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

[Skylar]

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:

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.

Every marriage law prior to Obergefell was created before medicine could determine whether someone was fertile?

Skylar asked you to name one state that had a standard of a couple needing to conceivably be able to procreate before the Obergefell ruling. You replied that they all did. The fact is that none of them had such a standard. Prior to Obergefell there certainly was the possibility of medically determining whether someone was fertile.

Even if, for some strange reason, we were to go back to the first marriage laws created in this country, age was still a possible determinant for fertility; were the elderly barred from marriage prior to Obergefell?

What the hell does fending for one's self in the wilderness have to do with the state of US marriage laws before Obergefell? You might reconsider calling someone a moron when trying to defend the position that all states had standards of marriage revolving around fertility a year ago.

The argument that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction is so stupid that it's propagation can only be the result of some kind of brain damage.

You're another queer who is too stupid and irrational to waste time arguing with.

Good night.

Mont....he's stuck. And he's knows he's stuck. So every time someone points out how his argument doesn't work.....he refuses to discuss it. Laughing...as if closing his eyes makes the hole is his argument go away.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The right to marry is a fundamental right within the meaning of LIBERTY, which is protected by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution against state deprivations.

Wrong.

Says you. The Supreme Court says otherwise. And as far as rights are concerned, you're nobody. While the Supreme Court is authoritative.

Your agreement is gloriously irrelevant.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Every marriage law prior to Obergefell was created before medicine could determine whether someone was fertile?

Skylar asked you to name one state that had a standard of a couple needing to conceivably be able to procreate before the Obergefell ruling. You replied that they all did. The fact is that none of them had such a standard. Prior to Obergefell there certainly was the possibility of medically determining whether someone was fertile.

Even if, for some strange reason, we were to go back to the first marriage laws created in this country, age was still a possible determinant for fertility; were the elderly barred from marriage prior to Obergefell?

What the hell does fending for one's self in the wilderness have to do with the state of US marriage laws before Obergefell? You might reconsider calling someone a moron when trying to defend the position that all states had standards of marriage revolving around fertility a year ago.

The argument that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction is so stupid that it's propagation can only be the result of some kind of brain damage.

You're another queer who is too stupid and irrational to waste time arguing with.

Good night.

Mont....he's stuck. And he's knows he's stuck. So every time someone points out how his argument doesn't work.....he refuses to discuss it. Laughing...as if closing his eyes makes the hole is his argument go away.

I don't waste my time arguing with brain damaged queers like you. When you are confronted with irrefutable logic you simply ignore it and repeat the same shopworn talking points you have repeated a thousand times before.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The right to marry is a fundamental right within the meaning of LIBERTY, which is protected by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution against state deprivations.

Wrong.

Says you. The Supreme Court says otherwise. And as far as rights are concerned, you're nobody. While the Supreme Court is authoritative.

Your agreement is gloriously irrelevant.

You mean Justice Kennedy says otherwise. The Supreme Court has the power to enforce its decisions. There's nothing the slightest bit "authoritative" about them. The justices are nothing more than a kind of politician.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Every marriage law prior to Obergefell was created before medicine could determine whether someone was fertile?

Skylar asked you to name one state that had a standard of a couple needing to conceivably be able to procreate before the Obergefell ruling. You replied that they all did. The fact is that none of them had such a standard. Prior to Obergefell there certainly was the possibility of medically determining whether someone was fertile.

Even if, for some strange reason, we were to go back to the first marriage laws created in this country, age was still a possible determinant for fertility; were the elderly barred from marriage prior to Obergefell?

What the hell does fending for one's self in the wilderness have to do with the state of US marriage laws before Obergefell? You might reconsider calling someone a moron when trying to defend the position that all states had standards of marriage revolving around fertility a year ago.

The argument that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction is so stupid that it's propagation can only be the result of some kind of brain damage.

You're another queer who is too stupid and irrational to waste time arguing with.

Good night.

Mont....he's stuck. And he's knows he's stuck. So every time someone points out how his argument doesn't work.....he refuses to discuss it. Laughing...as if closing his eyes makes the hole is his argument go away.

I don't waste my time arguing with brain damaged queers like you. When you are confronted with irrefutable logic you simply ignore it and repeat the same shopworn talking points you have repeated a thousand times before.

You run from arguments you know you can't win. And you have no recourse in this argument but to tuck your tail between your legs.....and yip away. As no state enacted the standards you insist we hold gays to......for anyone. Not one State.

You know. I know it. All you can do is run.

Just don't be surprised when I point and laugh as you flee.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Every marriage law prior to Obergefell was created before medicine could determine whether someone was fertile?

Skylar asked you to name one state that had a standard of a couple needing to conceivably be able to procreate before the Obergefell ruling. You replied that they all did. The fact is that none of them had such a standard. Prior to Obergefell there certainly was the possibility of medically determining whether someone was fertile.

Even if, for some strange reason, we were to go back to the first marriage laws created in this country, age was still a possible determinant for fertility; were the elderly barred from marriage prior to Obergefell?

