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

[Montrovant]

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.

The discrimination faced by Blacks in the 1960s was not constitutionally mandated. In fact, laws found that set up thee shaky scaffolding of bigotry then were found to be unconstitutional. The same precedents apply to the bigotry faced by homosexuals today. Bigotry is not a constitutional right, no matter how you slice it.

Actually, I would say that bigotry is a protected right, but not all applications of bigotry are so protected.

 

[Rustic]

On a lot of social issues and people's reactions to them escapes me. This country has an insane divorce rate, a reality since the 60's. Nationally it is a ridiculous institution because of what the progressives have made it.

No one should really give two shits if someone else wants to marry who ever. If they want to marry ten other people, their pets, a corporation, a fence post who cares? it's all become meaningless.

 

[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 [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.

The discrimination faced by Blacks in the 1960s was not constitutionally mandated. In fact, laws found that set up thee shaky scaffolding of bigotry then were found to be unconstitutional. The same precedents apply to the bigotry faced by homosexuals today. Bigotry is not a constitutional right, no matter how you slice it.

Actually, I would say that bigotry is a protected right, but not all applications of bigotry are so protected.

Perhaps the word should be "Discrimination" rather than bigotry. As bigotry leads to discrimination and there is a difference with a distinction.. The act of discrimination is illegal, but the despicable quality of bigotry is a state of mind.

 

[Flopper]

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.

The discrimination faced by Blacks in the 1960s was not constitutionally mandated. In fact, laws found that set up thee shaky scaffolding of bigotry then were found to be unconstitutional. The same precedents apply to the bigotry faced by homosexuals today. Bigotry is not a constitutional right, no matter how you slice it.

Actually, I would say that bigotry is a protected right, but not all applications of bigotry are so protected.

Perhaps the word should be "Discrimination" rather than bigotry. As bigotry leads to discrimination and there is a difference with a distinction.. The act of discrimination is illegal, but the despicable quality of bigotry is a state of mind.

That depends on the type of discrimination. Not all discrimination is illegal nor for that matter bad..

 

[Silhouette]

Perhaps the word should be "Discrimination" rather than bigotry. As bigotry leads to discrimination and there is a difference with a distinction.. The act of discrimination is illegal, but the despicable quality of bigotry is a state of mind.

People discriminate against or for behaviors every day of the week. If you don't believe me, check the penal codes of your state. So, discriminating against gay lifestyles is not the same as discriminating against something static and inborn like race or gender. It may not be illegal to do gay things, but it isn't illegal to be bulimic either. One would be kind to a bulimic but never promote it as "a wholly acceptable alternate way of eating". Because it isn't.

 

[mdk]

Perhaps the word should be "Discrimination" rather than bigotry. As bigotry leads to discrimination and there is a difference with a distinction.. The act of discrimination is illegal, but the despicable quality of bigotry is a state of mind.

People discriminate against or for behaviors every day of the week. If you don't believe me, check the penal codes of your state. So, discriminating against gay lifestyles is not the same as discriminating against something static and inborn like race or gender. It may not be illegal to do gay things, but it isn't illegal to be bulimic either. One would be kind to a bulimic but never promote it as "a wholly acceptable alternate way of eating". Because it isn't.

Kind? You're not fooling anybody. How many people whom suffer from bulimia have you accused of going killing sprees?

 

[Skylar]

Perhaps the word should be "Discrimination" rather than bigotry. As bigotry leads to discrimination and there is a difference with a distinction.. The act of discrimination is illegal, but the despicable quality of bigotry is a state of mind.

People discriminate against or for behaviors every day of the week. If you don't believe me, check the penal codes of your state. So, discriminating against gay lifestyles is not the same as discriminating against something static and inborn like race or gender. It may not be illegal to do gay things, but it isn't illegal to be bulimic either. One would be kind to a bulimic but never promote it as "a wholly acceptable alternate way of eating". Because it isn't.

Kind? You're not fooling anybody. How many people whom suffer from bulimia have you accused of going killing sprees?

Where was Sil's 'bulimics blackmailed the Pope' thread? Or 'bulimics have infiltrated Gallup polling', thread?

