Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

Zyphlin said:

Because I don't believe that current marriage laws protect based on gender. As I've already highlighted in this thread, current marriage laws prohibit women from doing something that men can do. Similarly, current marriage laws prohibit men from doing something that women can do.



That's not really an argument. Going "I don't think that it should be done on that basis" isn't actually offering a counter to any of the points I've made, it's just saying "I disagree because I disagree".

It is UNQUESTIONABLE that the law discriminates on the basis of gender. It is unquestionable that the law allows a man to do something a woman can't do, and allows a woman to do something a man can't do. So the question is whether or not there is an argument that such discrimination is substantially related to an important state interest. Going "Well, I don't think it should be judged on that factor" isn't actually an argument against anything I'm saying nor counters my earlier claim that I personally have not seen a legitimate argument justifying the discrimination based on gender....rather, it's simply an attempt to ignore the issue.

Click to expand...

Zyph, the fact that a gay man can marry a straight woman and a straight man can marry a gay woman (if that's your entire point) and so SSM is an EPC Constitutional right may be a novel argument to make but are you sure you want to make it as the foundation of the fight against SSM ban?
Think about the implications.

bubbabgone said:

Zyph, the fact that a gay man can marry a straight woman and a straight man can marry a gay woman (if that's your entire point) and so SSM is an EPC Constitutional right may be a novel argument to make but are you sure you want to make it as the foundation of the fight against SSM ban?
Think about the implications.

Click to expand...

You still do not understand this. Gay and straight are not mentioned in any marriage laws. Further, it does not have to be a "protected class"(really called suspect classification) to be covered by EPC. Belonging to a suspect class tends to trigger a higher level of review. The highest court to actually comment on the subject was the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that orientation was a quasi-suspect classification and therefore subject to Intermediate Scrutiny. The Supreme Court did not mention classsification, but it did not need to in that case as DOMA failed under Rational Basis Review.

Redress said:

You still do not understand this. Gay and straight are not mentioned in any marriage laws. Further, it does not have to be a "protected class"(really called suspect classification) to be covered by EPC. Belonging to a suspect class tends to trigger a higher level of review. The highest court to actually comment on the subject was the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that orientation was a quasi-suspect classification and therefore subject to Intermediate Scrutiny. The Supreme Court did not mention classsification, but it did not need to in that case as DOMA failed under Rational Basis Review.

Click to expand...

Neither is love. Or intercourse. Or reproduction. People marry now for many non-traditional reasons: convenience, benefits, green cards, companionship, etc. Not sure why sexual orientation does. It's still 2 consenting adults.

Lursa said:

Neither is love. Or intercourse. Or reproduction. People marry now for many non-traditional reasons: convenience, benefits, green cards, companionship, etc. Not sure why sexual orientation does. It's still 2 consenting adults.

Click to expand...

Your post in no way, shape or form had anything whatsoever to do with what I was posting about.

Redress said:

Your post in no way, shape or form had anything whatsoever to do with what I was posting about.

Click to expand...

ok. nevermind.

Blue_State said:

Why do we accept the state's ability to say who can and can't marry who? All for a damn tax write off. Ridiculous. But of course...taxation doesn't take any power away from you.

Click to expand...

No, for protection that comes from a recognition of kinship. That is the most important part about legal marriage. It establishes a legal kinship, just as birth certificates and adoption records establish a legal kinship between parents and children.

Lursa said:

IMO however, there is definitely such state interest. The benefits of marriage extend to more protections for the children in these families, regarding things like custody, adoption rights for both parents, additional stability for the family unit, etc.

Click to expand...

The question isn't whether or not there is a state interest.

The question, when it comes to gender discrimination, isn't even if there is a legitimate state interest.

The question for gender discrimination is whether or not there is an important state interest.

Your state interest you seem to be speaking about is that the notion of promoting a stable "family units" and "protection" for children.

