Oppressing lgbt

[TheGreatGatsby]

The people have overwhelmingly voted down gay marriage. It's been judicial infiltration and perversion of The Constitution that has led to gay marriage. At some point, you'll see repercussions. When the people don't own their government, it's tyranny. Tyranny can only last for so long.

The courts overturn unconsitutional laws- whether its marriage or whether its gun laws.

What Snowflakes like you call 'tyranny' the rest of the world calls our Constitutional system.

The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times overturning State marriage laws that were unconstitutional- starting with Loving v. Virginia.

In Loving v. Virginia the 'will of the people' was that mixed race couples should not be allowed to marry. The Supreme Court correctly overturned such a state law as being unconsitutional.

Obergefell is merely the most recent court decision protecting the marriage rights of Americans. The 'will of the people' doesn't trump the Constitution.

There have been corrupt judges throughout history. The glory of our Constitution does not prohibit such things.

Of course- and there have been corrupt governments who have passed unconstitutional laws also.

You have yet to show any example of corrupt judges- just corrupt laws.

Any examples.

I would love to see you provide some examples of corrupt judges that are germaine to this topic.

I would love to see you STFU; but I doubt either of us will get our wish.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

[Q. When the people don't have control of their own govt., tyranny is the result..

We are a Constitutional Republic.

Sorry you don't like that- but that is what we are. The 'people' have agreed that we are- and as such 'we the people' are bound by the Consitution.

And the courts interpret the Constitution.

That is not 'tyranny'- that is our system of government in action.

Here is a good example that is very current of the courts in action examining the constitutionality of a law:
Local gun shop regulation to have its day in court

By a majority vote of its 27 judges, the Court of Appeals in San Francisco ordered a rehearing in a case challenging an ordinance passed by Alameda County supervisors in 1998. The ordinance prohibits new gun stores in unincorporated areas within 500 feet of a residential neighborhood, a school, a day care center, a liquor store or another gun shop.


An appeals court panel voted 2-1 in May to reinstate a suit by gun shop applicants, which a federal judge had dismissed. The panel majority said the Constitution protects the right to buy and sell firearms as well as the right to own them, and that the county, to justify the restrictions, must at least provide evidence that gun stores are “a magnet for crime.”

You fallaciously state that the courts are incorruptible. And of course you do, given how many of your plants are now in them.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

But granting such an action legal privileges without the due process of legislative administration is unAmerican.

What a crock of bullshit. Gay people used every avenue available to them in our system to achieve gay marriage. In some instances they used the courts and in others they used the legislative body or referendums to achieve that goal. Who gives a shit if you think that was un-American or not?

Rogue judges can manipulate the system all they want. And twirps like you can pretend that they are doing right by the people. But their will be consequences. Subversion of laws and values will only lead to chaos. You may not see the ticking time bomb; oh well. I suppose that just means you're unenlightened. I can't beat that into you. You choose to open your eyes or not.

Rogue Judges...Consequences...Subversion...Chaos...Ticking Time Bomb. I hope you made it to the fainting couch in time after this post, drama queen.

Oh, Boo hoo! Gay people can marry and I think it is un-American that they used the exact same system available to everyone else. Sooner or later you'll get over the butthurt, but it appears today will not be that day. lol

You keep trying to make this about me. This is about society. Circumventing the will of the people on such matters is a recipe for destruction. When the people don't have control of their own govt., tyranny is the result. And this has been a growing reality. Gay marriage is but one manifestation of this reality.

I see. All of your dramatic predictions about tyranny, destruction, and, chaos over gay marriage is for the benefit of our society. lol

And you think that trampling the will of the people is somehow beneficial? Gay marriage was never a privilege granted by the citizenry.

Mixed race marriage was never a privilege granted by the citizenry- as a matter of fact it was a privelage specifically forbidden - but the Supreme Court found that law to be unconstitutional.

And the Supreme Court was right.

That's a nice twist. But the reality is one man could marry one woman that another man could not. That is not the same privilege.

