Trump criticizes SC decision on homosexual "marriage" promises to appoint judges that will overturn!

[bripat9643]

There's no contradiction. Marriage isn't a right.

Marriage is a right under the law if the government says it's a right. That's all there is to that.

Yep, and a few more conservative justices on the court can reverse that decision.

Why would they overturn Obergefell? On what grounds? Your animosity and desire to oppress others appears to fill you with pipe dreams.

They would overturn it on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so how can it be a constitutional right?

Have you heard of "equal protection under the law"? That's in the federal constitution. State statutes (which are laws) grant persons the right to marry. The federal constitution (14th Amendment) prohibits a state from depriving any person of equal protection under the law. Understand? Granting the right to marry to opposite-sex couples while denying that right to similarly situated same-sex couples was a violation of the equal protection clause.

Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Allowing queers to marry makes about as much sense as making cats eat vegetables.

 

[idb]

Marriage is a right under the law if the government says it's a right. That's all there is to that.

Yep, and a few more conservative justices on the court can reverse that decision.

Why would they overturn Obergefell? On what grounds? Your animosity and desire to oppress others appears to fill you with pipe dreams.

They would overturn it on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so how can it be a constitutional right?

Not everything has to be a right . Just a law. If you make a law it has to pass equal protection , which is a right .

State has a marriage law , it's then subject to the constitutional protections .

Driving is not a right . But you can't limit driving to just men. That would violate the constitution .

there's nothing equal about so-called "gay marriage" and real marriage.

We do limit driving to people who can see. Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

That'll be sad news for women over 40...or men with a low sperm count...or women that are medically unable to conceive...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Please, don't detract from the idiocy of the OP that the Big Quack is somehow hostile to gay rights. He was for them for a decade before flip flopping yesterday. LOL

There's no contradiction. Marriage isn't a right.

Marriage is a right under the law if the government says it's a right. That's all there is to that.

Yep, and a few more conservative justices on the court can reverse that decision.

Why would they overturn Obergefell? On what grounds? Your animosity and desire to oppress others appears to fill you with pipe dreams.

They would overturn it on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so how can it be a constitutional right?

For starters, because the 9th Amendment makes it clear that being mentioned as a right does not preclude the unmentioned from being rights.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is a right under the law if the government says it's a right. That's all there is to that.

Yep, and a few more conservative justices on the court can reverse that decision.

Why would they overturn Obergefell? On what grounds? Your animosity and desire to oppress others appears to fill you with pipe dreams.

They would overturn it on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so how can it be a constitutional right?

Not everything has to be a right . Just a law. If you make a law it has to pass equal protection , which is a right .

State has a marriage law , it's then subject to the constitutional protections .

Driving is not a right . But you can't limit driving to just men. That would violate the constitution .

there's nothing equal about so-called "gay marriage" and real marriage.

So you say. The supreme court found otherwise. And found that the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. You disagree with the findings of the supreme court.

Um, so what?

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Can you name a single state that had that requirement BEFORE the Obergefell ruling? Just one.

 

[bripat9643]

There's no contradiction. Marriage isn't a right.

Marriage is a right under the law if the government says it's a right. That's all there is to that.

Yep, and a few more conservative justices on the court can reverse that decision.

Why would they overturn Obergefell? On what grounds? Your animosity and desire to oppress others appears to fill you with pipe dreams.

They would overturn it on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so how can it be a constitutional right?

For starters, because the 9th Amendment makes it clear that being mentioned as a right does not preclude the unmentioned from being rights.

Since when did libs ever care about rights not mentioned in the Constitution?

 

[Skylar]

There's no contradiction. Marriage isn't a right.

Marriage is a right under the law if the government says it's a right. That's all there is to that.

Yep, and a few more conservative justices on the court can reverse that decision.

Why would they overturn Obergefell? On what grounds? Your animosity and desire to oppress others appears to fill you with pipe dreams.

They would overturn it on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so how can it be a constitutional right?

Where does the constitution say that a right has to be in the constitution in order to exist?

You.....you do realize that the Constitution is an exhaustive list of powers. Not an exhaustive list of rights.......right? This is so bone head, Constitution 101 basic, that I feel a little bit bad even asking. But your comment suggests that you may not actually get this.

 

[bripat9643]

Yep, and a few more conservative justices on the court can reverse that decision.

Why would they overturn Obergefell? On what grounds? Your animosity and desire to oppress others appears to fill you with pipe dreams.

