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

[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.

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?

 

[oreo]

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.

Again --IT'S NOT TRUMP who appoints U.S. Supreme court justices.. It's the U.S. Senate (both Democrats & Republicans) who do an indepth investigation on the nominee, and then it is THEY that select the Justice.

Sweet Baby Jesus--didn't you know that already? You've been on this board forever and you didn't know how U.S Supreme court Justices are selected? Un Feaking believable.

 

[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.

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?

I imagine it has something to do with the "Pursuit of Happiness" that every citizen is guaranteed. If they can't get married--because of your personal religious beliefs--that would interfere with their pursuit of Happiness. The U.S. Supreme Court protects the individual against Theocratic behavioral patterns. They always have, and they always will.

A good example: Rick Santorum your repeat candidate offender, is on video recording stating that STATES have the right to ban birth control contraceptives. Meaning your next door neighbor via a ballot will decide for you or not if you use them. He is still arguing with a 1965 Supreme Court decision (Griswold v Connecticut),

Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[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?

I imagine it has something to do with the "Pursuit of Happiness" that every citizen is guaranteed. If they can't get married--because of your religious beliefs--that would interfere with their pursuit of Happiness.

What if smoking marijuana is what I require to pursue happiness? Why isn't smoking marijuana a constitutional right?

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

Don't you mean justices who think just like you do? Most people in America today are cool with gays being married. And, if that becomes a point that Trump presses repeatedly, he's gonna lose the election.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Merchants are merchants. Not Imams, not arbiters of social comportment, not storefronts acting as religious litmus paper.

Merchants are people who have rights, including the freedoms of expression, religion, association, and conscience, affirmed and implied in the First Amendment, certainly including a right not to participate in or support that which they know to be immoral.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Again --IT'S NOT TRUMP who appoints U.S. Supreme court justices.. It's the U.S. Senate (both Democrats & Republicans) who do an indepth investigation on the nominee, and then it is THEY that select the Justice.

Sweet Baby Jesus--didn't you know that already? You've been on this board forever and you didn't know how U.S Supreme court Justices are selected? Un Feaking believable.

You're forgetting the dinghy Harry Reid changed the Senate rules so that only a simple majority is required to approve a nomination. You better hope and pray that Democrats retake the Senate.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Those who said NO were breaking the law of the land.

The First Amendment is the law of the land. Calling for it to be disregarded and violated leaves you in no position to speak of the rule of law.

 

[Nosmo King]

Merchants are merchants. Not Imams, not arbiters of social comportment, not storefronts acting as religious litmus paper.

Merchants are people who have rights, including the freedoms of expression, religion, association, and conscience, affirmed and implied in the First Amendment, certainly including a right not to participate in or support that which they know to be immoral.

They are NOT participants. They ar vendors providing services. Participants include the bride, groom, their parents and invited guests.

Wedding vendors bake, decorate and deliver cakes. They provide rented tuxedos. The arrainge flowers. They take photographs. They provide music. They do not officiate the ceremony. They do not dance the hora or the electric slide or the chicken dance. They are not expected to bring a toaster oven wrapped in silver paper.

And they are expected to deliver the same high level of service that they provide to any other paying customer.

They do not provide a mercantile impermatur. They do not vet other customers on religious grounds. They are service providers. That's their bailiwick. Going to any standard beyond providing services is inappropriate at least, wholly unChristian at worst.

 

[Nosmo King]

Those who said NO were breaking the law of the land.

The First Amendment is the law of the land. Calling for it to be disregarded and violated leaves you in no position to speak of the rule of law.

Commit these words to your English studies tonight: Public Accomodation laws.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Since nearly 50% of the population will live in more than one state, it would create huge legal problems and it would do little to reduce the number of gay marriages.

 

[Flopper]

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

Every state has laws that prohibit sibling marriage, so I guess you're just out of luck.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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 .

 

[Skylar]

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

Every state has laws that prohibit sibling marriage, so I guess you're just out of luck.

This shit again?

Fuck, do these idiots ever tire of the same silly, circular fallacies?

 

[idb]

Trump criticizes Supreme Court for same-sex marriage decision
All ya need is ONE libtard judge to retire maybe that jewess Ginsberg!? This will help him with more conservative folks and people that know this is an issue for the states.

How can that be?
Either something's constitutional or it isn't.
How can a judge's political leanings have anything to do with that?

 

[bripat9643]

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

Every state has laws that prohibit sibling marriage, so I guess you're just out of luck.

This shit again?

Fuck, do these idiots ever tire of the same silly, circular fallacies?

You're the one who's known as the king of the circular logic.

 

[Skylar]

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

Every state has laws that prohibit sibling marriage, so I guess you're just out of luck.

This shit again?

Fuck, do these idiots ever tire of the same silly, circular fallacies?

You're the one who's known as the king of the circular logic.

Says you. And your source sucks.

 

[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?

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Every state has laws that prohibit sibling marriage, so I guess you're just out of luck.

This shit again?

Fuck, do these idiots ever tire of the same silly, circular fallacies?

You're the one who's known as the king of the circular logic.

Says you. And your source sucks.

Says everyone who has ever read one of you dimwitted posts.