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

[NYcarbineer]

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.

States don't have that perogative. State laws must be constitutional. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

 

[Nosmo King]

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 procreation is both not required as well as irrelevant, why is it an issue at all?

Claiming procreation is the reason for matti age is terribly short sighted. Such a notion dismisses the reasons some may regard as important in marriage. Can you cite reasons other than procreation? Or would you, by citing them, finally realize why people both straight and Gay want to get married?

 

[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.

And MAYBE by then you'd end up with about 5 cracker states that would not recognize same sex marriage, and the rest of the country can play YOUR game,

i.e., put economic pressure on those states to shape up. Remember Indiana?

 

[bripat9643]

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 procreation is both not required as well as irrelevant, why is it an issue at all?

Claiming procreation is the reason for matti age is terribly short sighted. Such a notion dismisses the reasons some may regard as important in marriage. Can you cite reasons other than procreation? Or would you, by citing them, finally realize why people both straight and Gay want to get married?

You'll have to take it up with Flopper. He's the one that says siblings can't get married because they might reproduce.

 

[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.

For a guy who claims to be an anarchist you sure don't seem hesitant to climb on board that 'unelected tyrannical judges' bandwagon that conservatives love to run out when it suits them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 procreation is both not required as well as irrelevant, why is it an issue at all?

Claiming procreation is the reason for matti age is terribly short sighted. Such a notion dismisses the reasons some may regard as important in marriage. Can you cite reasons other than procreation? Or would you, by citing them, finally realize why people both straight and Gay want to get married?

You'll have to take it up with Flopper. He's the one that says siblings can't get married because they might reproduce.

Your crush on Flopper is getting boring.

 

[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.

And MAYBE by then you'd end up with about 5 cracker states that would not recognize same sex marriage, and the rest of the country can play YOUR game,

i.e., put economic pressure on those states to shape up. Remember Indiana?

What kind of "economic pressure" would that be, homos refusing to move to these states? I hardly think anyone is going to worry about 2% of the population wanting to move in next door.

 

[Iceweasel]

States don't have that perogative. State laws must be constitutional. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

OK Einstein. Show me where it defines marriage. Some states allow 1st cousins, others 2nd or further. Which one violates the constitution?

Pretty good job of ignoring everything you can't fucking answer though.

 

[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.

For a guy who claims to be an anarchist you sure don't seem hesitant to climb on board that 'unelected tyrannical judges' bandwagon that conservatives love to run out when it suits them.

We are stuck with the Supreme Court, such as it is. If we are going to have one, then I want it to make correct decisions, not liberal decisions.

 

[oreo]

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.

States don't have that perogative. State laws must be constitutional. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

You have a lot of Reich wingers that think they can intrude on personal lives of others via a State Ballot and the U.S. Supreme court wouldn't do anything about it. WRONG

They are the LAW of the LAND and they would slap down any State bill that violated the U.S. Constitution, especially regarding the individuals right that were aforesaid in an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Their State bill wouldn't last for two days--LOL

 

[bripat9643]

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 procreation is both not required as well as irrelevant, why is it an issue at all?

Claiming procreation is the reason for matti age is terribly short sighted. Such a notion dismisses the reasons some may regard as important in marriage. Can you cite reasons other than procreation? Or would you, by citing them, finally realize why people both straight and Gay want to get married?

You'll have to take it up with Flopper. He's the one that says siblings can't get married because they might reproduce.

Your crush on Flopper is getting boring.

Crush? Criticizing his idiocy means I have a crush?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

States don't have that perogative. State laws must be constitutional. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

You have a lot of Reich wingers that think they can intrude on personal lives of others via a State Ballot and the U.S. Supreme court wouldn't do anything about it. WRONG

They are the LAW of the LAND and they would slap down any State bill that violated the U.S. Constitution, especially regarding the individuals right that were aforesaid in an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Their State bill wouldn't last for two days--LOL

Not if Trump replaces them with justices who think correctly.

