Rick Perry: Supreme Court Decision should have been given to STATES

[republicanchick]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/43254766...e-sex-marriage/?intcmp=watchnow#sp=show-clips

 

[drbrumley]

Yet, he hates states rights......bizzarre

 

[republicanchick]

Yet, he hates states rights......bizzarre

Moron City

total NON response


=

 

[drbrumley]

Moron City

total NON response


=

Yes, you can be a moron sometimes. With that said, Rick Perry believes in states rights as much as dear ole abe lincoln. Which is nada, nil, zero

 

[Nick M]

No they should not have turned it over to the states, and states have no rights. They should have struck down the idea of regulating a religious ceremony.

 

[GFR7]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/43254766...e-sex-marriage/?intcmp=watchnow#sp=show-clips

He is not the best spokesman for states' rights, but yes, the states should have decided the gay marriage question over a period of time - this Supreme Court shortcut is bogus.

 

[Lexington'96]

Texas and the Native Americans are on the last holdouts, they should be proud, just like I'm proud that Kentucky, where I was born, kept it's ban right up to the end.

 

[Nick M]

He is not the best spokesman for states' rights, but yes, the states should have decided the gay marriage question over a period of time - this Supreme Court shortcut is bogus.

So then if Georgia wants to lynch blacks with their confederate flag flying high, they have that right. Got it.

 

[drbrumley]

So then if Georgia wants to lynch blacks with their confederate flag flying high, they have that right. Got it.

Nope. They do not have that right. As the crime of murder was agreed to as a crime upon their agreeing to join the Union.

 

[THall]

For Federal authority to be supreme,
it must be pursuant to the Constitution.
No where in the U.S. Constitution does it enumerate
a power to the Federal Government to define marriage.

The States should and will eventually
ignore the Supreme Court, as they
divide the country with these bogus
rulings that have nothing to do with
the Constitution.

What are they going to do next,
redefine gravity?

 

[HisServant]

This was a constitutional issue from day one... and the fact that states decided themselves to try and regulate something that was bound to failure from day 1 was a colossal waste of tax payers money.

If marriage received no benefits federally (like filing joint returns).. then it might have been a state issue.. that that is very unlikely.

The constitution has always been about INDIVIDUAL rights... creating a union between two people which puts one party at a severe disadvantage has always seemed unconstitutional to me.

 

[musterion]

States' rights is moot now.

http://www3.atr.rollcall.com/supreme-court-victory-for-voting-rights-advocates/?dcz=

 

[republicanchick]

No they should not have turned it over to the states, and states have no rights. They should have struck down the idea of regulating a religious ceremony.

should have let the STATES strike down such



+

 

[republicanchick]

For Federal authority to be supreme,
it must be pursuant to the Constitution.
No where in the U.S. Constitution does it enumerate
a power to the Federal Government to define marriage.

The States should and will eventually
ignore the Supreme Court, as they
divide the country with these bogus
rulings that have nothing to do with
the Constitution.

What are they going to do next,
redefine gravity?

and God saw that they were getting too arrogant and descended and confounded their language... (Babylon)



+++