They would overturn it on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so how can it be a constitutional right?

Not everything has to be a right . Just a law. If you make a law it has to pass equal protection , which is a right .

State has a marriage law , it's then subject to the constitutional protections .

Driving is not a right . But you can't limit driving to just men. That would violate the constitution .

there's nothing equal about so-called "gay marriage" and real marriage.

So you say. The supreme court found otherwise. And found that the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. You disagree with the findings of the supreme court.

Um, so what?

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Can you name a single state that had that requirement BEFORE the Obergefell ruling? Just one.

You mean one jackass on the SC decided that. He's an idiot and his ruling is absurd. I've seen better logic from you than what was in his ruling. In fact, most of his logic was exactly the kind of nonsensical pablum you post in this forum.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage is a right under the law if the government says it's a right. That's all there is to that.

Yep, and a few more conservative justices on the court can reverse that decision.

Why would they overturn Obergefell? On what grounds? Your animosity and desire to oppress others appears to fill you with pipe dreams.

They would overturn it on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so how can it be a constitutional right?

Have you heard of "equal protection under the law"? That's in the federal constitution. State statutes (which are laws) grant persons the right to marry. The federal constitution (14th Amendment) prohibits a state from depriving any person of equal protection under the law. Understand? Granting the right to marry to opposite-sex couples while denying that right to similarly situated same-sex couples was a violation of the equal protection clause.

Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Allowing queers to marry makes about as much sense as making cats eat vegetables.

The anarchist in love with the long arm of the law. That is priceless.

 

[Seawytch]

Who has been caused to alter or abandon their religion due to unwarranted pressure from homosexuals? What form does this repression take?

The family unit was once father, mother, offspring, grandparents, uncles and aunts. Then a little thing called the Industrial Revolution happened and the Extended Family died to be replaced by the Nuclear Family. A constant state of flux. Your grasp of history is predictably weak.

And must you disrespect someone's sexuality? Has anyone disrespected yours, or are you really that immature? I'm guessing it's the latter rather than the former.

Really numb nuts? Oregon Bakers? Washington Florist? There were more I am trying to remember.Attacked for their religious objections. Its funny people used religious objections to joining the military but when it comes to faggots they can't. Just amazing. I am a NORMAL human being I am what nature INTENDED not a degenerate sexual pervert.

None of those merchants were attacked. Check your hyperbole at the door. Those merchants were approached by paying customers who desired the same high level of service every other customer receives. None of those merchants were forced, cajoled or threatened out of their churches.

And those churches are not Christian churches, they are places that twist and distort Christianity to serve an evil purpose. Those adherents to such churches are directly analogous to the Taliban. When 'faith' is used as a bludgeoning device, it no longer can be regarded as faith. Rather it can be regarded as blind, stupid hatred.

And, in my humble opinion, you are not normal but anchored in unrefined stupidity andf blind hatred.

They were FORCED to serve people they did not want to serve. Simple as that. The American ISIS aka LEFTARDS can't let people be ESPECIALLY if they say NO to one of the American ISIS favorite groups. Then its all out war on those that said NO.

The Civil Rights Act passed 50 years ago. You're a little slow in your outrage...

That explains why gays have been marrying for half a century. LOL.

Are you confused? Did you not read what Odius is upset about?

Odium: They were FORCED to serve people they did not want to serve. Simple as that.

Sounds like Title II of the CRA to me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would they overturn Obergefell? On what grounds? Your animosity and desire to oppress others appears to fill you with pipe dreams.

They would overturn it on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so how can it be a constitutional right?

Not everything has to be a right . Just a law. If you make a law it has to pass equal protection , which is a right .

State has a marriage law , it's then subject to the constitutional protections .

Driving is not a right . But you can't limit driving to just men. That would violate the constitution .

there's nothing equal about so-called "gay marriage" and real marriage.

So you say. The supreme court found otherwise. And found that the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. You disagree with the findings of the supreme court.

Um, so what?

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Can you name a single state that had that requirement BEFORE the Obergefell ruling? Just one.

You mean one jackass on the SC decided that. He's an idiot and his ruling is absurd. I've seen better logic from you than what was in his ruling. In fact, most of his logic was exactly the kind of nonsensical pablum you post in this forum.

Yet today you were expressing your love for the Court getting your kind of guys on it, so they could advance your personal agenda.

