The legal and religious aspects of marriage or totally different things. In the legal sense marriage confers the rights of a spouse onto the other party. Next-of-kin status, medical visitation and care decisions, etc. That's what the OG gays were fighting for. It got twisted by the opposition to rile up their Bible-thumper base for fundraising purposes by suggesting your church would be forced to perform fabulous gay wedding ceremonies. Not the same thing.
They were, it was called Domestic Partnerships. They were the same as marriage legally but the gays didn't want that because they're obsessed with Christianity and debasing it, same reason they took the rainbow as a symbol. They're antagonistic and when you give them what they want they say "no, not like that, you also have to ruin that thing that's important to you."
this is fucking hilarious, "they land is very valuable, waterfront and everything"
Nah that's just actually what they wanted
The homeless in DC aren't people down on their luck. They're all psycho junkies so they all have a record to get locked up like the youthers.
Anyone with such a worldview knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. It takes a beautiful exchange in which two people promise to share the rest of their lives with each other, and reduces it to a calculated transactional relationship.
Even assuming arguendo that Gay marriage should be a legally enforceable contract (which is a big assumption, because states have broad powers to make certain contracts illegal as against public policy) such a contract would not be constitutionally protected (ignoring the niche contact clause cases, which aren’t at issue here), and Obergefell is a still an awful decision that needs to be overturned.
I’m genuinely curious to see how this single day liberation will play out
It could be if Lochner were still good law. And from a neutral perspective, either substantive due process is a thing and it covers liberty of contract, or it's a made up frankenstein legal doctrine and doesn't exist at all. You can't have it both ways.
I’m hoping with lots of great content
Agreed, but the Court has never had much interest in making Substantive Due Process make sense.
This is something I think a lot of people miss when it comes to discussing the Homeless problem. IMO, there's 4 demographics of homeless.
I think people have this perception that all homeless are the down on their luck or nomad types but due to decades of social programming you are not allowed to bring up the fact that most homeless are druggies.
I think the liberal judiciary just hates the Privileges and Immunities clause. What convinced me of this is Tennessee v. Lane, which was an ADA case written by Stevens about disabled people being able to get into the courthouse. He contorted himself into more knots than a pretzel to get to the conclusion that there's a fundamental right to access courts, even though one of the few privileges and immunities confirmed by the Slaughter House Cases was access to the courts. The opinion could have been two paragraphs total, but Stevens goes out of his way to purposefully not discuss that precedent and instead write pages of substantive due process gobbledygook. I can't make sense of it. The only explanation is that they want to avoid any discussion of privileges and immunities even when the slight P/I precedent remaining perfectly applies to the case at hand.
Give me your jew gold and not your dummy jew gold.
And after you've given him your dummy dummy jew gold, give me your jew gold and your cufflinks.
It's honestly insane anyone has that perception because the nomads tend to have a van or something and don't bother people, and the unlucky ones usually don't stay homeless for long since they're trying to improve their lives.