But if I were to take your premise as accurate that banning mixed marriage was Constitutional, then it's not the SC's job to dictate morality. It's their job to accurately uphold the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

What a crock of bullshit. Gay people used every avenue available to them in our system to achieve gay marriage. In some instances they used the courts and in others they used the legislative body or referendums to achieve that goal. Who gives a shit if you think that was un-American or not?



Rogue Judges...Consequences...Subversion...Chaos...Ticking Time Bomb. I hope you made it to the fainting couch in time after this post, drama queen.

Oh, Boo hoo! Gay people can marry and I think it is un-American that they used the exact same system available to everyone else. Sooner or later you'll get over the butthurt, but it appears today will not be that day. lol

You keep trying to make this about me. This is about society. Circumventing the will of the people on such matters is a recipe for destruction. When the people don't have control of their own govt., tyranny is the result. And this has been a growing reality. Gay marriage is but one manifestation of this reality.

I see. All of your dramatic predictions about tyranny, destruction, and, chaos over gay marriage is for the benefit of our society. lol

And you think that trampling the will of the people is somehow beneficial? Gay marriage was never a privilege granted by the citizenry.

Mixed race marriage was never a privilege granted by the citizenry- as a matter of fact it was a privelage specifically forbidden - but the Supreme Court found that law to be unconstitutional.

And the Supreme Court was right.

That's a nice twist. But the reality is one man could marry one woman that another man could not. That is not the same privilege.

The reality was that the 'will of the people' was that mixed race marriage was never to be a privilege to be granted to any couple.

Mixed race marriage was never a privilege granted by the citizenry- as a matter of fact it was a privelage specifically forbidden - but the Supreme Court found that law to be unconstitutional.

And the Supreme Court was right

 

[Syriusly]

[Q. When the people don't have control of their own govt., tyranny is the result..

We are a Constitutional Republic.

Sorry you don't like that- but that is what we are. The 'people' have agreed that we are- and as such 'we the people' are bound by the Consitution.

And the courts interpret the Constitution.

That is not 'tyranny'- that is our system of government in action.

Here is a good example that is very current of the courts in action examining the constitutionality of a law:
Local gun shop regulation to have its day in court

By a majority vote of its 27 judges, the Court of Appeals in San Francisco ordered a rehearing in a case challenging an ordinance passed by Alameda County supervisors in 1998. The ordinance prohibits new gun stores in unincorporated areas within 500 feet of a residential neighborhood, a school, a day care center, a liquor store or another gun shop.


An appeals court panel voted 2-1 in May to reinstate a suit by gun shop applicants, which a federal judge had dismissed. The panel majority said the Constitution protects the right to buy and sell firearms as well as the right to own them, and that the county, to justify the restrictions, must at least provide evidence that gun stores are “a magnet for crime.”

You fallaciously state that the courts are incorruptible..

I do?

Please provide that quote- oh wait- you are lying.

Lying to dodge my example of the courts acting on behalf of citizens to challenge the constitutionality of laws that were the 'will of the people'

 

[Syriusly]

The courts overturn unconsitutional laws- whether its marriage or whether its gun laws.

What Snowflakes like you call 'tyranny' the rest of the world calls our Constitutional system.

The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times overturning State marriage laws that were unconstitutional- starting with Loving v. Virginia.

In Loving v. Virginia the 'will of the people' was that mixed race couples should not be allowed to marry. The Supreme Court correctly overturned such a state law as being unconsitutional.

Obergefell is merely the most recent court decision protecting the marriage rights of Americans. The 'will of the people' doesn't trump the Constitution.

There have been corrupt judges throughout history. The glory of our Constitution does not prohibit such things.

Of course- and there have been corrupt governments who have passed unconstitutional laws also.

You have yet to show any example of corrupt judges- just corrupt laws.

Any examples.

I would love to see you provide some examples of corrupt judges that are germaine to this topic.

I would love to see you STFU; but I doubt either of us will get our wish.

Your kind does like to try to get others to shut up.

 

[Syriusly]

I see. All of your dramatic predictions about tyranny, destruction, and, chaos over gay marriage is for the benefit of our society. lol

And you think that trampling the will of the people is somehow beneficial? Gay marriage was never a privilege granted by the citizenry. Therefore, states could not infringe upon it. Oh, but the courts!?!?!?! No, it's made up bull shit. It's the definition of tyranny; and yes, such tyranny has historically been met with consequences. I can't apologize for speaking what is axiomatic.