You are an idiot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage is a right under the law if the government says it's a right. That's all there is to that.

Yep, and a few more conservative justices on the court can reverse that decision.

Why would they overturn Obergefell? On what grounds? Your animosity and desire to oppress others appears to fill you with pipe dreams.

They would overturn it on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so how can it be a constitutional right?

For starters, because the 9th Amendment makes it clear that being mentioned as a right does not preclude the unmentioned from being rights.

Since when did libs ever care about rights not mentioned in the Constitution?

That's the most ignorant post you've ever made on this board, and, all things considered, that is quite an accomplishment.

 

[bripat9643]

They would overturn it on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so how can it be a constitutional right?

Not everything has to be a right . Just a law. If you make a law it has to pass equal protection , which is a right .

State has a marriage law , it's then subject to the constitutional protections .

Driving is not a right . But you can't limit driving to just men. That would violate the constitution .

there's nothing equal about so-called "gay marriage" and real marriage.

So you say. The supreme court found otherwise. And found that the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. You disagree with the findings of the supreme court.

Um, so what?

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Can you name a single state that had that requirement BEFORE the Obergefell ruling? Just one.

You mean one jackass on the SC decided that. He's an idiot and his ruling is absurd. I've seen better logic from you than what was in his ruling. In fact, most of his logic was exactly the kind of nonsensical pablum you post in this forum.

Yet today you were expressing your love for the Court getting your kind of guys on it, so they could advance your personal agenda.

You are an idiot.

Yes, we know you love and admire the court so long as it approves your agenda, but all you liberal hypocrites vilified the justices over Citizens United and Gore vs Bush.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[Skylar]

Why would they overturn Obergefell? On what grounds? Your animosity and desire to oppress others appears to fill you with pipe dreams.

They would overturn it on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so how can it be a constitutional right?

Not everything has to be a right . Just a law. If you make a law it has to pass equal protection , which is a right .

State has a marriage law , it's then subject to the constitutional protections .

Driving is not a right . But you can't limit driving to just men. That would violate the constitution .

there's nothing equal about so-called "gay marriage" and real marriage.

So you say. The supreme court found otherwise. And found that the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. You disagree with the findings of the supreme court.

Um, so what?

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Can you name a single state that had that requirement BEFORE the Obergefell ruling? Just one.

You mean one jackass on the SC decided that.

No, that would be the majority of the Supreme Court. And with the majority of the Supreme Court goes the authority of the Federal Judiciary.

You disagree with them. So fucking what? You're nobody.

Also, show me ONE state that followed this standard before the Obergefell ruling:

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Just one.

 

[bripat9643]

Yep, and a few more conservative justices on the court can reverse that decision.

Why would they overturn Obergefell? On what grounds? Your animosity and desire to oppress others appears to fill you with pipe dreams.

They would overturn it on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so how can it be a constitutional right?

For starters, because the 9th Amendment makes it clear that being mentioned as a right does not preclude the unmentioned from being rights.

Since when did libs ever care about rights not mentioned in the Constitution?

That's the most ignorant post you've ever made on this board, and, all things considered, that is quite an accomplishment.

Hmmm, there isn't the slightest thing ignorant about it. Libs don't even like the rights that the Bill of Rights expressly protects.

 

[bripat9643]

They would overturn it on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so how can it be a constitutional right?

Not everything has to be a right . Just a law. If you make a law it has to pass equal protection , which is a right .

State has a marriage law , it's then subject to the constitutional protections .

Driving is not a right . But you can't limit driving to just men. That would violate the constitution .

there's nothing equal about so-called "gay marriage" and real marriage.

So you say. The supreme court found otherwise. And found that the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. You disagree with the findings of the supreme court.

Um, so what?

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Can you name a single state that had that requirement BEFORE the Obergefell ruling? Just one.

You mean one jackass on the SC decided that.

No, that would be the majority of the Supreme Court. And with the majority of the Supreme Court goes the authority of the Federal Judiciary.

You disagree with them. So fucking what? You're nobody.

Also, show me ONE state that followed this standard before the Obergefell ruling:

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Just one.

They all did, you babbling fool. That's why it was limited to two people of the opposite sex.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not everything has to be a right . Just a law. If you make a law it has to pass equal protection , which is a right .

State has a marriage law , it's then subject to the constitutional protections .

Driving is not a right . But you can't limit driving to just men. That would violate the constitution .

there's nothing equal about so-called "gay marriage" and real marriage.