What the hell does fending for one's self in the wilderness have to do with the state of US marriage laws before Obergefell? You might reconsider calling someone a moron when trying to defend the position that all states had standards of marriage revolving around fertility a year ago.

The argument that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction is so stupid that it's propagation can only be the result of some kind of brain damage.

You're another queer who is too stupid and irrational to waste time arguing with.

Good night.

Mont....he's stuck. And he's knows he's stuck. So every time someone points out how his argument doesn't work.....he refuses to discuss it. Laughing...as if closing his eyes makes the hole is his argument go away.

I don't waste my time arguing with brain damaged queers like you. When you are confronted with irrefutable logic you simply ignore it and repeat the same shopworn talking points you have repeated a thousand times before.

You run from arguments you know you can't win. And you have no recourse in this argument but to tuck your tail between your legs.....and yip away. As no state enacted the standards you insist we hold gays to......for anyone. Not one State.

You know. I know it. All you can do is run.

Just don't be surprised when I point and laugh as you flee.

No, I simply refuse to waste my time arguing with a dolt.

 

[Skylar]

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

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.

The right to marry is a fundamental right within the meaning of LIBERTY, which is protected by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution against state deprivations.

Wrong.

Says you. The Supreme Court says otherwise. And as far as rights are concerned, you're nobody. While the Supreme Court is authoritative.

Your agreement is gloriously irrelevant.

You mean Justice Kennedy says otherwise. The Supreme Court has the power to enforce its decisions. There's nothing the slightest bit "authoritative" about them. The justices are nothing more than a kind of politician.

I mean the majority of the Supreme Court. And with the majority of the Supreme Court goes the authority of the judiciary of the United States.

And you're obviously confused, mixing up the court for yourself. See, the court is clearly authoritative. As demonstrated by same sex marriages in 50 of 50 States.

Its you who is not the slightest bit authoritative. As you rant about gay marriage. You whine. You snivel. You run. And same sex marriage is still in 50 of 50 States.

Smiling.....see how that works?

 

[Skylar]

Every marriage law prior to Obergefell was created before medicine could determine whether someone was fertile?

Skylar asked you to name one state that had a standard of a couple needing to conceivably be able to procreate before the Obergefell ruling. You replied that they all did. The fact is that none of them had such a standard. Prior to Obergefell there certainly was the possibility of medically determining whether someone was fertile.

Even if, for some strange reason, we were to go back to the first marriage laws created in this country, age was still a possible determinant for fertility; were the elderly barred from marriage prior to Obergefell?

What the hell does fending for one's self in the wilderness have to do with the state of US marriage laws before Obergefell? You might reconsider calling someone a moron when trying to defend the position that all states had standards of marriage revolving around fertility a year ago.

The argument that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction is so stupid that it's propagation can only be the result of some kind of brain damage.

You're another queer who is too stupid and irrational to waste time arguing with.

Good night.

Mont....he's stuck. And he's knows he's stuck. So every time someone points out how his argument doesn't work.....he refuses to discuss it. Laughing...as if closing his eyes makes the hole is his argument go away.

I don't waste my time arguing with brain damaged queers like you. When you are confronted with irrefutable logic you simply ignore it and repeat the same shopworn talking points you have repeated a thousand times before.

You run from arguments you know you can't win. And you have no recourse in this argument but to tuck your tail between your legs.....and yip away. As no state enacted the standards you insist we hold gays to......for anyone. Not one State.

You know. I know it. All you can do is run.

Just don't be surprised when I point and laugh as you flee.

No, I simply refuse to waste my time arguing with a dolt.

Laughing.....odd that timing. Where you refuse to discuss the topic....moments after you lost.

Name even *one* state that before Obergefell held anyone to the requirement you insist we apply to gays. Just one.

You can't. You know you can't. And so you pout. And I laugh. Which is how most of our conversations go.

 

[bripat9643]

The argument that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction is so stupid that it's propagation can only be the result of some kind of brain damage.

You're another queer who is too stupid and irrational to waste time arguing with.

Good night.

Mont....he's stuck. And he's knows he's stuck. So every time someone points out how his argument doesn't work.....he refuses to discuss it. Laughing...as if closing his eyes makes the hole is his argument go away.

I don't waste my time arguing with brain damaged queers like you. When you are confronted with irrefutable logic you simply ignore it and repeat the same shopworn talking points you have repeated a thousand times before.

You run from arguments you know you can't win. And you have no recourse in this argument but to tuck your tail between your legs.....and yip away. As no state enacted the standards you insist we hold gays to......for anyone. Not one State.

You know. I know it. All you can do is run.

Just don't be surprised when I point and laugh as you flee.

No, I simply refuse to waste my time arguing with a dolt.

Laughing.....odd that timing. Where you refuse to discuss the topic....moments after you lost.

Name even *one* state that before Obergefell held anyone to the requirement you insist we apply to gays. Just one.

You can't. You know you can't. And so you pout. And I laugh. Which is how most of our conversations go.

Piss off, queer.

We're done.