The will of the people deserves to trampled when it violates the Constitution. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the will of the people is this unimpeachable and infallible construct. Hint: It isn't. That same will has been used throughout our history to marginalize and oppress other Americans. Guess what? Those people used every avenue of our system to correct those wrongs, including using the court system. It's comical how it's some 'ticking time bomb' and 'tyranny' when gay people used the very same avenues when it comes to gay marriage.

This endless parade of pussy aching over gay marriage is hysterical.

Well, there was no violation of the Constitution;.

Who to believe?
You an anonymous nut job on the internet with no apparent education in the Constitution or the law?

Or the Supreme Court of the United States- and all of the judges whose decisions led up to Obergefell.?

I will go with the Judges and Justices- and our Constitutional system.

Oh, you want to play the elitist card. The Constitution is not a difficult document to understand. It was made so that citizens can understand their rights, ass hat.

It isn't that hard to understand. So I don't know what your excuse for ignorance is.

Who to believe?
You an anonymous nut job on the internet with no apparent education in the Constitution or the law?

Or the Supreme Court of the United States- and all of the judges whose decisions led up to Obergefell.?

I will go with the Judges and Justices- and our Constitutional system

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You keep trying to make this about me. This is about society. Circumventing the will of the people on such matters is a recipe for destruction. When the people don't have control of their own govt., tyranny is the result. And this has been a growing reality. Gay marriage is but one manifestation of this reality.

I see. All of your dramatic predictions about tyranny, destruction, and, chaos over gay marriage is for the benefit of our society. lol

And you think that trampling the will of the people is somehow beneficial? Gay marriage was never a privilege granted by the citizenry.

Mixed race marriage was never a privilege granted by the citizenry- as a matter of fact it was a privelage specifically forbidden - but the Supreme Court found that law to be unconstitutional.

And the Supreme Court was right.

That's a nice twist. But the reality is one man could marry one woman that another man could not. That is not the same privilege.

The reality was that the 'will of the people' was that mixed race marriage was never to be a privilege to be granted to any couple.

Mixed race marriage was never a privilege granted by the citizenry- as a matter of fact it was a privelage specifically forbidden - but the Supreme Court found that law to be unconstitutional.

And the Supreme Court was right

If it wasn't a privilege guaranteed by the Constitution, then the SC didn't do their job right. You're an idiot that is admitting against what you're saying that they don't always properly uphold the Constitution.

 

[TheDude]

I hear all the time from the left that trump is someone who systematically oppresses the lgbt community. Thing is I've never seen anything from trump negatively talking about the lgbt community at all. So where is this coming from?

They pulled it out of their ass. Ironically, LGBT believe sthe ass is a quasi-pussy, so it's somewhat ironic. It likely originated from the fact he didn't favor same sex marriage. Silly Trump, you have to be pretty fucking stupid to deny men were intended to marry, have kids and use the women's bathroom.

 

[BrokeLoser]

I hear all the time from the left that trump is someone who systematically oppresses the lgbt community. Thing is I've never seen anything from trump negatively talking about the lgbt community at all. So where is this coming from?

They pulled it out of their ass. Ironically, LGBT believe sthe ass is a quasi-pussy, so it's somewhat ironic. It likely originated from the fact he didn't favor same sex marriage. Silly Trump, you have to be pretty fucking stupid to deny men were intended to marry, have kids and use the women's bathroom.

Oh no...there you go using intellect and thinking logically again...you know how the twisted minded loons are about that.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The people have overwhelmingly voted down gay marriage. It's been judicial infiltration and perversion of The Constitution that has led to gay marriage. At some point, you'll see repercussions. When the people don't own their government, it's tyranny. Tyranny can only last for so long.

The courts overturn unconsitutional laws- whether its marriage or whether its gun laws.

What Snowflakes like you call 'tyranny' the rest of the world calls our Constitutional system.

The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times overturning State marriage laws that were unconstitutional- starting with Loving v. Virginia.

In Loving v. Virginia the 'will of the people' was that mixed race couples should not be allowed to marry. The Supreme Court correctly overturned such a state law as being unconsitutional.