While a reasonable argument can be put forth to suggest this is a legitimate state interest, I think it's hard to put forward one suggesting it's an important state interest. If this was such an "important" state interest then why does the state allow for people who have zero intent to become a "Family unit" consistent of children get married? If its to promote having children while also supposedly to help promote the safety of the children, why do they allow it for women over age 40 which significantly increases the chances of the child being born with significant birth defects. 10% of all couples in this country experience issues of infertility making their ability to actually form such a "family unit" a medical improbability, and yet they're allowed to be married. You bring up adoption, seemingly as some basis for creating this family unit, but in such cases disallowing same sex coupling actually lowers the potential pool of individuals in such a stable relationship to gain such children.

While one could potentially argue this is a legitimate state interest, it is extremely difficult to argue that it's a truly important state interest when the state seemingly time and time and time again has absolutely zero problems with allowing for marriages in situations where said "State interest" won't actually come into play. If it was truly an important state interest it would stand to reason that the state would seek to disallow such situations in more ways than SIMPLY same sex marriages.

This also goes back to the fact that for the gender discrimination to be legitimate, the state must not only show that it has an important state interest but that the discrimination is substantially related to serving that state interest.

bubbabgone said:

Zyph, the fact that a gay man can marry a straight woman and a straight man can marry a gay woman (if that's your entire point) and so SSM is an EPC Constitutional right may be a novel argument to make but are you sure you want to make it as the foundation of the fight against SSM ban?
Think about the implications.

Click to expand...

I don't know how to make this any clearer to you, but you clearly are not seeming to understand me by your continual effort to address my point from the notion of sexual orientation, such as above by talking about gay men, straight women, etc.

My statements on gender have NOTHING to do with orientation.

A MAN is legally allowed under our marriage laws to marry a woman. The orientation of both are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

A WOMAN is not legally allowed under our marriage laws to marry a woman. The orientation of both are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

As such, under the law a Man is legally allowed the ability to do something (marry a woman) that a woman is not allowed to do.

That is discrimination based on gender. That is the law allowing a man to do something that it does not allow a woman to do (and vise versa).

For that discrimination to be constitutional, it must be substantially related to serving an important state interest.

My point has NOTHING to do with orientation. Nothing at all. None. It is SOLELY focused on gender and gender discrimination.

It is solely focused on the law allowing a woman to do something that it does not allow a man to do (marry a man), and allowing a man to do something a woman is not allowed to do (marry a woman).

As to what I "want"...I've stated clearly, this is my opinion regarding why I feel our marriage laws are unconstitutional, and it's my opinion that it's far and away the strongest constitutional argument against our marriage laws. Significantly stronger than arguing against them from a basis of discrimination against sexual orientation. Whether or not other people wish to use it as the foundation of their argument against our marriage laws is entirely irrelevant to me, nor does it have any impact as to the legitimacy of the logic I put forward. Furthermore, attempting to appeal to emotion by pointing to an imaginary slippery slope also is not a legitimate counter argument to the logic I am putting forth, but rather is simply an attempt to raise the specter of a boogeyman to attempt to silence such claims.

Zyphlin said:

I don't know how to make this any clearer to you, but you clearly are not seeming to understand me by your continual effort to address my point from the notion of sexual orientation, such as above by talking about gay men, straight women, etc.

My statements on gender have NOTHING to do with orientation.

A MAN is legally allowed under our marriage laws to marry a woman. The orientation of both are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

A WOMAN is not legally allowed under our marriage laws to marry a woman. The orientation of both are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

As such, under the law a Man is legally allowed the ability to do something (marry a woman) that a woman is not allowed to do.

That is discrimination based on gender. That is the law allowing a man to do something that it does not allow a woman to do (and vise versa).

For that discrimination to be constitutional, it must be substantially related to serving an important state interest.

My point has NOTHING to do with orientation. Nothing at all. None. It is SOLELY focused on gender and gender discrimination.