 

[Skylar]

Mont....he's stuck. And he's knows he's stuck. So every time someone points out how his argument doesn't work.....he refuses to discuss it. Laughing...as if closing his eyes makes the hole is his argument go away.

I don't waste my time arguing with brain damaged queers like you. When you are confronted with irrefutable logic you simply ignore it and repeat the same shopworn talking points you have repeated a thousand times before.

You run from arguments you know you can't win. And you have no recourse in this argument but to tuck your tail between your legs.....and yip away. As no state enacted the standards you insist we hold gays to......for anyone. Not one State.

You know. I know it. All you can do is run.

Just don't be surprised when I point and laugh as you flee.

No, I simply refuse to waste my time arguing with a dolt.

Laughing.....odd that timing. Where you refuse to discuss the topic....moments after you lost.

Name even *one* state that before Obergefell held anyone to the requirement you insist we apply to gays. Just one.

You can't. You know you can't. And so you pout. And I laugh. Which is how most of our conversations go.

Piss off, queer.

We're done.

Remember, boy......who made you run. I certainly will.

And if you ever scrabble up enough courage to try to polish that rhetorical turd again, I'll be happy to disabuse you of your misconceptions with the same question that you can't answer:

Can you name even *one* state that before Obergefell held anyone to the requirement you insist we apply to gays? Just one.

Laughing......run.

 

[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.

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

Illegal violation of the First Amendment's implied freedom of association. The Constitution is the highest law, and lower laws cannot legitimately override it.

Again, arguing against the Constitution, demanding that it be disobeyed, disqualifies you from making any argument based on any purported support for the rule of law.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

By definition, marriage always has been, and always will be, between a man and a woman. There is nothing in the Constitution that supports the establishment of sick, immoral mockery of marriage as equal to genuine marriage.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

Looks like that won't be happening.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

For starters, because the 9th Amendment makes it clear that being mentioned as a right does not preclude the unmentioned from being rights.

On the other hand, the Ninth Amendment is most certainly not a license to make up nonsensical “rights” that have no basis in reality; such as a “right” to redefine marriage to include a sick mockery thereof as equal to the real thing.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

By definition,marriage always has been,and always will be, between a man and a woman.

And yet, I'm friends with a male couple who are married to each other. How strange...

 

[Montrovant]

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:

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.

Every marriage law prior to Obergefell was created before medicine could determine whether someone was fertile?

Skylar asked you to name one state that had a standard of a couple needing to conceivably be able to procreate before the Obergefell ruling. You replied that they all did. The fact is that none of them had such a standard. Prior to Obergefell there certainly was the possibility of medically determining whether someone was fertile.

Even if, for some strange reason, we were to go back to the first marriage laws created in this country, age was still a possible determinant for fertility; were the elderly barred from marriage prior to Obergefell?

What the hell does fending for one's self in the wilderness have to do with the state of US marriage laws before Obergefell? You might reconsider calling someone a moron when trying to defend the position that all states had standards of marriage revolving around fertility a year ago.

The argument that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction is so stupid that it's propagation can only be the result of some kind of brain damage.

You're another queer who is too stupid and irrational to waste time arguing with.

Good night.

The argument was that all states had a standard for marriage in which the ability to procreate was a requirement. That is demonstrably false.

That a majority of married couples may have children does not make having children, nor the ability to have children, a requirement to marry. Can you provide a single statute from any state which required the ability to procreate in order to marry a year ago, prior to the Obergefell ruling?

Or perhaps you are going to argue that the post-menopausal woman who decides to get married could conceivably procreate? The man who cannot produce sperm will conceivably impregnate his wife? The woman who has had a hysterectomy will conceivably end up having children with her husband? Unless those people were barred from marriage that seems to be your argument.

You can get your panties in a knot about this, call me queer and stupid if you like, and attempt to change the argument, but you were asked to name a state which had a standard of marriage in which it 'should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.'. You replied that they all had such a standard. None did. Requiring that a couple be of opposite gender does not mean they conceivably might be able to procreate. Some people are incapable of procreation. No state barred such people from marriage.

You made a false statement. We all do it sometimes. Is it too difficult to simply admit your mistake rather than doubling down on it or trying to deflect away from it?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Since when did libs ever care about rights not mentioned in the Constitution?

Indeed, modern liberals don't even support those rights explicitly affirmed and protected in the Constitution. As far as I am concerned, you don't even get to credibly mention the Ninth Amendment, and speak of rights implied therein, until you will stand firm for the rights explicitly affirmed elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

By definition, marriage always has been, and always will be, between a man and a woman. There is nothing in the Constitution that supports the establishment of sick, immoral mockery of marriage as equal to genuine marriage.

Definitions can change. Shocking!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And yet, I'm friends with a male couple who are married to each other. How strange...

There is no such thing.

No matter what the law says, two men cannot be married to each other any more than Bruce Jenner can be a woman. A law that affirms a falsehood is just nonsense, at best.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Constitution says I have the right to own a gun, not the government. Government doesn't determine my rights. It only determines the law.

…And it's only supposed to do so within the confines set by the Constitution.