Obergefell is merely the most recent court decision protecting the marriage rights of Americans. The 'will of the people' doesn't trump the Constitution.

There have been corrupt judges throughout history. The glory of our Constitution does not prohibit such things.

Of course- and there have been corrupt governments who have passed unconstitutional laws also.

You have yet to show any example of corrupt judges- just corrupt laws.

Any examples.

I would love to see you provide some examples of corrupt judges that are germaine to this topic.

How can the Republicans "have the Supreme Court" if the judges are allegedly impartial and without agendas? Everyone knows reality is not the flower puff you present it to be.

8:03

 

[Syriusly]

The courts overturn unconsitutional laws- whether its marriage or whether its gun laws.

What Snowflakes like you call 'tyranny' the rest of the world calls our Constitutional system.

The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times overturning State marriage laws that were unconstitutional- starting with Loving v. Virginia.

In Loving v. Virginia the 'will of the people' was that mixed race couples should not be allowed to marry. The Supreme Court correctly overturned such a state law as being unconsitutional.

Obergefell is merely the most recent court decision protecting the marriage rights of Americans. The 'will of the people' doesn't trump the Constitution.

There have been corrupt judges throughout history. The glory of our Constitution does not prohibit such things.

Of course- and there have been corrupt governments who have passed unconstitutional laws also.

You have yet to show any example of corrupt judges- just corrupt laws.

Any examples.

I would love to see you provide some examples of corrupt judges that are germaine to this topic.

How can the Republicans "have the Supreme Court" if the judges are allegedly impartial and without agendas? Everyone knows reality is not the flower puff you present it to be.
A]

I would love to see you provide some examples of corrupt judges that are germaine to this topic.

 

[Syriusly]

I hear all the time from the left that trump is someone who systematically oppresses the lgbt community. Thing is I've never seen anything from trump negatively talking about the lgbt community at all. So where is this coming from?

They pulled it out of their ass. Ironically, LGBT believe sthe ass is a quasi-pussy, so it's somewhat ironic. It likely originated from the fact he didn't favor same sex marriage. Silly Trump, you have to be pretty fucking stupid to deny men were intended to marry, have kids and use the women's bathroom.

Trump loves marriage. That is the reason why he keeps getting married.

Trump has no issues with gays. He was just anti-gay enough during the campaign not to turn off the homophobes he was appealing to.

 

[Syriusly]

I see. All of your dramatic predictions about tyranny, destruction, and, chaos over gay marriage is for the benefit of our society. lol

And you think that trampling the will of the people is somehow beneficial? Gay marriage was never a privilege granted by the citizenry.

Mixed race marriage was never a privilege granted by the citizenry- as a matter of fact it was a privelage specifically forbidden - but the Supreme Court found that law to be unconstitutional.

And the Supreme Court was right.

That's a nice twist. But the reality is one man could marry one woman that another man could not. That is not the same privilege.

The reality was that the 'will of the people' was that mixed race marriage was never to be a privilege to be granted to any couple.

Mixed race marriage was never a privilege granted by the citizenry- as a matter of fact it was a privelage specifically forbidden - but the Supreme Court found that law to be unconstitutional.

And the Supreme Court was right

If it wasn't a privilege guaranteed by the Constitution,.

Read the decisions- it is a privilege guaranteed to all Americans.

I understand you don't think Americans have a right to marriage- but you are wrong.


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life," id. at 125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,


Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


So tell us again how the Supreme Court was wrong- and were tyrants- when they overturned the will of the people of Viriginia and said that mixed race couples have a constitutional right to marry.

 

[SmokeALib]

There have been corrupt judges throughout history. The glory of our Constitution does not prohibit such things.

Of course- and there have been corrupt governments who have passed unconstitutional laws also.

You have yet to show any example of corrupt judges- just corrupt laws.

Any examples.

I would love to see you provide some examples of corrupt judges that are germaine to this topic.

How can the Republicans "have the Supreme Court" if the judges are allegedly impartial and without agendas? Everyone knows reality is not the flower puff you present it to be.
A]

I would love to see you provide some examples of corrupt judges that are germaine to this topic.