 

[Skylar]

That's quite a lot of verbal gymnastics for even you Monty.

However, if you derive "marriage legally includes same sex couples" from an alleged "constitutional right" that that is so, you've got troubles...perhaps that's why you did the verbal gymnastics...a bit of sleight of hand there?

The problems with your "gay marriage is constitutional" are these (at least and maybe more)

Wow. You are the greenest poster I know. As you don't put up anything that isn't recycled compost now.

Lets go through these classic pieces of debunked pseudo-legal horseshit one at a time:

1. Kagan & Ginsburg both displayed rampant bias before Obergefell was heard. Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009 says they were not allowed to preside over Obergefell.

Obvious nonsense. Same Sex marriage was already legal in both places they performed marriages. Which Windsor had already affirmed the States had every authority to do. Capterton was about elected judges adjudicating cases for campaign contributors.

Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg were elected. Neither received campaign contributions from anyone in Obergefell.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

2. The Judicial Branch of government cannot change the Constitution. Only Congress can do that. Creating a new inclusion in the 14th Amendment for "just some of the the Court's favorite repugnant deviant sex behaviors-as-identity but not others" violates the 14th's equality skeleton. Either all majority-repugnant deviant sex behaviors may be married, (think polygamy) or none of them may outside state laws.

The Judiciary can, however, interpret the meaning of the constitution.

3. There are no provisions in the federal government for regulating marriage: it belongs to the states. In fact, Windsor 2013 found that as fact 56 times in that Opinion's wording. States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage Windsor's essence in fact was that DOMA should be dismantled precisely because marriage was up to New York where Windsor was "gay married"..I'll explain the quotation marks further down...

The Windsor decision explicitly states that 'Subject to certain constitutional guarantees', the issue of marriage is decided by the States. And in Obergefell found that these exact constitutional guarantees had been violated.

The Windsor court was the Obergefell court. Same people. Even the authors of the rulings was the same. You're literally arguing that Justice Kennedy, who wrote the Obergefell decision, didn't understand what Justice Kennedy meant when he wrote the Windsor decision 2 years earlier.

Um, no. Its just you who has no idea what she's talking about.

.
4. Marriage was a contract invented over a thousand years ago specifically to remedy the various situations where children found themselves without both a mother and father. Ergo, not only are children implicit partners in that contract, but the contract was invented and maintained for thousands of years FOR CHILDREN. The state gains no benefit from two adults shacking up. The state DOES gain benefit by enticing a mother and father for the sake of children's best shot at life. The woes without either a mother or father present for both genders of children are long understood, established, documented and simply also a matter of common sense. When the radical contract revision was proposed, children were not invited to the table. They had no representation in Obergefell; which was required by contract law.

1) No state required anyone getting married to have kids or be able to have them. Killing your argument entirely. As there were clearly valid bases to get married that had nothing to do with kids.

2) The Obergefell court found that denying same sex marriage hurts children. And recognizing same sex marriage helps children. Thus, per your own pseudo-legal gibberish about 'contract law', the Obergefell court should have ruled exactly as they did.

3) The Obergefell court explicitly found that the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. Killing your argument yet again.

See above about how you have no idea what you're talking about.

5. If a contract involving minors either expressly or implicitly serves a need of theirs, the contract cannot be changed to their detriment. Even if children wanted to change it to their detriment, it cannot be done. Study the Infants Doctrine: ancient law. Even if the reason for changing the contract is pure compassion for adults, it still cannot stand if it is to the detriment of children involved.. Incidentally, Loving v Virginia did not change that thousands-years-old skeleton where races all over the world intermarried to provide a mother and father for children. So, gay marriage is nothing at all like Loving and may not cite it because the two (mother/father) & (man/man, woman/woman) are NOTHING alike with regards to marriage's original reason for being invented.

1) The 'Infants Doctrine' is regarding contracts that legally obligated children. For example, contracts for children actors. There has never been any court nor law that has ever recognized that the 'Infacts Doctrine' has a thing to do with the marriage of adult parents. Nor has any source on contract law you've ever cited. You made it all up.

