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.
Except that Obergefell was an illegal Hearing because one of the Justices was required by law to recuse herself & didnt.. and a dozen other serious legal flaws in the rationale.
Yes I'm sure you tell yourself that and it's not because of your irrational hatred of gay people.
Hopefully, they will find a treatment for your homophobia some time soon.
I'm saying that because it is cold hard fact. Ginsburg announced to the nation in media weeks in advance of the Hearing that she felt despite how so many states were opposed that gay marriage was something that America is ready for. That's announcing pure, distilled bias, with the intent to thwart the will of the People using her judicial seat.
Yeah, except the most liberal state in the Union had recently voted it down twice and it was illegal in the majority of states at the time Obergefell was Heard. Sorry. Even if the majority of people in states had been for gay marriage, which was most factually not the case, a Justice overseeing state powers or sovereignty in all states under her watch cannot speak in favor of an idea those alleged minority states clearly rejected; an issue of sovereignty pending before her in the Court just weeks away... Obergefell was an illegal hearing. Cut and dried.I'm saying that because it is cold hard fact. Ginsburg announced to the nation in media weeks in advance of the Hearing that she felt despite how so many states were opposed that gay marriage was something that America is ready for. That's announcing pure, distilled bias, with the intent to thwart the will of the People using her judicial seat.
Except the will of the people was to legalize it. That was the point she was making.
Yeah, except the most liberal state in the Union had recently voted it down twice and it was illegal in the majority of states at the time Obergefell was Heard.
Even if the majority of people in states had been for gay marriage, which was most factually not the case, a Justice overseeing state powers or sovereignty in all states under her watch cannot speak in favor of an idea those alleged minority states clearly rejected; an issue of sovereignty pending before her in the Court just weeks away... Obergefell was an illegal hearing. Cut and dried.
In California at that time it was and still is illegal in their Constitution. An initiative in that state can only be undone by the People. That has never happened.
Perhaps you forgot to mention that Obergefell’s illegal ruling retroactively gave the stamp of approval to the one gay judge from SF performing judicial fiat on Prop 8? You know, the guy who was retiring anyway who at the time wanted to marry his boyfriend?
Other state legislators heavily packed/influenced pro gay despite their constituents’ wishes to the opposite performed similar acts of tyranny. So that explains quite a few blue states doesn’t it?
Illegal judicial fiat does matter when it steals state sovereignty. Obergefell & it’s myriad of underling judicial & legislative chicanery overturned in just two short years Windsor’s 56 affirmations that marriage definition belongs to the state’s. And it did so without valid citation of a Condtitutional basis in rationale. There is no category in the Constitution written or implied that just some deviant sex addictions but not others have equal footing to race, gender & country of origin.Doesn't matter, guy. The thing is, you've lost this issue. which is why you are whining so hard about, "But don't make me bake a cake!!!!"
Too bad. Gays can get married, you got to bake the fucking cake. Deal with it.
Illegal judicial fiat does matter when it steals state sovereignty. Obergefell & it’s myriad of underling judicial & legislative chicanery overturned in just two short years Windsor’s 56 affirmations that marriage definition belongs to the state’s. And it did so without valid citation of a Condtitutional basis in rationale. There is no category in the Constitution written or implied that just some deviant sex addictions but not others have equal footing to race, gender & country of origin.
As the much distressed & late Justice Scalia said not long before he was found dead at his favorite resort with a pillow over his head, Obergefell was a voodoo Ruling.
nodoes selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?
In California at that time it was and still is illegal in their Constitution. An initiative in that state can only be undone by the People. That has never happened.
Yet tens of thousands of gay people are married in CA... Funny, that.
Perhaps you forgot to mention that Obergefell’s illegal ruling retroactively gave the stamp of approval to the one gay judge from SF performing judicial fiat on Prop 8? You know, the guy who was retiring anyway who at the time wanted to marry his boyfriend?
No, didn't forget it... Just pointing out that at the time it was passed, it was already legal in most of the country. Because after a long national discussion, we found, "Homophobes think it's icky" wasn't a good legal reason.
Other state legislators heavily packed/influenced pro gay despite their constituents’ wishes to the opposite performed similar acts of tyranny. So that explains quite a few blue states doesn’t it?
Doesn't matter, guy. The thing is, you've lost this issue. which is why you are whining so hard about, "But don't make me bake a cake!!!!"
Too bad. Gays can get married, you got to bake the fucking cake. Deal with it.
However, dozens of lower courts owned by the left do not trump Windsor’s 56 affirmations that marriage definition is up to the states and not the fed.Illegal judicial fiat does matter when it steals state sovereignty. Obergefell & it’s myriad of underling judicial & legislative chicanery overturned in just two short years Windsor’s 56 affirmations that marriage definition belongs to the state’s. And it did so without valid citation of a Condtitutional basis in rationale. There is no category in the Constitution written or implied that just some deviant sex addictions but not others have equal footing to race, gender & country of origin.
