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

[Debra K]

The family unit is a construct that is in constant flux, but has always survived. Children will survive better than old fuddyduddiescsuch as you and your delicate sensibilities seem to have. And businesses are businesses, not arbiters of personal conduct.

Nope not a construct its quite simple. 1 mom 1 father and kids. Maybe a pooch or cat. Oh and faggots are people not dictators who get to dictate what someone's religion is and what parts they can use to deny them service the fags need to act like ADULTS and move along and find someone who wants their money.

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.

You are hilarious ... Sane people don't want to be forced to live under your version of Christian "Sharia" where you can use your religion as an excuse to persecute others. Accusing other people of the very crimes against humanity that you are committing yourself is comical. You're not fooling any of us with your diversionary and fallacious arguments.

 

[Debra K]

Not to worry, SC just one more thing for Trump to straighten out.

Trump's strategy machine appears to be in working order on this one... He knows precisely where the ocean of votes are...waiting to be tapped..

Al the supporters of homosexual marriage have claim that procreation is irrelevant to marriage. Now you're admitting that it is relevant.

Liberals talk out of both sides of their mouths, as usual.

Not merely procreation but a much larger and potent visceral issue: A child's right to both a mother and father trumps anyone else's constitutional rights. It's already in case law at the USSC level. If a person's constitutional right harms children physically or psychologically, they may not exercise that right... (gay marriage strips children of even the hope of a mother or father FOR LIFE): Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

 

[Debra K]

Trump is really whoring to the Fundamentalists.

Only as long as it will buy him votes. As far as I can tell, Trump has no real political ideology. He believes only Trumpism.

The greatest is his running around the last few days sporting a Bible.

You know, it gets to the point where you wonder if Trump might just be doing the greatest production of performance art in history.

I think of his "performance" as a comedy show for rubes. They (the rubes) aren't smart enough to know the joke is on them. ROFL

 

[Iceweasel]

Trump is just stating the obvious. Probably every Republican will appoint more conservative judges, the constitution doesn't define marriage or relationships. Like Roe v. Wade and obamacare it's bad law created out of personal opinion and politics.

You have no principles. Court decisions that you like, you believe they were properly decided. Court decisions that you don't like, you conjure up some fanciful legal mumbo jumbo to try to show they didn't abide by the Constitution.

You're a conservative cliche.

There's no basis for it and I gave you an example. Two brothers. Here's another, three people. Relationships are not equal, people are, big difference.

But I like how the left changes laws they don't like then tries to shout down any opposition by saying the law is the law, get over it!

It's very purile.

And in your magic kingdom, how would same sex marriage be outlawed if the government upheld it as a civil right?
...as has happened here...

In my magic kingdom it would be up to the citizens in each state because it isn't a Constitutional matter.

 

[Iceweasel]

The idea that Donald Trump could give a shit about whether gays have equal rights is hilarious.

Except that it isn't an equal rights issue. Two brothers can't marry so it should be obvious even to you that not all relationships are treated equally. People, yes. Relationships, no.

Why shouldn't 2 brothers be able to marry? Other than it creeps you out? What is the rational legal argument?

Yes, it would creep me out but I don't see a reason to prevent it now. So we are finally in agreement on something.

You have the anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendment out there, go support that.

Traditional marriage is anti-gay? That's weird. But see above for what I support.

 

[Iceweasel]

Nope not a construct its quite simple. 1 mom 1 father and kids. Maybe a pooch or cat. Oh and faggots are people not dictators who get to dictate what someone's religion is and what parts they can use to deny them service the fags need to act like ADULTS and move along and find someone who wants their money.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

Except that it isn't an equal rights issue. Two brothers can't marry so it should be obvious even to you that not all relationships are treated equally. People, yes. Relationships, no.

Why shouldn't 2 brothers be able to marry? Other than it creeps you out? What is the rational legal argument?

Yes, it would creep me out but I don't see a reason to prevent it now. So we are finally in agreement on something.

Inbreeding generally leads to decreased biological fitness of a population Forbidding marriages of family members is used to discourage it. There is a lot of evidence that inbreeding can increase the chances that offsprings will be affected by recessive or harmful traits.

The primary reason homosexual unions have been discourage over the centuries has been because people feared it would lead to a reduction in population. Thus religion. laws, and taboos were used as tool to prevent it.

Al the supporters of homosexual marriage have claim that procreation is irrelevant to marriage. Now you're admitting that it is relevant.

Liberals talk out of both sides of their mouths, as usual.

If procreation was a requirement for marriage, why issue marriage licenses to the elderly or the infertile?

No one said it's a "requirement." That's the queer straw man. Procreation is the reason marriage exists, and flopper just admitted it by insisting we can't allow close relatives to marry because it might result in children with birth defects.

