Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.
A couple hundred million you say? Hardly. Poll after poll after poll states the exact opposite. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, gays are continuing to marry in every state and all you can do is stomp your feet.
If those polls were accurate, the gay marriage proposition in California wouldn't have been voted down.
On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.
A couple hundred million you say? Hardly. Poll after poll after poll states the exact opposite. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, gays are continuing to marry in every state and all you can do is stomp your feet.
If those polls were accurate, the gay marriage proposition in California wouldn't have been voted down.
Gallup disagrees.....
In 2008 opposition out paced support 56 to 40. Last year it support outpaced opposition 60 to 37.
You may not see any significance in a complete reversal of opposition/support numbers in less than a decade. But a rational person would.
On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.
A couple hundred million you say? Hardly. Poll after poll after poll states the exact opposite. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, gays are continuing to marry in every state and all you can do is stomp your feet.
If those polls were accurate, the gay marriage proposition in California wouldn't have been voted down.
Gallup disagrees.....
In 2008 opposition out paced support 56 to 40. Last year it support outpaced opposition 60 to 37.
You may not see any significance in a complete reversal of opposition/support numbers in less than a decade. But a rational person would.
Why was prop 8 voted down?
it's a pretty smug position you are taking when the court only ruled 5 to 4......that means there were 4 esteemed dissenting opinions....I clearly stated that the Obergefell court cited an equal protection clause. And a due process clause. And that both exist in the 14th amendment....exactly as the Obergefell court found.
Keep running. It doesn't matter either way. Its just fun to watch you come up with excuse after excuse to avoid acknowledging that the Obergefell ruling cited the Equal Protection and Due Processes clauses.
The cited the 14th Amendment as, "States are required to issue licenses to same sex couples". Where does The 14th Amendment day that?
Where did the court claim that the 14th 'says' this?
Instead, the court held that the Equal protection clauses and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment created the requirement for states to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples.
Keep running. Like I said, you ignoring what the court actually held about the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.....doesn't matter. But its fun to watch the excuses.
You get caught lying and you double down on the lie.
How sweet!
Laughing....oh look. Yet another excuse why you're going to refuse to acknowledge the Obergefell court cited the Equal Protection and Due Process clause as creating the requirement of States marriage licenses to issue same sex couples.
Keep those eyes screwed shut. It doesn't matter
Chief Justice Roberts.....Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.[127] Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment.[128] Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage
Justice Scalia......Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of the liberty to govern themselves, noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted.[136] Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today.[137] He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law."[137] Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for "diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis" and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
Justice Thomas......Thomas rejected the principle of substantive due process, which he claimed "invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—roa[m] at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by that document"; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."[139] Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint."
Justice Alito......Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition.[144] Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment.
Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.
A couple hundred million you say? Hardly. Poll after poll after poll states the exact opposite. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, gays are continuing to marry in every state and all you can do is stomp your feet.
If those polls were accurate, the gay marriage proposition in California wouldn't have been voted down.
On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.
A couple hundred million you say? Hardly. Poll after poll after poll states the exact opposite. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, gays are continuing to marry in every state and all you can do is stomp your feet.
If those polls were accurate, the gay marriage proposition in California wouldn't have been voted down.
Gallup disagrees.....
In 2008 opposition out paced support 56 to 40. Last year it support outpaced opposition 60 to 37.
You may not see any significance in a complete reversal of opposition/support numbers in less than a decade. But a rational person would.
Why was prop 8 voted down?
On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.
A couple hundred million you say? Hardly. Poll after poll after poll states the exact opposite. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, gays are continuing to marry in every state and all you can do is stomp your feet.
If those polls were accurate, the gay marriage proposition in California wouldn't have been voted down.
There was no 'gay marriage proposition' in California- California's Prop 8 was an anti-gay marriage proposition- which was voted in 8 years ago.
Since that vote, Republicans have almost vanished from the State legislature.
You may think that voter's opinions are like a fly stuck in amber- but it doesn't make that true.
On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.
