On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 11:33:21 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/26/2016 9:59 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, November 25, 2016 at 10:51:43 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/25/2016 7:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 12:55:24 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/23/2016 8:38 PM, wrote:

More Religious claptrap from the hysterical atheistic fringe.
You have the right to believe what you want. You do not have the right
to force it down the throats of others and publicliy denigrate and
chastise those who believe differently than you. YOUR rights to not
"trump" the rights of others just because you "believe" you are right.
The fact you claim to KNOW you are right just proves you may well be
delusional - just like you clain "deists" are.


I totally agree with you!



We don;t want to force you to live by anything other than the constitution,
which says all people are to have equal protection under the law. When you
decide that marriage has to be between a man and woman, because of your
religious beliefs, or for any reason, then it's you folks who are denying
others their rights. The SC ruled and said so.

The SC can overturn it in the future, too, with the addition of
conservative judges on the court.

Even your boy Trump says the issue is irrelevant, "it's done" and he's not
going to get involved.

It's not the job of POTUS to legislate, but it is his job to appoint SC
justices to fill open vacancies. Why do you think one big reason
there's been such a battle over who would become POTUS? Whoever wins
the presidency is going to change the direction of the US for the next
generation, at least, based on who they appoint to the SC.


Given that Trump now says the issue of gay marriage is "irrelevant"
and "done", why would what a SC nominee is likely to think about
gay marriage matter to Trump?

You're pretty short sighted, aren't you?


No, not at all. I told you for over a year that Trump wasn't going
to live up to much of his BS, that he was lying to you Trumpets to
get your vote. Without the racists, the xenophobes, the ignoramuses
that he lured in with his lies, his smears, he would not have won.




He's already delivered betrayals on
half a dozen major promises, so why not the SC too? Give us some
examples in the last century where the SC reversed one of it's
major decisions, especially in just a decade or two of rendering
that decision. No one on that court is going to be eager to wade
back into this just to please you.



--
Maggie