 

[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.

And MAYBE by then you'd end up with about 5 cracker states that would not recognize same sex marriage, and the rest of the country can play YOUR game,

i.e., put economic pressure on those states to shape up. Remember Indiana?

What kind of "economic pressure" would that be, homos refusing to move to these states? I hardly think anyone is going to worry about 2% of the population wanting to move in next door.

Businesses move their headquarters. They keep conventions and other events out of the state. Indiana found out.
Mike Pence effectively saw his presidential aspirations evaporate over that episode.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

States don't have that perogative. State laws must be constitutional. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

You have a lot of Reich wingers that think they can intrude on personal lives of others via a State Ballot and the U.S. Supreme court wouldn't do anything about it. WRONG

They are the LAW of the LAND and they would slap down any State bill that violated the U.S. Constitution, especially regarding the individuals right that were aforesaid in an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Their State bill wouldn't last for two days--LOL

The LAW of the LAND didn't have same sex marriage. So it was OK then? Or are you just whistling out of your ass?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

States don't have that perogative. State laws must be constitutional. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

You have a lot of Reich wingers that think they can intrude on personal lives of others via a State Ballot and the U.S. Supreme court wouldn't do anything about it. WRONG

They are the LAW of the LAND and they would slap down any State bill that violated the U.S. Constitution, especially regarding the individuals right that were aforesaid in an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Their State bill wouldn't last for two days--LOL

The LAW of the LAND didn't have same sex marriage. So it was OK then? Or are you just whistling out of your ass?

The Court dealt with same sex marriage when the legal challenge was made. That's how the Court works.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

States don't have that perogative. State laws must be constitutional. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

You have a lot of Reich wingers that think they can intrude on personal lives of others via a State Ballot and the U.S. Supreme court wouldn't do anything about it. WRONG

They are the LAW of the LAND and they would slap down any State bill that violated the U.S. Constitution, especially regarding the individuals right that were aforesaid in an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Their State bill wouldn't last for two days--LOL

The LAW of the LAND didn't have same sex marriage. So it was OK then? Or are you just whistling out of your ass?

How would you constitutionally proclaim that marriage is not a right?

 

[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.

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.

For a guy who claims to be an anarchist you sure don't seem hesitant to climb on board that 'unelected tyrannical judges' bandwagon that conservatives love to run out when it suits them.

We are stuck with the Supreme Court, such as it is. If we are going to have one, then I want it to make correct decisions, not liberal decisions.

The US Supreme court has been considered right leaning for decades now. It was a right leaning court that gave you Roe V Wade, and it was a right leaning court that approved of Gay marriage.

IOW--you're never going to get a more conservative court.

 

[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.

And MAYBE by then you'd end up with about 5 cracker states that would not recognize same sex marriage, and the rest of the country can play YOUR game,

i.e., put economic pressure on those states to shape up. Remember Indiana?

What kind of "economic pressure" would that be, homos refusing to move to these states? I hardly think anyone is going to worry about 2% of the population wanting to move in next door.

Businesses move their headquarters. They keep conventions and other events out of the state. Indiana found out.
Mike Pence effectively saw his presidential aspirations evaporate over that episode.

That might last for a year, but then they forget the whole thing, and most people don't give a crap about a few conventions.

 

[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.

For a guy who claims to be an anarchist you sure don't seem hesitant to climb on board that 'unelected tyrannical judges' bandwagon that conservatives love to run out when it suits them.

We are stuck with the Supreme Court, such as it is. If we are going to have one, then I want it to make correct decisions, not liberal decisions.

The US Supreme court has been considered right leaning for decades now. It was a right leaning court that gave you Roe V Wade, and it was a right leaning court that approved of Gay marriage.

IOW--you're never going to get a more conservative court.

How can you call it "right leaning" when it handed down those two decisions? What "right leaning" decisions has it made?

 

[Debra K]

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.