2) The Supreme Court found that denying same sex marriage hurts children. And recognizing same sex marriage helps children. Thus, per your own pseudo-legal gibberish about 'contract law', the Obergefell court should have ruled exactly as they did.

3) See above about how you don't know the first thing about contract law.

6. New York vs Ferber (1982) was a case about a guy Ferber who wanted to peddle kiddie porn, claiming the 1st Amendment supported his "right" to do so constitutionally. At first it was found that he could under the 1st, then it was found he could not. SCOTUS heard the case and even though SCOTUS rules in favor of free speech in even ridiculous and offensive cases as an unwavering rule, it found exception in NY v Ferber for one reason: children. The Court found that if a person exercises a constitutional right that somehow hurts children either physically or psychologically, then that right cannot be exercised. Gay marriage systematically strips boys of fathers and girls of mothers FOR LIFE without the possibility of parole from this mental prison. Infants and contract law has a clause that says if adults want to change a contract involving children, if there is even a shadow of a chance that change might hurt them, their new contract is VOID (not "voidable" but void upon its face). The burden is upon the adults to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that boys raised without fathers and girls raised without mothers does no harm to them. Citing "single parenthood" isn't allowed because we are talking about THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT, not other situations outside it. Marriage, remember, exists for a reason. So, "gay marriage" cannot be, because that new revision harms children in predictable ways. There is AT LEAST enough evidence to cast doubt on "the benefits of stripping a child of either a mother or father"..and so...gay marriage everywhere is void. Children cannot suffer as a convenience...or even an extension of compassion to adults...Marriage was and is for children.

1) The Ferber case neither mentions marriage, nor finds that same sex marriage is harmful to children. You made all that up, citing yourself.

2) The Obergefell and Windsor ruling found that same sex marriage helps children. And that denying same sex marriage hurts children. Thus, per your own 'interpretations' of Ferber, the court should have ruled exactly as they did.

3) You disagree with findings of the Obergefell and Windsor ruling, so you ignore them both. That's not a legal argument. Your agreement with the supreme Court has nothing to do with the legal authority of their ruling.

7. Children caught up in gay lifestyles are unfortunate...as are children caught up in single parenthood and polygamy. So, if you use the logic that "children are being harmed by their parent(s) not receiving the official blessing of society, you cannot disinclude children of polygamy or of monosexuals (single parents).. So says the 14th..

The 14th doesn't say any of that.

8. Obergefell may have been a nice phasod...a lovely parade of compassion for adults wanting to shack up together...but since the most important people in marriage were not invited, nor had representation at that Hearing, Obergefell is void upon its face. That Opinion is void. It is an illegal opinion for all the reasons above.

(Below: vv You won't think it's funny a year from now..)

1) There's no such requirement that 'children' be included in a Supreme Court hearing lest the hearing and ruling be 'void'. You imagined it.

2) "Phasod" isn't a word.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

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.

The discrimination faced by Blacks in the 1960s was not constitutionally mandated. In fact, laws found that set up thee shaky scaffolding of bigotry then were found to be unconstitutional. The same precedents apply to the bigotry faced by homosexuals today. Bigotry is not a constitutional right, no matter how you slice it.

Actually, I would say that bigotry is a protected right, but not all applications of bigotry are so protected.

Perhaps the word should be "Discrimination" rather than bigotry. As bigotry leads to discrimination and there is a difference with a distinction.. The act of discrimination is illegal, but the despicable quality of bigotry is a state of mind.

That depends on the type of discrimination. Not all discrimination is illegal nor for that matter bad..

A logical point.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

Everyone should be gay married at least once in their life just so we can be inclusive. Mandatory gay marriages for everyone.

 

[initforme]

Nobody yet has explained how gay marriage is a threat to my traditional marriage. Some have tried, but tell me why I should care one iota about this contrived issue.

 

[Nosmo King]

Perhaps the word should be "Discrimination" rather than bigotry. As bigotry leads to discrimination and there is a difference with a distinction.. The act of discrimination is illegal, but the despicable quality of bigotry is a state of mind.