It's not a topic. It's a sick, perverted lifestyle choice.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course- and there have been corrupt governments who have passed unconstitutional laws also.

You have yet to show any example of corrupt judges- just corrupt laws.

Any examples.

I would love to see you provide some examples of corrupt judges that are germaine to this topic.

How can the Republicans "have the Supreme Court" if the judges are allegedly impartial and without agendas? Everyone knows reality is not the flower puff you present it to be.
A]

I would love to see you provide some examples of corrupt judges that are germaine to this topic.

It's not a topic. It's a sick, perverted lifestyle choice.

Exactly why do you think that being a judge is a sick perverted lifestyle choice?

 

[SmokeALib]

Any examples.

I would love to see you provide some examples of corrupt judges that are germaine to this topic.

How can the Republicans "have the Supreme Court" if the judges are allegedly impartial and without agendas? Everyone knows reality is not the flower puff you present it to be.
A]

I would love to see you provide some examples of corrupt judges that are germaine to this topic.

It's not a topic. It's a sick, perverted lifestyle choice.

Exactly why do you think that being a judge is a sick perverted lifestyle choice?

View attachment 104308

It depends. Is he a sperm gurgler?

 

[Syriusly]

I would love to see you provide some examples of corrupt judges that are germaine to this topic.

How can the Republicans "have the Supreme Court" if the judges are allegedly impartial and without agendas? Everyone knows reality is not the flower puff you present it to be.
A]

I would love to see you provide some examples of corrupt judges that are germaine to this topic.

It's not a topic. It's a sick, perverted lifestyle choice.

Exactly why do you think that being a judge is a sick perverted lifestyle choice?

View attachment 104308

It depends. Is he a sperm gurgler?

Why do you wonder about Clarence Thomas sexual activities?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

And you think that trampling the will of the people is somehow beneficial? Gay marriage was never a privilege granted by the citizenry.

Mixed race marriage was never a privilege granted by the citizenry- as a matter of fact it was a privelage specifically forbidden - but the Supreme Court found that law to be unconstitutional.

And the Supreme Court was right.

That's a nice twist. But the reality is one man could marry one woman that another man could not. That is not the same privilege.

The reality was that the 'will of the people' was that mixed race marriage was never to be a privilege to be granted to any couple.

Mixed race marriage was never a privilege granted by the citizenry- as a matter of fact it was a privelage specifically forbidden - but the Supreme Court found that law to be unconstitutional.

And the Supreme Court was right

If it wasn't a privilege guaranteed by the Constitution,.

Read the decisions- it is a privilege guaranteed to all Americans.

I understand you don't think Americans have a right to marriage- but you are wrong.


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life," id. at 125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,


Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


So tell us again how the Supreme Court was wrong- and were tyrants- when they overturned the will of the people of Viriginia and said that mixed race couples have a constitutional right to marry.

You just brought those right up, didn't you, paid poster?

In any event, they are idiotic points that don't even mention "gay marriage".

 

[Syriusly]

Mixed race marriage was never a privilege granted by the citizenry- as a matter of fact it was a privelage specifically forbidden - but the Supreme Court found that law to be unconstitutional.

And the Supreme Court was right.

That's a nice twist. But the reality is one man could marry one woman that another man could not. That is not the same privilege.

The reality was that the 'will of the people' was that mixed race marriage was never to be a privilege to be granted to any couple.

Mixed race marriage was never a privilege granted by the citizenry- as a matter of fact it was a privelage specifically forbidden - but the Supreme Court found that law to be unconstitutional.

And the Supreme Court was right

If it wasn't a privilege guaranteed by the Constitution,.

Read the decisions- it is a privilege guaranteed to all Americans.

I understand you don't think Americans have a right to marriage- but you are wrong.


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life," id. at 125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,


Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


So tell us again how the Supreme Court was wrong- and were tyrants- when they overturned the will of the people of Viriginia and said that mixed race couples have a constitutional right to marry.

You just brought those right up, didn't you, paid poster?

In any event, they are idiotic points that don't even mention "gay marriage".

Why do you consider American's marriage rights to be idiotic?

Why do you parrot Putin?