A couple hundred million you say? Hardly. Poll after poll after poll states the exact opposite. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, gays are continuing to marry in every state and all you can do is stomp your feet.
On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.
A couple hundred million you say? Hardly. Poll after poll after poll states the exact opposite. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, gays are continuing to marry in every state and all you can do is stomp your feet.
If those polls were accurate, the gay marriage proposition in California wouldn't have been voted down.
There was no 'gay marriage proposition' in California- California's Prop 8 was an anti-gay marriage proposition- which was voted in 8 years ago.
Since that vote, Republicans have almost vanished from the State legislature.
You may think that voter's opinions are like a fly stuck in amber- but it doesn't make that true.
States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them
On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.
A couple hundred million you say? Hardly. Poll after poll after poll states the exact opposite. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, gays are continuing to marry in every state and all you can do is stomp your feet.
If those polls were accurate, the gay marriage proposition in California wouldn't have been voted down.
There was no 'gay marriage proposition' in California- California's Prop 8 was an anti-gay marriage proposition- which was voted in 8 years ago.
Since that vote, Republicans have almost vanished from the State legislature.
You may think that voter's opinions are like a fly stuck in amber- but it doesn't make that true.
States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them
On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.
A couple hundred million you say? Hardly. Poll after poll after poll states the exact opposite. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, gays are continuing to marry in every state and all you can do is stomp your feet.
Polls showed the hildabitch was going to kick Bernies ass in MI also, how'd that work out? People tend to give pollsters answers that are PC, not what they really think.
On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.
A couple hundred million you say? Hardly. Poll after poll after poll states the exact opposite. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, gays are continuing to marry in every state and all you can do is stomp your feet.
Polls showed the hildabitch was going to kick Bernies ass in MI also, how'd that work out? People tend to give pollsters answers that are PC, not what they really think.
it's a pretty smug position you are taking when the court only ruled 5 to 4......that means there were 4 esteemed dissenting opinions....
Chief Justice Roberts.....Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.[127] Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment.[128] Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage
Justice Scalia......Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of the liberty to govern themselves, noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted.[136] Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today.[137] He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law."[137] Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for "diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis" and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
Justice Thomas......Thomas rejected the principle of substantive due process, which he claimed "invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—roa[m] at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by that document"; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."[139] Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint."
Justice Alito......Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition.[144] Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment.
Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Its settled caselaw now. The court is loathe to go back and forth retrying the same issue. Plus, one of the people you're quoting is dead.
There is no such thing as settled case law, try looking at the link below, it shows 14 pages of court rulings that were subsequently overturned by later rulings.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-12.pdf
And when did the court recognize a fundamental right.....and then indicate a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist? Most all of the cases you're citing are procedural or jurisdictional issues.
Obergefell v. Hodges is on the same scale as say, Roe V. Wade, Loving V. Virginia, or Heller v. DC. The court might nibble at their edges over decades. But they rarely if ever outright overrule them. And withdrawing a fundamental right 2 years later?
'Unlikely' doesn't begin to describe it. Especially when the primary opponent of the Obergefell is dead.
On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.
So.....you couldn't find a single example of when the court recognized a fundamental right and then indicated a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist?
I don't think so.
And remember, the current composition of the court is 5 to 3 in favor of Obergefell.
Its settled caselaw now. The court is loathe to go back and forth retrying the same issue. Plus, one of the people you're quoting is dead.
There is no such thing as settled case law, try looking at the link below, it shows 14 pages of court rulings that were subsequently overturned by later rulings.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-12.pdf
And when did the court recognize a fundamental right.....and then indicate a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist? Most all of the cases you're citing are procedural or jurisdictional issues.
Obergefell v. Hodges is on the same scale as say, Roe V. Wade, Loving V. Virginia, or Heller v. DC. The court might nibble at their edges over decades. But they rarely if ever outright overrule them. And withdrawing a fundamental right 2 years later?
'Unlikely' doesn't begin to describe it. Especially when the primary opponent of the Obergefell is dead.
On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.
