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

[irosie91]

Please explain how gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. If you believe in less government then why is gay marriage an issue? Hypocrites.

It's just Christians wanting the US to be their own "Christian Caliphate".

as opposed to the Hindu, and Jewish and Muslim caliphates----where
Homosexual marriages are sanctioned as HOLY

 

[Timmy]

The idea that Donald Trump could give a shit about whether gays have equal rights is hilarious.

Except that it isn't an equal rights issue. Two brothers can't marry so it should be obvious even to you that not all relationships are treated equally. People, yes. Relationships, no.

A brother and sister can't marry either . So that is equal . No siblings can marry .

 

[irosie91]

The idea that Donald Trump could give a shit about whether gays have equal rights is hilarious.

Except that it isn't an equal rights issue. Two brothers can't marry so it should be obvious even to you that not all relationships are treated equally. People, yes. Relationships, no.

A brother and sister can't marry either . So that is equal . No siblings can marry .

all can be overcome------no reason why a man cannot marry his mother------Oedipus
did it

 

[NYcarbineer]

The idea that Donald Trump could give a shit about whether gays have equal rights is hilarious.

Except that it isn't an equal rights issue. Two brothers can't marry so it should be obvious even to you that not all relationships are treated equally. People, yes. Relationships, no.

Why shouldn't 2 brothers be able to marry? Other than it creeps you out? What is the rational legal argument?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

 

[Iceweasel]

The idea that Donald Trump could give a shit about whether gays have equal rights is hilarious.

Except that it isn't an equal rights issue. Two brothers can't marry so it should be obvious even to you that not all relationships are treated equally. People, yes. Relationships, no.

Why shouldn't 2 brothers be able to marry? Other than it creeps you out? What is the rational legal argument?

Yes, it would creep me out but I don't see a reason to prevent it now. So we are finally in agreement on something.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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...

 

[bendog]

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.

Rubes. Of Course Donald Trump Is the Most Pro-Gay Republican Presidential Candidate

 

[NYcarbineer]

The idea that Donald Trump could give a shit about whether gays have equal rights is hilarious.

Except that it isn't an equal rights issue. Two brothers can't marry so it should be obvious even to you that not all relationships are treated equally. People, yes. Relationships, no.

Why shouldn't 2 brothers be able to marry? Other than it creeps you out? What is the rational legal argument?

Yes, it would creep me out but I don't see a reason to prevent it now. So we are finally in agreement on something.

You have the anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendment out there, go support that.

 

[Iceweasel]

The idea that Donald Trump could give a shit about whether gays have equal rights is hilarious.

Except that it isn't an equal rights issue. Two brothers can't marry so it should be obvious even to you that not all relationships are treated equally. People, yes. Relationships, no.

A brother and sister can't marry either . So that is equal . No siblings can marry .

Two guys couldn't marry either. There's only your personal morality to keep brothers from expressing their true desires. Bigot.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

This also illustrates Trump's ignorance of the law - that's not how it works.

 

[bodecea]

The idea that Donald Trump could give a shit about whether gays have equal rights is hilarious.

Except that it isn't an equal rights issue. Two brothers can't marry so it should be obvious even to you that not all relationships are treated equally. People, yes. Relationships, no.

A brother and sister can't marry either . So that is equal . No siblings can marry .

Two guys couldn't marry either. There's only your personal morality to keep brothers from expressing their true desires. Bigot.

If two brothers wish to go thru the process that gays have in getting their marriages legalized, I would certainly not stand in their way.

 

[Flopper]

I think its a great move. A LOT of people don't think he is socially conservative enough....I had no worries especially when the ONLY thing he can about this is appoint a justice to the court..what they do then is up to them.

A 'lot of people' are wrong.

And as already correctly noted: it's a moronic move, Trump further reaffirms the fact that the social right has too much control over the GOP, that most republicans are hostile to the protected liberties of all Americans, and that if elected a republican president would pursue an authoritarian agenda seeking to violate the civil rights of women, gay Americans, and others perceived to be 'different.'