It is solely focused on the law allowing a woman to do something that it does not allow a man to do (marry a man), and allowing a man to do something a woman is not allowed to do (marry a woman).

As to what I "want"...I've stated clearly, this is my opinion regarding why I feel our marriage laws are unconstitutional, and it's my opinion that it's far and away the strongest constitutional argument against our marriage laws. Significantly stronger than arguing against them from a basis of discrimination against sexual orientation. Whether or not other people wish to use it as the foundation of their argument against our marriage laws is entirely irrelevant to me, nor does it have any impact as to the legitimacy of the logic I put forward. Furthermore, attempting to appeal to emotion by pointing to an imaginary slippery slope also is not a legitimate counter argument to the logic I am putting forth, but rather is simply an attempt to raise the specter of a boogeyman to attempt to silence such claims.

Click to expand...

I understand you but I can't imagine anyone would try to argue that before the SC.
Saying the law has nothing to do with orientation is an obfuscation on your part.
You know it does and so does everyone else.
The Court would recognize that too.
You can't just dismiss it by saying it doesn't.
You stood on your head to try to make it appear otherwise.
But that's what the fight is all about.
Did you actually hear what you've been proposing will be a legal argument? (and I repeat, think about the implications if it's successful)

Zyphlin said:

I don't know how to make this any clearer to you, but you clearly are not seeming to understand me by your continual effort to address my point from the notion of sexual orientation, such as above by talking about gay men, straight women, etc.

My statements on gender have NOTHING to do with orientation.

A MAN is legally allowed under our marriage laws to marry a woman. The orientation of both are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

A WOMAN is not legally allowed under our marriage laws to marry a woman. The orientation of both are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

As such, under the law a Man is legally allowed the ability to do something (marry a woman) that a woman is not allowed to do.

Click to expand...

Those that want the feds to get involved in the bedroom invoke the 14th amendment, even though it is common knowledge that it was written to solidify rights for former slaves, and had nothing to do with SSM.

They try to apply it to fit what they want, yet ignore the unambiguous fact that you stated, that marriage is applied equally to all. They ignore that they seek to change the definition of marriage, since there is no way to apply the 14th to that at all.

So their strategy is to ignore those facts, skip over them, and act as if they just don't exist.

bubbabgone said:

Saying the law has nothing to do with orientation is an obfuscation on your part.

Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting the law has nothing to do with orientation. I'm suggesting that the reason why I think it's unconstitutional has nothing to do with orientation.

Whether or not other people have an issue with it in terms of orientation doesn't actually offer up any counter point for my argument regarding gender.

You can't just dismiss it by saying it doesn't.

Click to expand...

I'm not dismissing that there's a legitimate question regarding the constitutional nature of our marriage laws as it relates to sexual orientation.

I'm simply suggesting that is not the ONLY way in which the marriage laws are potentially unconstitutional.

The fact you have still yet to put forward ANY counter to the argument I've put forth other than simply trying to go "That doesn't matter" speaks VOLUMES.

Did you actually hear what you've been proposing will be a legal argument? (and I repeat, think about the implications if it's successful)

Click to expand...

I have not heard that people are arguing before the court based on gender. Indeed, I've stated repeatedly in this thread and others that I don't believe people will generally push the issue on that means, because I believe most of those pushing the issue of same sex marriage before the courts aren't actually concerned first and foremost with the constitutionality of our marriage laws but rather that they have a broader issue with regards to the status of sexual orientation and it's protection within the law and the simply see marriage as a vehicle to push that issue. As such, it would be counter productive to their TRUE intent to push the issue from the basis of gender discrimination. I've acknowledged this repeatedly here, and elsewhere, in stating that I don't expect that this angle to be pushed in the court system to any substantial degree.

However, it's not entirely off base as a legal argument, as there has been court cases where Judges have suggested in their opinions that there may be a legitimate question regrading the constitutionality of the laws as it relates to gender.

