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

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Hate to throw water on your fire here, But Trump doesn't do the U.S. Supreme court appointing--the U.S. Senate does that and DEMOCRATS do exist--and (forever) like abortion and now Gay Marriage they don't give litmus tests to court appointees on these type issues. Including Republican administrations.

How STUPID are these people. They don't even know basic civics.

Holy crap you are saying someone needs a civic lesson?

You Are the one that needs one moron.


The president appoints , the senate confirms ...

God damn these kid posters are getting more FUCKING stupid every day.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Not what you think it means. I don't take homework assignments from leftwing turds.

 

[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. 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.

Laughing....so by 'freedom', you mean stripping people of rights. Like, the right to marry.

I don't think freedom means what you think it means. What you're describing is POWER. The POWER to strip people of rights. That's what you demand the Supreme Court invest in the States.

Um, no thank you. NOt only is your personal opinion gloriously irrelevant to the Supreme Court's authority, your demands are self contradictory horseshit. As the power to strip people of rights is not 'freedom'.

 

[Skylar]

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?

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.

Laughing....so, you can't think of a single reason why we would make up a standard that doesn't apply to ANYONE and then apply it only to gays.

I can't either. Neither could the courts.

 

[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. 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

Oh geesh, your delusions of grandeur are charming, but sad for an adult.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Laughing....so, you can't think of a single reason why we would make up a standard that doesn't apply to ANYONE and then apply it only to gays.

I can't either. Neither could the courts.

I have no idea what you think you're trying to communicate.

I realize there's no convincing a queer that his perverse desires are not a constitutional right, so let's just leave it at that.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

So all states had marriage standards which excluded infertile couples before Obergefell?

Oh, wait, none of them did.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Not what you think it means. I don't take homework assignments from leftwing turds.

Notice you don't actually answer his question. Here's the 9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now...where does it say that a right has to be enumerated in the constitution for the people to possess it? Just highlight that portion for is.

Because I'm pretty sure you're just making that up.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Cry more. You show me WHERE homosexuality was found to be anything BUT a mental disorder when it was taken off the list of mental disorders. I can wait. You won't find it because its not there. It was VOTED ON! That's it.

In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980).

Confronted with overwhelming empirical evidence and changing cultural views of homosexuality, psychiatrists and psychologists radically altered their views, beginning in the 1970s.​

Facts About Homosexuality and Mental Health

If not understanding install tab A into slot b and dicks are for chicks is natural and anything else is mental, then yes Virginia we have a problem.

 

[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. 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.

Laughing....so by 'freedom', you mean stripping people of rights. Like, the right to marry.

I don't think freedom means what you think it means. What you're describing is POWER. The POWER to strip people of rights. That's what you demand the Supreme Court invest in the States.

Um, no thank you. NOt only is your personal opinion gloriously irrelevant to the Supreme Court's authority, your demands are self contradictory horseshit. As the power to strip people of rights is not 'freedom'.

Marriage is a collection of privileges granted by the government. There is no "right to marry." There is no "freedom to marry."

 

[Skylar]

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.

So all states had marriage standards which excluded infertile couples before Obergefell?

Oh, wait, none of them did.

Not one. Not in the deepest of the south, or the heart of Texas. Not in the Appalachians or the central plains.

No where.

But why would Bri let something like being perfectly wrong in his assumptions interfere with a good rant? Its never stopped him before.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Not what you think it means. I don't take homework assignments from leftwing turds.

Notice you don't actually answer his question. Here's the 9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now...where does it say that a right has to be enumerated in the constitution for the people to possess it? Just highlight that portion for is.

Because I'm pretty sure you're just making that up.

I never said it did have to be enumerated in the Constitution, but queers don't get to claim it's a constitutional right when it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[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.

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.

Polygamy is a traditional form of marriage. Why do you scorn tradition?

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?

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.

Laughing....so by 'freedom', you mean stripping people of rights. Like, the right to marry.

I don't think freedom means what you think it means. What you're describing is POWER. The POWER to strip people of rights. That's what you demand the Supreme Court invest in the States.

Um, no thank you. NOt only is your personal opinion gloriously irrelevant to the Supreme Court's authority, your demands are self contradictory horseshit. As the power to strip people of rights is not 'freedom'.