So you say. The supreme court found otherwise. And found that the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. You disagree with the findings of the supreme court.

Um, so what?

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Can you name a single state that had that requirement BEFORE the Obergefell ruling? Just one.

You mean one jackass on the SC decided that. He's an idiot and his ruling is absurd. I've seen better logic from you than what was in his ruling. In fact, most of his logic was exactly the kind of nonsensical pablum you post in this forum.

Yet today you were expressing your love for the Court getting your kind of guys on it, so they could advance your personal agenda.

You are an idiot.

Yes, we know you love and admire the court so long as it approves your agenda, but all you liberal hypocrites vilified the justices over Citizens United and Gore vs Bush.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

So I'm evil for disagreeing with a Supreme Court decision but you're a hero because you want to throw the entire Constitution under the bus?

lol

 

[Skylar]

Not everything has to be a right . Just a law. If you make a law it has to pass equal protection , which is a right .

State has a marriage law , it's then subject to the constitutional protections .

Driving is not a right . But you can't limit driving to just men. That would violate the constitution .

there's nothing equal about so-called "gay marriage" and real marriage.

So you say. The supreme court found otherwise. And found that the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. You disagree with the findings of the supreme court.

Um, so what?

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Can you name a single state that had that requirement BEFORE the Obergefell ruling? Just one.

You mean one jackass on the SC decided that.

No, that would be the majority of the Supreme Court. And with the majority of the Supreme Court goes the authority of the Federal Judiciary.

You disagree with them. So fucking what? You're nobody.

Also, show me ONE state that followed this standard before the Obergefell ruling:

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Just one.

They all did, you babbling fool. That's why it was limited to two people of the opposite sex.

Nope. Not one. Not one state required that a couple getting married have kids or be able to.

Why then would we make up a non-existent standard that doesn't apply to anyone.....and then apply it only to gays?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would they overturn Obergefell? On what grounds? Your animosity and desire to oppress others appears to fill you with pipe dreams.

They would overturn it on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so how can it be a constitutional right?

For starters, because the 9th Amendment makes it clear that being mentioned as a right does not preclude the unmentioned from being rights.

Since when did libs ever care about rights not mentioned in the Constitution?

That's the most ignorant post you've ever made on this board, and, all things considered, that is quite an accomplishment.

Hmmm, there isn't the slightest thing ignorant about it. Libs don't even like the rights that the Bill of Rights expressly protects.

Tell us what the 9th Amendment means. In your own words.

 

[bripat9643]

They would overturn it on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so how can it be a constitutional right?

Not everything has to be a right . Just a law. If you make a law it has to pass equal protection , which is a right .

State has a marriage law , it's then subject to the constitutional protections .

Driving is not a right . But you can't limit driving to just men. That would violate the constitution .

there's nothing equal about so-called "gay marriage" and real marriage.

So you say. The supreme court found otherwise. And found that the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. You disagree with the findings of the supreme court.

Um, so what?

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Can you name a single state that had that requirement BEFORE the Obergefell ruling? Just one.

You mean one jackass on the SC decided that. He's an idiot and his ruling is absurd. I've seen better logic from you than what was in his ruling. In fact, most of his logic was exactly the kind of nonsensical pablum you post in this forum.

Yet today you were expressing your love for the Court getting your kind of guys on it, so they could advance your personal agenda.

You are an idiot.

I have no love for the court. It's an engine of tyranny. The only defense against it is to staff it with people who will use it against the enemies of freedom. That means you, bootlicker.

 

[bripat9643]

there's nothing equal about so-called "gay marriage" and real marriage.

So you say. The supreme court found otherwise. And found that the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. You disagree with the findings of the supreme court.

Um, so what?

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Can you name a single state that had that requirement BEFORE the Obergefell ruling? Just one.

You mean one jackass on the SC decided that.

No, that would be the majority of the Supreme Court. And with the majority of the Supreme Court goes the authority of the Federal Judiciary.

You disagree with them. So fucking what? You're nobody.

Also, show me ONE state that followed this standard before the Obergefell ruling:

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Just one.

They all did, you babbling fool. That's why it was limited to two people of the opposite sex.

Nope. Not one. Not one state required that a couple getting married have kids or be able to.

Why then would we make up a non-existent standard that doesn't apply to anyone.....and then apply it only to gays?

I'm done arguing with you because you're too stupid and irrational to comprehend a rational argument.