As to your "repeat" statement, I will once again "repeat" that you pushing a slipper slope boogeyman is not a legitimate argument against the point that I've continued to make (and you've continued to fail to provide one actual reason why it's wrong), but is rather simply a fallacious attempt to suggest that the point should simply be ignored due to potential unknown consequences that MAY occur.

Anthony60 said:

Those that want the feds to get involved in the bedroom invoke the 14th amendment

Click to expand...

Marriage has nothing to do with feds being in the bedroom. Rather, it has everything to do with individual citizens demanding special privileges under the law for entering into a contract with one another.

even though it is common knowledge that it was written to solidify rights for former slaves, and had nothing to do with SSM.

Click to expand...

Actually, the correct statement would be the 14th was written to solidify that individual citizens must have equal protection under the law. If the intent was to be narrowly and singularly applied to slaves than it would have been written in such a way to specify that it was to only apply to slaves and only apply to specific situations. It was not written in such a way. Thus, just as the 2nd amendment is a broadly stated right, so too is the 14th....citizens are protected from the government treating them unequally under the law.

unambiguous fact that you stated, that marriage is applied equally to all.

Click to expand...

I have stated no such "fact", because said "fact" you claim is actually absolutely false.

Marriage laws are NOT equally applied to all.

Unless you're telling me that a man is able to do the same thing under the law as a woman and marry a man?

Remember, constitutional precedence establishes "separate but equal" is equal treatment under the law. Just as you can not say "Every citizen is free to eat at restaurants, specifically restaurants that are made for their race", it is also not right to say "Every citizen is free to marry another citizen, specifically another citizen of the gender we designate". In both situations you're providing an instance under the law where you are trying to claim is "Separate but equal". Separate but equal is unequal.

bubbabgone said:

I understand you but I can't imagine anyone would try to argue that before the SC.
Saying the law has nothing to do with orientation is an obfuscation on your part.
You know it does and so does everyone else.
The Court would recognize that too.
You can't just dismiss it by saying it doesn't.
You stood on your head to try to make it appear otherwise.
But that's what the fight is all about.
Did you actually hear what you've been proposing will be a legal argument? (and I repeat, think about the implications if it's successful)

Click to expand...

Ummmm...that thing you cannot imagine being argued in from of the SC...it not only could be, but almost definitely will as it was part of the ruling that is being challenged. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in part that the case did not merit heightened scrutiny and rejected arguments of gender discrimination. That also happens to be one of the cases that SCOTUS will be hearing arguments on, and the case that led to SCOTUS having to act. Another case, Kitchen v. Herbert, the US District Court stated specifically that heightened Scrutiny was called for due to it being gender discrimination, though went on to say the law failed even under Rational Basis Review. SCOTUS denied appeal on that one, leaving that ruling intact.

There is nothing wrong with not knowing all the details about the legal issues. There are alot of them and it gets complex, especially when you do not really understand the issues involved. But instead of telling people who know more about the issue why they are wrong, you might instead ask them why they feel they are right, and learn and study(I recommend starting with SCOTUSBlog as having some great writeups on most of the cases) before you say things as patently absurd as no one is going to argue a fundamental point of the case.

Zyphlin said:

The question isn't whether or not there is a state interest.

The question, when it comes to gender discrimination, isn't even if there is a legitimate state interest.

The question for gender discrimination is whether or not there is an important state interest.

Your state interest you seem to be speaking about is that the notion of promoting a stable "family units" and "protection" for children.

While a reasonable argument can be put forth to suggest this is a legitimate state interest, I think it's hard to put forward one suggesting it's an important state interest. If this was such an "important" state interest then why does the state allow for people who have zero intent to become a "Family unit" consistent of children get married? If its to promote having children while also supposedly to help promote the safety of the children, why do they allow it for women over age 40 which significantly increases the chances of the child being born with significant birth defects. 10% of all couples in this country experience issues of infertility making their ability to actually form such a "family unit" a medical improbability, and yet they're allowed to be married. You bring up adoption, seemingly as some basis for creating this family unit, but in such cases disallowing same sex coupling actually lowers the potential pool of individuals in such a stable relationship to gain such children.