Marriage is a collection of privileges granted by the government. There is no "right to marry." There is no "freedom to marry."

Prove there is no right to marry.

 

[Skylar]

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?

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.

Laughing....so by 'freedom', you mean stripping people of rights. Like, the right to marry.

I don't think freedom means what you think it means. What you're describing is POWER. The POWER to strip people of rights. That's what you demand the Supreme Court invest in the States.

Um, no thank you. NOt only is your personal opinion gloriously irrelevant to the Supreme Court's authority, your demands are self contradictory horseshit. As the power to strip people of rights is not 'freedom'.

Marriage is a collection of privileges granted by the government. There is no "right to marry." There is no "freedom to marry."

Says you, citing yourself. The Supreme Court contradicts you.

In any contest between you and the Supreme Court on what rights are, you lose.

But tell us again how the power to strip people of rights is 'freedom'. It should be worth at least a giggle.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

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.

Laughing....so by 'freedom', you mean stripping people of rights. Like, the right to marry.

I don't think freedom means what you think it means. What you're describing is POWER. The POWER to strip people of rights. That's what you demand the Supreme Court invest in the States.

Um, no thank you. NOt only is your personal opinion gloriously irrelevant to the Supreme Court's authority, your demands are self contradictory horseshit. As the power to strip people of rights is not 'freedom'.

Marriage is a collection of privileges granted by the government. There is no "right to marry." There is no "freedom to marry."

Why is there a right to bear arms?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Laughing....so by 'freedom', you mean stripping people of rights. Like, the right to marry.

I don't think freedom means what you think it means. What you're describing is POWER. The POWER to strip people of rights. That's what you demand the Supreme Court invest in the States.

Um, no thank you. NOt only is your personal opinion gloriously irrelevant to the Supreme Court's authority, your demands are self contradictory horseshit. As the power to strip people of rights is not 'freedom'.

Marriage is a collection of privileges granted by the government. There is no "right to marry." There is no "freedom to marry."

Why is there a right to bear arms?

Because bears are total dicks and don't deserve to have arms. Or legs for that matter.

 

[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.

So all states had marriage standards which excluded infertile couples before Obergefell?

Oh, wait, none of them did.

I said "conceivably." Since marriage laws were created before medicine could determine whether someone was fertile, the only test was for people to have sex. Getting pregnant without being married was a disaster for a women, so marriage always preceded the demonstration of fertility.

It's sad that such simply concepts have to be explained to morons like you. I think you would all die within hours if you had to fend for yourselves in the wilderness. You would probably insist that a lion had no right to eat you.

 

[Seawytch]

Cry more. You show me WHERE homosexuality was found to be anything BUT a mental disorder when it was taken off the list of mental disorders. I can wait. You won't find it because its not there. It was VOTED ON! That's it.

In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980).

Confronted with overwhelming empirical evidence and changing cultural views of homosexuality, psychiatrists and psychologists radically altered their views, beginning in the 1970s.​

Facts About Homosexuality and Mental Health

If not understanding install tab A into slot b and dicks are for chicks is natural and anything else is mental, then yes Virginia we have a problem.

Not understanding that human sexuality is much more fluid than our puritanical roots allow...is just toothless, inbred stupid, but oh well.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Laughing....so by 'freedom', you mean stripping people of rights. Like, the right to marry.

I don't think freedom means what you think it means. What you're describing is POWER. The POWER to strip people of rights. That's what you demand the Supreme Court invest in the States.

Um, no thank you. NOt only is your personal opinion gloriously irrelevant to the Supreme Court's authority, your demands are self contradictory horseshit. As the power to strip people of rights is not 'freedom'.

Marriage is a collection of privileges granted by the government. There is no "right to marry." There is no "freedom to marry."

Why is there a right to bear arms?

Because you have a right to live, which means you have the right to defend yourself.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

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.

So all states had marriage standards which excluded infertile couples before Obergefell?

Oh, wait, none of them did.

Not one. Not in the deepest of the south, or the heart of Texas. Not in the Appalachians or the central plains.

No where.

But why would Bri let something like being perfectly wrong in his assumptions interfere with a good rant? Its never stopped him before.

That isn't the test, nimrod.