According to you the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court decides it says. If some Trump appointed judges rule that homosexual marriage is not a constitutional right, who are you to argue with them?

"According to you the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court decides it says. If some Trump appointed judges rule that homosexual marriage is not a constitutional right, who are you to argue with them?" - bripat

Well, isn't that what you are doing now? Who are you to say homosexual marriage is not a constitutional right, who are you to argue with them?
You left yourself wide open, numb nuts.

I don't claim the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution as nimrods like Clayton do. Marriage isn't a constitutional right, so how can homosexual marriage one?

I didn't leave myself open at all. You are simply too stupid to understand my point.

The U.S. Supreme court has decided in favor of Gay Marriage. It's over. Roe v Wade has been around for 44 years--we've had several Republican administrations, and one full house during these last decades and nothing has changed--no matter how much people scream about it.

REASON: All administrations, including Republican administrations REFUSE to give a litmus test on social issues to U.S. Supreme court nominees. Then the Senate--both Democrat & Republicans will vote for the Court appointee. Democrats would never vote for any nominee that made a decision against abortion or gay marriage.

That's why Gay Marriage and Roe V Wade will never be overturned.

Trump making a ridiculous claim like this is just for votes, and it only works on very stupid people.

Not everyone agrees with the Reich wing of the party, and you are outnumbered by the majority as you are the minority in this country.

Continually bringing or campaigning on already settled U.S. Supreme Court issues (Roe v Wade, Gay rights--aka Social issues is the demise of the Republican party), and it is what cost Republicans the election in 2012.

You need to stay out of people's personal private lives. Already settled U.S. Supreme court issues--do not belong anywhere on a political platform.

Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump
How women ruled the 2012 election and where the GOP went wrong - CNNPolitics.com

Both administrations and congress avoid real litmus tests for supreme court justices because it makes it impossible for justices to do their sworn duty. When appointees are hit with a litmus test question, they just dodge it and for very good reason.

For example
Imagine a justice testifies under oath before the Senate about his views on (say) abortion, and later reaches a contrary decision [after carefully examining the arguments]. "Perjury!" partisans on the relevant side will likely cry: They'll assume the statement made with an eye towards confirmation was a lie, rather than that the justice has genuinely changed his mind. Even if no calls for impeachment follow, the rancor and contempt towards the justice would be much greater than if he had simply disappointed his backers' expectations.
Faced with that danger, a justice may well feel pressured into deciding the way that he testified, and rejecting attempts at persuasion. Yet that would be a violation of the judge's duty to sincerely consider the parties' arguments
The Volokh Conspiracy - Questioning Supreme Court Nominees About Their Views on Specific Questions:

 

[Flopper]

The idea that Donald Trump could give a shit about whether gays have equal rights is hilarious.

Except that it isn't an equal rights issue. Two brothers can't marry so it should be obvious even to you that not all relationships are treated equally. People, yes. Relationships, no.

Why shouldn't 2 brothers be able to marry? Other than it creeps you out? What is the rational legal argument?

Yes, it would creep me out but I don't see a reason to prevent it now. So we are finally in agreement on something.

Inbreeding generally leads to decreased biological fitness of a population Forbidding marriages of family members is used to discourage it. There is a lot of evidence that inbreeding can increase the chances that offsprings will be affected by recessive or harmful traits.

The primary reason homosexual unions have been discourage over the centuries has been because people feared it would lead to a reduction in population. Thus religion. laws, and taboos were used as tool to prevent it.

 

[Nosmo King]

Who has been caused to alter or abandon their religion due to unwarranted pressure from homosexuals? What form does this repression take?

