | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | Crimson razzmatazz athletic conference trailer park | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | Stirring Wagecucks | 06/04/25 | | Crimson razzmatazz athletic conference trailer park | 06/04/25 | | shivering maniacal pocket flask | 06/04/25 | | Stirring Wagecucks | 06/04/25 | | lemon turdskin community account | 06/04/25 | | bright slippery sanctuary affirmative action | 06/04/25 | | Painfully honest site mother | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | Painfully honest site mother | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | Painfully honest site mother | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | shivering maniacal pocket flask | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | shivering maniacal pocket flask | 06/04/25 | | Painfully honest site mother | 06/04/25 | | shivering maniacal pocket flask | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | shivering maniacal pocket flask | 06/04/25 | | Painfully honest site mother | 06/04/25 | | shivering maniacal pocket flask | 06/04/25 | | Painfully honest site mother | 06/04/25 | | shivering maniacal pocket flask | 06/04/25 | | Painfully honest site mother | 06/04/25 | | bright slippery sanctuary affirmative action | 06/04/25 | | shivering maniacal pocket flask | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | shivering maniacal pocket flask | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | shivering maniacal pocket flask | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | Stirring Wagecucks | 06/04/25 | | Stirring Wagecucks | 06/04/25 | | learning disabled set jew | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | Stirring Wagecucks | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | obsidian incel corn cake | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | obsidian incel corn cake | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | obsidian incel corn cake | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | obsidian incel corn cake | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | Beta sepia hissy fit chapel | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | Painfully honest site mother | 06/04/25 | | bright slippery sanctuary affirmative action | 06/04/25 | | white hairraiser goal in life karate | 06/04/25 | | Painfully honest site mother | 06/04/25 | | white hairraiser goal in life karate | 06/04/25 | | misanthropic school cafeteria | 06/04/25 | | white hairraiser goal in life karate | 06/04/25 | | obsidian incel corn cake | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | obsidian incel corn cake | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | obsidian incel corn cake | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | sealclubber | 06/04/25 | | rape laserdisc | 06/04/25 | | sealclubber | 06/04/25 | | rape laserdisc | 06/04/25 | | sealclubber | 06/04/25 | | rape laserdisc | 06/04/25 | | sealclubber | 06/05/25 | | misunderstood fragrant mediation | 06/04/25 | | jet stage | 06/04/25 | | Talented parlor | 06/04/25 | | Crimson razzmatazz athletic conference trailer park | 06/04/25 | | Passionate autistic school antidepressant drug | 06/04/25 | | Painfully honest site mother | 06/04/25 | | Vibrant canary piazza | 06/04/25 | | emerald idiot parlour | 06/04/25 | | hateful metal pozpig corner | 06/04/25 | | spectacular pit friendly grandma | 06/04/25 | | Sadistic jewess | 06/04/25 | | Pumonymous | 06/04/25 | | mostly peaceful poaster | 06/05/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 10:50 AM Author: Cobalt Stag Film
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) |
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 11:35 AM Author: Cobalt Stag Film
Hows your 40s, kike? Still not getting pussy?
😂😂😂😂
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733100&forum_id=2...id.#48986157) |
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 9:14 AM Author: Stirring Wagecucks
"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)
|
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 1:05 AM Author: shivering maniacal pocket flask
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) |
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 9:17 AM Author: Stirring Wagecucks
"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) |
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 10:49 AM Author: obsidian incel corn cake
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) |
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 11:05 AM Author: Beta sepia hissy fit chapel
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) |
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 11:28 AM Author: obsidian incel corn cake
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)
|
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 3:44 PM Author: obsidian incel corn cake
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) |
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 5:02 PM Author: emerald idiot parlour
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) |
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 5:29 PM Author: emerald idiot parlour
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) |
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 5:47 PM Author: emerald idiot parlour
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) |
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 6:31 PM Author: emerald idiot parlour
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) |
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 6:37 PM Author: emerald idiot parlour
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) |
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 7:12 PM Author: emerald idiot parlour
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) |
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 7:17 PM Author: Beta sepia hissy fit chapel
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)
|
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 7:48 PM Author: emerald idiot parlour
"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) |
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 8:51 PM Author: emerald idiot parlour
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) |
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 4:18 PM Author: emerald idiot parlour
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) |
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 11:47 AM Author: emerald idiot parlour
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) |
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 2:10 PM Author: emerald idiot parlour
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) |
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 2:20 PM Author: Beta sepia hissy fit chapel
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) |
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 4:14 PM Author: emerald idiot parlour
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) |
 |
Date: June 4th, 2025 11:26 PM Author: emerald idiot parlour
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) |
 |
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) |
 |
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) |
Date: June 4th, 2025 7:48 AM Author: Talented parlor
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) |
Date: June 4th, 2025 8:59 AM Author: Passionate autistic school antidepressant drug
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) |
|
|