Actually, they had a valid affirmation in the 14th Amendment, as found by dozens of lower courts.
But here's the REAL reason why you guys lost on this one. Because big corporations have decided that this is no longer a fight they want to fight, not even to keep stupid white people from voting against their own economic interests.
As the much distressed & late Justice Scalia said not long before he was found dead at his favorite resort with a pillow over his head, Obergefell was a voodoo Ruling.
are you saying the gays killed Scalia? Can we get them to whack Uncle Thomas, too? But not until after the 2020 election and Trump is thrown out on his can.
Forcing people to do something that is against their religion is a violation of their 1st amendment rights.
It's like forcing a Muslim merchant to sell beer or forcing a Jewish Deli to sell ham.
BTW has everyone else noticed that the Left never tries to force Muslim Bakers to make gay wedding cakes?
However, dozens of lower courts owned by the left do not trump Windsor’s 56 affirmations that marriage definition is up to the states and not the fed.
Two years later, a little smoke & mirrors & voodoo rationale citing language that simply doesn’t exist in the Constitution, Obergefell ripped that sovereignty away for just some deviant sex addictions, but not others...get this...citing the 14th Amendment (of blind comprehensive & inclusive equality) as support for their incomplete list of new additions to the Constitution...added by the judicial branch in violation of separation of powers.
Why not just coronate a king or queen & dispense with the interim march towards the destruction of democracy?Right-wingers seem never to be able to come up with a legally valid argument for their stands on social issues. All they do is try to state their ideological views in legally neutral terms. This is why we need judicial officials who are willing and able to see through this nonsense.
So you don’t see a problem with flagrant judicial overreach when it suits your cult agenda Sparky? Why am I not shocked?again, sometimes you need the Judicial branch to get the Legislative branch off it's ass.
Not seeing a problem here.
In California at that time it was and still is illegal in their Constitution. An initiative in that state can only be undone by the People. That has never happened.
Yet tens of thousands of gay people are married in CA... Funny, that.
Perhaps you forgot to mention that Obergefell’s illegal ruling retroactively gave the stamp of approval to the one gay judge from SF performing judicial fiat on Prop 8? You know, the guy who was retiring anyway who at the time wanted to marry his boyfriend?
No, didn't forget it... Just pointing out that at the time it was passed, it was already legal in most of the country. Because after a long national discussion, we found, "Homophobes think it's icky" wasn't a good legal reason.
Other state legislators heavily packed/influenced pro gay despite their constituents’ wishes to the opposite performed similar acts of tyranny. So that explains quite a few blue states doesn’t it?
Doesn't matter, guy. The thing is, you've lost this issue. which is why you are whining so hard about, "But don't make me bake a cake!!!!"
Too bad. Gays can get married, you got to bake the fucking cake. Deal with it.
Right-wingers seem never to be able to come up with a legally valid argument for their stands on social issues. All they do is try to state their ideological views in legally neutral terms. This is why we need judicial officials who are willing and able to see through this nonsense.
Forcing people to do something that is against their religion is a violation of their 1st amendment rights.
It's like forcing a Muslim merchant to sell beer or forcing a Jewish Deli to sell ham.
BTW has everyone else noticed that the Left never tries to force Muslim Bakers to make gay wedding cakes?
Muslim bakers aren't the ones making a stink.
Muslim bakers most certainly are refusing gay wedding cakes.Muslim bakers aren't the ones making a stink.
In California at that time it was and still is illegal in their Constitution. An initiative in that state can only be undone by the People. That has never happened.
Yet tens of thousands of gay people are married in CA... Funny, that.
Perhaps you forgot to mention that Obergefell’s illegal ruling retroactively gave the stamp of approval to the one gay judge from SF performing judicial fiat on Prop 8? You know, the guy who was retiring anyway who at the time wanted to marry his boyfriend?
No, didn't forget it... Just pointing out that at the time it was passed, it was already legal in most of the country. Because after a long national discussion, we found, "Homophobes think it's icky" wasn't a good legal reason.
Other state legislators heavily packed/influenced pro gay despite their constituents’ wishes to the opposite performed similar acts of tyranny. So that explains quite a few blue states doesn’t it?
Doesn't matter, guy. The thing is, you've lost this issue. which is why you are whining so hard about, "But don't make me bake a cake!!!!"
Too bad. Gays can get married, you got to bake the fucking cake. Deal with it.
Right-wingers seem never to be able to come up with a legally valid argument for their stands on social issues. All they do is try to state their ideological views in legally neutral terms. This is why we need judicial officials who are willing and able to see through this nonsense.
Would you also force Muslim bakers to serve gay weddings? Because that will happen.
Or do Muslims get special rights.