• Sweet Cakes owners who refused to make same-sex wedding cake now refuse to pay $135,000 damages
• Gay manager at Cisco Systems gets Dr. Frank Turek fired
• Christian Consultant Fired by Bank of America Over Gay Marriage Book
• Mozilla Employees Call for CEO to be Fired for Donating to Prop 8 Campaign, by Alec Torres, National Review

Merchants are merchants. Not Imams, not arbiters of social comportment, not storefronts acting as religious litmus paper. These merchants were approached by paying customers they then refused service to due to the customer's sexual orientation. NONE of these merchants were then excluded or impaired in any way from going to the churches that preached homophobia in the guise of scripture. These merchants simply used the Taliban method of excluding their fellow Americans from enjoying the same level of service afforded to any other American.

When merchants claim to be Christian and then use that loving, forgiving faith to spew hatred, fear and suspicion, it appears that those merchants are acting in a decidedly unchristian manner.

NONE of those merchants participated in wedding ceremonies. NONE of those merchants are required in any circumstance to give a mercantile imperator to any wedding. Such vendors provide services, not approvals. The blatant hypocrisy displayed by such merchants is not only shameful, but wholly embarrassing to those of us who practice Christianity as a loving, inclusive and forgiving faith.

 

[bripat9643]

The idea that Donald Trump could give a shit about whether gays have equal rights is hilarious.

Except that it isn't an equal rights issue. Two brothers can't marry so it should be obvious even to you that not all relationships are treated equally. People, yes. Relationships, no.

Why shouldn't 2 brothers be able to marry? Other than it creeps you out? What is the rational legal argument?

Yes, it would creep me out but I don't see a reason to prevent it now. So we are finally in agreement on something.

Inbreeding generally leads to decreased biological fitness of a population Forbidding marriages of family members is used to discourage it. There is a lot of evidence that inbreeding can increase the chances that offsprings will be affected by recessive or harmful traits.

The primary reason homosexual unions have been discourage over the centuries has been because people feared it would lead to a reduction in population. Thus religion. laws, and taboos were used as tool to prevent it.

Al the supporters of homosexual marriage have claim that procreation is irrelevant to marriage. Now you're admitting that it is relevant.

Liberals talk out of both sides of their mouths, as usual.

 

[Silhouette]

Not to worry, SC just one more thing for Trump to straighten out.

Trump's strategy machine appears to be in working order on this one... He knows precisely where the ocean of votes are...waiting to be tapped..

Al the supporters of homosexual marriage have claim that procreation is irrelevant to marriage. Now you're admitting that it is relevant.

Liberals talk out of both sides of their mouths, as usual.

Not merely procreation but a much larger and potent visceral issue: A child's right to both a mother and father trumps anyone else's constitutional rights. It's already in case law at the USSC level. If a person's constitutional right harms children physically or psychologically, they may not exercise that right... (gay marriage strips children of even the hope of a mother or father FOR LIFE): Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

 

[Nosmo King]

The idea that Donald Trump could give a shit about whether gays have equal rights is hilarious.

Except that it isn't an equal rights issue. Two brothers can't marry so it should be obvious even to you that not all relationships are treated equally. People, yes. Relationships, no.

Why shouldn't 2 brothers be able to marry? Other than it creeps you out? What is the rational legal argument?

Yes, it would creep me out but I don't see a reason to prevent it now. So we are finally in agreement on something.

Inbreeding generally leads to decreased biological fitness of a population Forbidding marriages of family members is used to discourage it. There is a lot of evidence that inbreeding can increase the chances that offsprings will be affected by recessive or harmful traits.

The primary reason homosexual unions have been discourage over the centuries has been because people feared it would lead to a reduction in population. Thus religion. laws, and taboos were used as tool to prevent it.

Al the supporters of homosexual marriage have claim that procreation is irrelevant to marriage. Now you're admitting that it is relevant.

Liberals talk out of both sides of their mouths, as usual.

If procreation was a requirement for marriage, why issue marriage licenses to the elderly or the infertile?

 

[bendog]

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