So.....you couldn't find a single example of when the court recognized a fundamental right and then indicated a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist?
I don't think so.
And remember, the current composition of the court is 5 to 3 in favor of Obergefell.
I haven't looked, how about you show me in the Constitution where the court has the authority to invent "fundamental rights".
There is no such thing as settled case law, try looking at the link below, it shows 14 pages of court rulings that were subsequently overturned by later rulings.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-12.pdf
And when did the court recognize a fundamental right.....and then indicate a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist? Most all of the cases you're citing are procedural or jurisdictional issues.
Obergefell v. Hodges is on the same scale as say, Roe V. Wade, Loving V. Virginia, or Heller v. DC. The court might nibble at their edges over decades. But they rarely if ever outright overrule them. And withdrawing a fundamental right 2 years later?
'Unlikely' doesn't begin to describe it. Especially when the primary opponent of the Obergefell is dead.
On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.
So.....you couldn't find a single example of when the court recognized a fundamental right and then indicated a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist?
I don't think so.
And remember, the current composition of the court is 5 to 3 in favor of Obergefell.
I haven't looked, how about you show me in the Constitution where the court has the authority to invent "fundamental rights".
Who says the rights were 'invented'? Surely you realize that enumeration isn't a requirement for a right to be held by the people.
If not, I have an amendment you might want to read. Its not long, so it won't take much of your time.
And when did the court recognize a fundamental right.....and then indicate a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist? Most all of the cases you're citing are procedural or jurisdictional issues.
Obergefell v. Hodges is on the same scale as say, Roe V. Wade, Loving V. Virginia, or Heller v. DC. The court might nibble at their edges over decades. But they rarely if ever outright overrule them. And withdrawing a fundamental right 2 years later?
'Unlikely' doesn't begin to describe it. Especially when the primary opponent of the Obergefell is dead.
On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.
So.....you couldn't find a single example of when the court recognized a fundamental right and then indicated a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist?
I don't think so.
And remember, the current composition of the court is 5 to 3 in favor of Obergefell.
I haven't looked, how about you show me in the Constitution where the court has the authority to invent "fundamental rights".
Who says the rights were 'invented'? Surely you realize that enumeration isn't a requirement for a right to be held by the people.
If not, I have an amendment you might want to read. Its not long, so it won't take much of your time.
Why did you edit out half my post, you changed the context which is a posting violation. Now answer the question I asked in the original post.
On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.
So.....you couldn't find a single example of when the court recognized a fundamental right and then indicated a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist?
I don't think so.
And remember, the current composition of the court is 5 to 3 in favor of Obergefell.
I haven't looked, how about you show me in the Constitution where the court has the authority to invent "fundamental rights".
Who says the rights were 'invented'? Surely you realize that enumeration isn't a requirement for a right to be held by the people.
If not, I have an amendment you might want to read. Its not long, so it won't take much of your time.
Why did you edit out half my post, you changed the context which is a posting violation. Now answer the question I asked in the original post.
Is that whining your way of telling me that you've never read the 9th amendment?
And again, who says the rights were 'invented'? Not the supreme court.
So.....you couldn't find a single example of when the court recognized a fundamental right and then indicated a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist?
I don't think so.
And remember, the current composition of the court is 5 to 3 in favor of Obergefell.
I haven't looked, how about you show me in the Constitution where the court has the authority to invent "fundamental rights".
Who says the rights were 'invented'? Surely you realize that enumeration isn't a requirement for a right to be held by the people.
If not, I have an amendment you might want to read. Its not long, so it won't take much of your time.
Why did you edit out half my post, you changed the context which is a posting violation. Now answer the question I asked in the original post.
Is that whining your way of telling me that you've never read the 9th amendment?
And again, who says the rights were 'invented'? Not the supreme court.
You mean a minimal majority of the supreme court, 4 of the 9 said it was an invention. Faghadist marriage wasn't made suddenly legal when the 9th was adopted either, what changed, other than the opinions of 5 people?