While one could potentially argue this is a legitimate state interest, it is extremely difficult to argue that it's a truly important state interest when the state seemingly time and time and time again has absolutely zero problems with allowing for marriages in situations where said "State interest" won't actually come into play. If it was truly an important state interest it would stand to reason that the state would seek to disallow such situations in more ways than SIMPLY same sex marriages.

This also goes back to the fact that for the gender discrimination to be legitimate, the state must not only show that it has an important state interest but that the discrimination is substantially related to serving that state interest.

Click to expand...

I believe it's an important state's interest because it can reduce costs custody hearings, child support questions, adoptions, inheritance, foster care (for ex. currently if not married, only one person in the couple can be the legal adoptor. If the couple breaks up, the other person has no legal right to the child). In general it saves overall because if the couple is legally married, all the questions resolving these issues, and more, are settled.

It also serve to further protect the children of gay couples which I also believe is in the state's and children's best interests.

Regarding some of your questions....the state does not currently control the reproduction of straight or gay people. Seems irrelevant.

I have never disputed that this seems clearly a gender discrimination issue however I also see clear reasons for the states to support it.

bubbabgone said:

I understand you but I can't imagine anyone would try to argue that before the SC.
Saying the law has nothing to do with orientation is an obfuscation on your part.
You know it does and so does everyone else.
The Court would recognize that too.
You can't just dismiss it by saying it doesn't.
You stood on your head to try to make it appear otherwise.
But that's what the fight is all about.
Did you actually hear what you've been proposing will be a legal argument? (and I repeat, think about the implications if it's successful)

Click to expand...

Gay people, as has been pointed out, have always been allowed to marry. There are no questions, no relevant criteria, in the marriage 'contract' regarding that. So sexual orientation doesnt seem to be the issue. Same gender couples does. That is gender discrimination.

Anthony60 said:

Those that want the feds to get involved in the bedroom invoke the 14th amendment, even though it is common knowledge that it was written to solidify rights for former slaves, and had nothing to do with SSM.

They try to apply it to fit what they want, yet ignore the unambiguous fact that you stated, that marriage is applied equally to all. They ignore that they seek to change the definition of marriage, since there is no way to apply the 14th to that at all.

So their strategy is to ignore those facts, skip over them, and act as if they just don't exist.

Click to expand...

Are the feds involved in the bedrooms of straight couples? If they have sex, ever? How many times? Anal? Oral? Then why do you assume that SSM is about that?

Is your marriage defined by the kind and amount of sex that you have? Hell, most married couples have less and less sex as time goes on, lol.

This has nothing to do with what goes on in the bedroom...many straight couples do ALL the same things. Are their marriages scrutinized? Limited? No.

It's about gender and equal protection under the law.

bubbabgone said:

1) You can grill a candidate until you both pass out but every candidate's answers will be the same. Doesn't hurt to ask, though ... maybe one of them will slip up and tell the truth.

3)Those Obama quotes that are meant to indicate how he had been opposed to SSM before he was for it were identified as bullcrap by no less than David Axelrod who spilled the beans on Obama in his book.
This may be a shock to some people, but Obama lied.
He does that a lot, you know.

Click to expand...

i would expect someone like ted cruz or rick santorum to say they'd pick a SCOTUS judge based on what god tells them to do

we should believe david axelrod, who was *selling a book*, because?

i said years ago i believe obama is atheist. However, that is a far cry from suggesting he would pick a SCOTUS judge based solely on their stance on SSM. It wouldn't matter anyway, because opinions change. I doubt very much Roberts would've been nominated if he had supported SSM at the time, yet it wouldn't surprise me at all if he voted in favor in june. Same with the other 3 judges who will vote in favor that were on the bench long before obama was prez

bubbabgone said:

Zyph, the fact that a gay man can marry a straight woman and a straight man can marry a gay woman (if that's your entire point) and so SSM is an EPC Constitutional right may be a novel argument to make but are you sure you want to make it as the foundation of the fight against SSM ban?
Think about the implications.

