- Thread starter
- #3,661
Second, there is a fundamental reason why you can't name the law that you say the SCOTUS created. That would be because you are lying.
They made up that all gay marriages have to be recognized by every state, there is no such law and there is no basis for that in the Constitution. They made it up. They legislated from the bench.
Seriously, your argument is you want a name for the law? All States and the Federal government have to follow what they decreed even though there is no law that says what the Court ruled. The court made it up
Third, the actual laws that the SCOTUS tossed out for BANNING GAYS FROM GETTING MARRIED AND REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THEIR MARRIAGES FROM OTHER STATES certainly did impact the ability for gays to get married in certain states. So again YOU ARE LYING.
I never said it didn't, idiot. I said other States don't have to recognize it by the Full Faith and Credit Clause
Fifth, if not to rule over constitutional issues regarding laws, what the hell do you think the SCOTUS is there for?
It's not in the Consitution, do you know who gave the Supreme Court that power
Sixth, what do you call a person that acts like a moron, and lies with nearly every sentence they utter?
Yes, of course, the inherent truth of liberalism. Everyone knows that liberalism is truth, so anyone who doesn't agree with you is lying. Grow a pair, Darlene. And seriously, you're modeling your arguments after Faun and Syriusly? Now that's striving for bottom.
The idea that what you want changes a law is retarded
You said... "They made up that all gay marriages have to be recognized by every state, there is no such law and there is no basis for that in the Constitution."
That's not a law, that's a "ruling" that such laws are unconstitutional. Making such rulings is what the SCOTUS does. That's why we have a SCOTUS. Do you understand the difference between ruling a law unconstitutional and making a law?
The court did not make up marriage laws. The states did that.
Wrt. the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" see the constitution for support of the right to life, which includes marriage.
If you want to throw out the SCOTUS entirely, well that's a different topic. And yes, I'm fully aware of the history of our supreme court.
I've proved that you are lying, stop lying and I'll stop calling you out for it.
ROFL now you are moving the goal posts to "changing" a law. No, they did not change those laws they threw them out as unconstitutional. But yes they did change the code of laws for the states by removing said laws, because said laws were ruled by the supreme court of this land as unconstitutional. Note: calling it a "change" is not a lie.. not if by law you meant in the plural, so if you want to say that, I will concede that point, since change by remove is a change. Just don't try to sneak change by create or write in there
It's funny how three weeks of the month you're a pretty docile guy and the fourth you are a bitch on wheels. Maybe it'll get better after menopause.
To prove I lied, Syriusly, you have to know what I am thinking. Despite your being a chick who thinks you know, obviously you don't. And that you have to keep going to to that and emotions is a reflection of your weak argument. The weakest is your word parsing over what legislating from the bench means. It means making law, not interpreting law. Which by the Constitution is the job of the legislature, not the courts. There is no law that says gay marriage must be recognized in all States. Yet it must be followed now by all States. It's a pure Constitutional coup.
Now go ahead and tell me what I think and feel again, Darlene