You guys just can't avoid stepping on your own dicks.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

 

[Timmy]

Trump is just stating the obvious. Probably every Republican will appoint more conservative judges, the constitution doesn't define marriage or relationships. Like Roe v. Wade and obamacare it's bad law created out of personal opinion and politics.

You have no principles. Court decisions that you like, you believe they were properly decided. Court decisions that you don't like, you conjure up some fanciful legal mumbo jumbo to try to show they didn't abide by the Constitution.

You're a conservative cliche.

There's no basis for it and I gave you an example. Two brothers. Here's another, three people. Relationships are not equal, people are, big difference.

But I like how the left changes laws they don't like then tries to shout down any opposition by saying the law is the law, get over it!

It's very purile.

And in your magic kingdom, how would same sex marriage be outlawed if the government upheld it as a civil right?
...as has happened here...

In my magic kingdom it would be up to the citizens in each state because it isn't a Constitutional matter.

So then you would have to remarry in every state you travel or move too?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why shouldn't 2 brothers be able to marry? Other than it creeps you out? What is the rational legal argument?

Yes, it would creep me out but I don't see a reason to prevent it now. So we are finally in agreement on something.

Inbreeding generally leads to decreased biological fitness of a population Forbidding marriages of family members is used to discourage it. There is a lot of evidence that inbreeding can increase the chances that offsprings will be affected by recessive or harmful traits.

The primary reason homosexual unions have been discourage over the centuries has been because people feared it would lead to a reduction in population. Thus religion. laws, and taboos were used as tool to prevent it.

Al the supporters of homosexual marriage have claim that procreation is irrelevant to marriage. Now you're admitting that it is relevant.

Liberals talk out of both sides of their mouths, as usual.

If procreation was a requirement for marriage, why issue marriage licenses to the elderly or the infertile?

No one said it's a "requirement." That's the queer straw man. Procreation is the reason marriage exists, and flopper just admitted it by insisting we can't allow close relatives to marry because it might result in children with birth defects.

You guys just can't avoid stepping on your own dicks.

If it's not a requirement then it has no place in the discussion.

 

[Timmy]

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.

True . You could eliminate marriage , but you'd have to eliminate ALL Marriage .

 

[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.

Did God tell you that? Don't you believe our unalienable rights came from the Creator?

 

[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.

 

[Iceweasel]

Trump is just stating the obvious. Probably every Republican will appoint more conservative judges, the constitution doesn't define marriage or relationships. Like Roe v. Wade and obamacare it's bad law created out of personal opinion and politics.

You have no principles. Court decisions that you like, you believe they were properly decided. Court decisions that you don't like, you conjure up some fanciful legal mumbo jumbo to try to show they didn't abide by the Constitution.

You're a conservative cliche.

There's no basis for it and I gave you an example. Two brothers. Here's another, three people. Relationships are not equal, people are, big difference.

But I like how the left changes laws they don't like then tries to shout down any opposition by saying the law is the law, get over it!

It's very purile.

And in your magic kingdom, how would same sex marriage be outlawed if the government upheld it as a civil right?
...as has happened here...

In my magic kingdom it would be up to the citizens in each state because it isn't a Constitutional matter.

So then you would have to remarry in every state you travel or move too?

No, if a state doesn't honor it, they don't honor it. Simple enough. That way people can live like freemen.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

True . You could eliminate marriage , but you'd have to eliminate ALL Marriage .

No. I've been saying for years, since the first state went that route, government needs to get out of the marriage business. No more state recognition of marriage. You make a contract with whoever you wish.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Uh ... where is marriage a right in the constitution?

 

[oreo]

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.

Did God tell you that? Don't you believe our unalienable rights came from the Creator?

The U.S. Supreme court does not recognize your church or your religious beliefs as a viable consultant--LOL

They are going to make decisions based on the U.S. Constitution and what it is intended for: Pursuit of Happiness--a Woman's right to choose and everything else. That's why these will never be repealed or overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Donald Trump--while he works great for very stupid people, does not appoint U.S. Supreme Court judges. He nominates them, that then have to go through a very vigorous U.S. Senate investigation (both Democrats and Republicans) and then it's the Senate that votes to either deny them or confirm them as the next Supreme Court Justice.

 

[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.

Uh ... where is marriage a right in the constitution?

In the 9th Amendment. In case law. As an equal right, in the 14th Amendment.

How do you know that marriage is not an unalienable right as described in the Declaration of Independence?

Did the Creator talk to you?

 

[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.

True . You could eliminate marriage , but you'd have to eliminate ALL Marriage .

No. I've been saying for years, since the first state went that route, government needs to get out of the marriage business. No more state recognition of marriage. You make a contract with whoever you wish.

Since that will never happen, the states are bound by the Supremacy Clause to make their marriage laws constitutional.

 

[bripat9643]

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.