People discriminate against or for behaviors every day of the week. If you don't believe me, check the penal codes of your state. So, discriminating against gay lifestyles is not the same as discriminating against something static and inborn like race or gender. It may not be illegal to do gay things, but it isn't illegal to be bulimic either. One would be kind to a bulimic but never promote it as "a wholly acceptable alternate way of eating". Because it isn't.

Beng a happy mosexual is an immutable trait. Like complexion, height, eye color or race, homosexuality is not a choice made on a whim as you may believe. It is as inborn and immutable as any other trait mentioned above.

 

[Montrovant]

Perhaps the word should be "Discrimination" rather than bigotry. As bigotry leads to discrimination and there is a difference with a distinction.. The act of discrimination is illegal, but the despicable quality of bigotry is a state of mind.

People discriminate against or for behaviors every day of the week. If you don't believe me, check the penal codes of your state. So, discriminating against gay lifestyles is not the same as discriminating against something static and inborn like race or gender. It may not be illegal to do gay things, but it isn't illegal to be bulimic either. One would be kind to a bulimic but never promote it as "a wholly acceptable alternate way of eating". Because it isn't.

Beng a happy mosexual is an immutable trait. Like complexion, height, eye color or race, homosexuality is not a choice made on a whim as you may believe. It is as inborn and immutable as any other trait mentioned above.

Why do people so often seem assured that sexuality is either entirely a choice or entirely biological/genetic? For that matter, why do people so often seem assured that sexuality is a 2 or 3 point measure with heterosexuality on one end, homosexuality on the other, and perhaps bisexuality in the center, rather than a sliding scale?

I was not aware that definitive proof of how human sexuality is determined had been discovered.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

On a lot of social issues and people's reactions to them escapes me. This country has an insane divorce rate, a reality since the 60's. Nationally it is a ridiculous institution because of what the progressives have made it.

No one should really give two shits if someone else wants to marry who ever. If they want to marry ten other people, their pets, a corporation, a fence post who cares? it's all become meaningless.

Certainly, a major cause of the tragically-high divorce rate is the increasing mockery and disregard of marriage; and the abandonment of basic standards of sexual morality. “Same-sex ‘marriage’” is just one insidious attack out of many that have been made in our society against marriage, against family, and against the interests of future generations; and the high divorce rate as well as the high rate of bastardy, and all the social ills that stem therefrom, are results of these attacks.

 

[Skylar]

On a lot of social issues and people's reactions to them escapes me. This country has an insane divorce rate, a reality since the 60's. Nationally it is a ridiculous institution because of what the progressives have made it.

No one should really give two shits if someone else wants to marry who ever. If they want to marry ten other people, their pets, a corporation, a fence post who cares? it's all become meaningless.

Certainly, a major cause of the tragically-high divorce rate is the increasing mockery and disregard of marriage; and the abandonment of basic standards of sexual morality. “Same-sex ‘marriage’” is just one insidious attack out of many that have been made in our society against marriage, against family, and against the interests of future generations; and the high divorce rate as well as the high rate of bastardy, and all the social ills that stem therefrom, are results of these attacks.

So since gay marriage was legalized in certain states....the divorce rates skyrocketed in those States? You're claiming a *direct* one to one causal connection between gay marriage and divorce rates. Some States have had same sex marriage for as long as 10 years.

Show us. You can't.

Demonstrate that same sex marriage resulted in a 'high rate of bastardy'.

Show us. And you can't do that either.

You can't. The jump in both issues occured BEFORE same sex marriage was legalized. Meaning that its heterosexuals that are to blame for everything you're complaining about. As they were the only people able to get divorced. For there to be an 'attack' on marriage with same sex marriage, there has to be some harm. How does a pair of lesbian women marrying harm you? What is taken from you?

Absolutely nothing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

The discrimination faced by Blacks in the 1960s was not constitutionally mandated. In fact, laws found that set up thee shaky scaffolding of bigotry then were found to be unconstitutional. The same precedents apply to the bigotry faced by homosexuals today. Bigotry is not a constitutional right, no matter how you slice it.

Actually, I would say that bigotry is a protected right, but not all applications of bigotry are so protected.

