You brought up "traditional notions of marriage" as a defense of opposing gay marriage. I simply pointed out that interracial marriage used to be considered against "traditional notions of marriage". Times have changed, and notions change.
And if a politician who was openly against interracial marriage their entire life suddenly changed their stance on that issue in their 50s/60s/70s I'd doubt their sincerity as well.
So... I am guessing you doubt trump's sincerity, since in 2016 he was in favor of gay marriage and now he is against. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...om-gop-fine-with-supreme-courts-gay-marriage/ https://www.politifact.com/factchec...loney/donald-trump-against-same-sex-marriage/
USSC allows Trump to be on the ballot by 9-0 decision. I hear sobbing from you guys in here somewhere? “We must defend democracy by removing our opponent from the ballot.” That’s some next level logic.
Sure? I don't feel the need to defend Trump on anything. It's always about Trump and it's always about moving the conversation away from the original topic.
The conversation was about gay marriage and whether politicians should be able to change their position re: gay marriage. I simply pointed out an example of a politician you support that changed his position (seemingly for political reasons). The original topic? How you oppose gay marriage, and will complain when someone changed their position to be accepting of gay marriage? That's the discussion you want to stay with?
I never said I supported Donald Trump or stated I oppose same sex marriage. Please provide quotes of me stating either thing.
If being an ******* was a full time job you must be paid well…you gotta have the last word and can’t just take your loses and move on like a normal person.
So the court was closed today but still released the ballot decision. Yet for some reason they have to wait on immunity decision. Also some of reasoning by some court members seems to be directly opposed to the authors of the amendment.
