ADVERTISEMENT

Sick Dims Coat tail interracial marriage with same sex marriage?

Dr. Curmudgeon said:
Smoke and mirrors to throw in an agenda. A sexual preference hidden behind interracial marriages is so despicable, people are people, and race is never considered unless you are the racist liberal left.
View embedded media

@NavigatorII
@gatordad3 @GhostOfMatchesMalone @instaGATOR @jfegaly @JimGaster @FresnoGator @BayouGator1995 @blubo
View embedded media

View embedded media
Click to expand...
They are not EVEN CLOSE to the same thing. The SCOTUS turning over abortion to the states has the Dimtards in a tizzy. And the gerbils are scared! 😂

hamster-triggered.gif
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: instaGATOR, gatordad3, jfegaly and 3 others
You guys are either uninformed or deliberate liars (both are probably true). Clarence Thomas said after the Roe decision that all substantive due process precedents should be revisited, however, he deliberately failed to list (Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1) interracial marriage as one of those precedents.

’n future cases,” he says, ‘we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.’ ” the dissent noted.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Under informed Trumpublicans are still attempting to ruin this country and all you do is puke this garbage. I hope you people don't procreate. Facts Matter.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: instaGATOR, fatman76, BayouGator1995 and 1 other person
CMBeal said:
You guys are either uninformed or deliberate liars (both are probably true). Clarence Thomas said after the Roe decision that all substantive due process precedents should be revisited, however, he deliberately failed to list (Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1) interracial marriage as one of those precedents.

’n future cases,” he says, ‘we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.’ ” the dissent noted.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Under informed Trumpublicans are still attempting to ruin this country and all you do is puke this garbage. I hope you people don't procreate. Facts Matter.
Click to expand...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: instaGATOR, gatordad3, fatman76 and 2 others
CMBeal said:
You guys are either uninformed or deliberate liars (both are probably true). Clarence Thomas said after the Roe decision that all substantive due process precedents should be revisited, however, he deliberately failed to list (Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1) interracial marriage as one of those precedents.

’n future cases,” he says, ‘we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.’ ” the dissent noted.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Under informed Trumpublicans are still attempting to ruin this country and all you do is puke this garbage. I hope you people don't procreate. Facts Matter.
Click to expand...
Art thou in a same-sex relationship with a white boy?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: instaGATOR, gatordad3, fatman76 and 3 others
CMBeal said:
You guys are either uninformed or deliberate liars (both are probably true). Clarence Thomas said after the Roe decision that all substantive due process precedents should be revisited, however, he deliberately failed to list (Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1) interracial marriage as one of those precedents.

’n future cases,” he says, ‘we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.’ ” the dissent noted.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Under informed Trumpublicans are still attempting to ruin this country and all you do is puke this garbage. I hope you people don't procreate. Facts Matter.
Click to expand...
So your idea of interracial marriage is black man-white man? Black woman-white woman? If so, you homosexual Biden-Monkeys need be educated on THE MOST simplistic of all things in life, the union between a man and a woman. After all, you people can't even define what a woman is.😂
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: instaGATOR, gatordad3, Dr. Curmudgeon and 1 other person
BCSpell said:
You do know that the SCOTUS just can't re-visit/over turn prior decisions. There would have to be a case before them that was using or rellying on that decision or law. SCOTUS has no authority to create laws.
Click to expand...
Yes I do know that, that is why Thomas mentioned it. He is teeing you guys up.
 
BayouGator1995 said:
So your idea of interracial marriage is black man-white man? Black woman-white woman? If so, you homosexual Biden-Monkeys need be educated on THE MOST simplistic of all things in life, the union between a man and a woman. After all, you people can't even define what a woman is.😂
Click to expand...
You must be the dumbest of the bunch, you are proving my point about the trumpublican homophobia. Please do a little homework before you respond, Griswold, Lawrence, Loving and Obergefell are all Substantive due process cases. Please don't respond, you are not a challenge!
 
CMBeal said:
You must be the dumbest of the bunch, you are proving my point about the trumpublican homophobia. Please do a little homework before you respond, Griswold, Lawrence, Loving and Obergefell are all Substantive due process cases. Please don't respond, you are not a challenge!
Click to expand...
Griswold, Lawrence, Loving and Obergefell are all Substantive due process cases.
 
CMBeal said:
You must be the dumbest of the bunch, you are proving my point about the trumpublican homophobia. Please do a little homework before you respond, Griswold, Lawrence, Loving and Obergefell are all Substantive due process cases. Please don't respond, you are not a challenge!
Click to expand...
Hello Khiara Bridges....is that you claiming homophobia leads to violence? Or is it Don Lemon of CNN sitting at home with his gay white hubby/lover?? You are a paramount disgrace to all heterosexaul black men the world over. Not to mention like the other ignorant liberals that have trolled through here, you're just looking for back-&-forth banter. Do yourself a favor and go back to grade school and learn about male and female genital differences.
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Haha
Reactions: NavigatorII, instaGATOR, gatordad3 and 2 others
I will say it again. Dims are the scourge of humanity, and don’t understand a damn thing about the principles in which the founders designed our constitution.

Facts matter eh? So…..that thing about States rights? Yeah, facts matter.

But hey, who are we to judge, right? We got moderate pubs walking around still playing checkers, and sharting in their mormon underwear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. Curmudgeon
NavigatorII said:
Nobody does. We just don't want to have to watch them going goo goo eyed for each other and in every damned commercial and movie. Like it's not perverse and 90% of Americans are queer. 😂
Click to expand...
Right.^^^^What if heterosexuals were gyrating in the streets in provocative fashion and acting inappropriately with children? The MSM would be all over that as completely indecent and immoral etc. Why such a double standard with these weirdos?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NavigatorII
NavigatorII said:
Nobody does. We just don't want to have to watch them going goo goo eyed for each other and in every damned commercial and movie. Like it's not perverse and 90% of Americans are queer. 😂
Click to expand...
you can thank trump for the obvious shift the last couple years. identity politics isnt a good strategy when its the other sides bread and butter.
 
Mdfgator said:
you can thank trump for the obvious shift the last couple years. identity politics isnt a good strategy when its the other sides bread and butter.
Click to expand...
Duly noted. The party of queers, trannies and groomers. Another note added..........there really aren't that many of them, not like the media and entertainment industry would have us think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nail1988 and BayouGator1995
NavigatorII said:
Duly noted. The party of queers, trannies and groomers. Another note added..........there really aren't that many of them, not like the media and entertainment industry would have us think.
Click to expand...
Great point there. These "freaks" are really in the minority here. Our conservative/Christian people outnumber them by the droves. We just have to assert that advantage to a greater extent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nail1988 and NavigatorII
NavigatorII said:
Duly noted. The party of queers, trannies and groomers. Another note added..........there really aren't that many of them, not like the media and entertainment industry would have us think.
Click to expand...
i know, but they are disadvantaged and in need of cover. i dont like identity politcs by either party, its to divide and ultimately conqueer. its a shell game to keep the cash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back