Perhaps the word should be "Discrimination" rather than bigotry. As bigotry leads to discrimination and there is a difference with a distinction.. The act of discrimination is illegal, but the despicable quality of bigotry is a state of mind.

One is at liberty to be a bigot, to fear and hate gay Americans, to say stupid, hateful things about gay Americans, and one is at liberty to exhibit his ignorance of the law and Constitution concerning the rights of gay Americans.

But the states may not enact legislation seeking to disadvantage gay Americans through force of law for no other reason than who they are, no matter the hate, fear, and bigotry that manifest in those who support such legislation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

On a lot of social issues and people's reactions to them escapes me. This country has an insane divorce rate, a reality since the 60's. Nationally it is a ridiculous institution because of what the progressives have made it.

No one should really give two shits if someone else wants to marry who ever. If they want to marry ten other people, their pets, a corporation, a fence post who cares? it's all become meaningless.

Certainly, a major cause of the tragically-high divorce rate is the increasing mockery and disregard of marriage; and the abandonment of basic standards of sexual morality. “Same-sex ‘marriage’” is just one insidious attack out of many that have been made in our society against marriage, against family, and against the interests of future generations; and the high divorce rate as well as the high rate of bastardy, and all the social ills that stem therefrom, are results of these attacks.

This fails as a post hoc fallacy – there is no 'evidence' that same-sex couples accessing marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in 'contributes' to divorce, or any other 'social ill.'

This also fails as a red herring fallacy – your 'argument' has nothing whatsoever to do with the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law, and to participate in marriage.

Last, no one is 'attacking' marriage, family, or 'future generations,' the notion is unfounded demagoguery.

Having lost the argument you're now resorting to a third fallacy – appeal to emotion, by dragging into the debate issues unrelated to the right of same-sex couples to marry in the hope of turning public opinion against gay Americans, when in fact your efforts have the opposite effect.

 

[Rustic]

On a lot of social issues and people's reactions to them escapes me. This country has an insane divorce rate, a reality since the 60's. Nationally it is a ridiculous institution because of what the progressives have made it.

No one should really give two shits if someone else wants to marry who ever. If they want to marry ten other people, their pets, a corporation, a fence post who cares? it's all become meaningless.

Certainly, a major cause of the tragically-high divorce rate is the increasing mockery and disregard of marriage; and the abandonment of basic standards of sexual morality. “Same-sex ‘marriage’” is just one insidious attack out of many that have been made in our society against marriage, against family, and against the interests of future generations; and the high divorce rate as well as the high rate of bastardy, and all the social ills that stem therefrom, are results of these attacks.

This fails as a post hoc fallacy – there is no 'evidence' that same-sex couples accessing marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in 'contributes' to divorce, or any other 'social ill.'

This also fails as a red herring fallacy – your 'argument' has nothing whatsoever to do with the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law, and to participate in marriage.

Last, no one is 'attacking' marriage, family, or 'future generations,' the notion is unfounded demagoguery.

Having lost the argument you're now resorting to a third fallacy – appeal to emotion, by dragging into the debate issues unrelated to the right of same-sex couples to marry in the hope of turning public opinion against gay Americans, when in fact your efforts have the opposite effect.

Since the sixties it's been pretty much a meaningless institution...
Marry who ever and whatever anyone wants.

 

[Silhouette]

This fails as a post hoc fallacy – there is no 'evidence' that same-sex couples accessing marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in 'contributes' to divorce, or any other 'social ill...'

That's a lie. We have thousands of studies about the woes of particularly boys being raised without fathers... and this study: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY and these accounts: ‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex ‘marriage’ at 5th Circuit

Quit lying!

 

[Skylar]

This fails as a post hoc fallacy – there is no 'evidence' that same-sex couples accessing marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in 'contributes' to divorce, or any other 'social ill...'

That's a lie. We have thousands of studies about the woes of particularly boys being raised without fathers... and this study: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY and these accounts: ‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex ‘marriage’ at 5th Circuit

Quit lying!

The Prince Trust Study never so much as mentions mothers, fathers, same sex parents, same sex marriage, gays nor measures the effects of any kind of parenting.

Which you know. But really hope we don't.

Next fallacy please.