Click to expand...

It would not only fail, but we hardly need to detract from the real issue, which is it's about gay rights, not gender rights.

This idea that a hetero man is deprived of the right to marry another hetero man, or for 2 hetero females to marry, not only undermines the struggle of gay couples but is obviously absurd. Heterosexuals being unable to marry the same sex, where is the harm done? How would they even be granted standing in a court?

Zyphlin said:

Remember, constitutional precedence establishes "separate but equal" is equal treatment under the law.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing in the Constitution.

Just as you can not say "Every citizen is free to eat at restaurants, specifically restaurants that are made for their race", it is also not right to say "Every citizen is free to marry another citizen, specifically another citizen of the gender we designate". In both situations you're providing an instance under the law where you are trying to claim is "Separate but equal". Separate but equal is unequal.

Click to expand...

It does not separate people by sex. All persons are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex. That's why you can't prohibit marriage based on race. The rules of marriage are applied equally to all. There is no requirement to like, love, or be attracted to that person.

Anthony60 said:

There is no such thing in the Constitution.

It does not separate people by sex. All persons are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex. That's why you can't prohibit marriage based on race. The rules of marriage are applied equally to all. There is no requirement to like, love, or be attracted to that person.

Click to expand...

Wait, what? The rules of marriage were applied equally to all when it came to race and interracial marriage bans according to your logic since all persons were allowed to marry someone of the same race. Everyone treated equally under those laws, according to the same logic that would say everyone is treated equally by the laws if they are all allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Lursa said:

While I dont really care if either of those was legal, I have yet to hear any arguments why they should not. Some may exist, but they havent been examined to the extent that SSM has (that I've seen).

Click to expand...

"Homosexuals are being discriminated against by not being offered the same protections as heterosexual marriages!"

Insert either polygamy/incest in place of homosexual. Now I do agree that they haven't been examined as much, and part of that lies in the fact that so long as there is a state that bans SSM, then we're not ever going to examines these instances. It's like trying to legalize cocaine before everyone has a chance to see that legalizing marijuana won't make the sky fall. In truth, I think it all should be legal as long as the same caveats that are in place for straight couples apply.

Now that I think of it, the same reasons for maintaining a SSM ban are the same as would be for incest/polygamy, i.e. it's disgusting or think of the kids sort of stuff.

Zyphlin said:

I'm not suggesting the law has nothing to do with orientation. I'm suggesting that the reason why I think it's unconstitutional has nothing to do with orientation.

Whether or not other people have an issue with it in terms of orientation doesn't actually offer up any counter point for my argument regarding gender.



I'm not dismissing that there's a legitimate question regarding the constitutional nature of our marriage laws as it relates to sexual orientation.

I'm simply suggesting that is not the ONLY way in which the marriage laws are potentially unconstitutional.

The fact you have still yet to put forward ANY counter to the argument I've put forth other than simply trying to go "That doesn't matter" speaks VOLUMES.



I have not heard that people are arguing before the court based on gender. Indeed, I've stated repeatedly in this thread and others that I don't believe people will generally push the issue on that means, because I believe most of those pushing the issue of same sex marriage before the courts aren't actually concerned first and foremost with the constitutionality of our marriage laws but rather that they have a broader issue with regards to the status of sexual orientation and it's protection within the law and the simply see marriage as a vehicle to push that issue. As such, it would be counter productive to their TRUE intent to push the issue from the basis of gender discrimination. I've acknowledged this repeatedly here, and elsewhere, in stating that I don't expect that this angle to be pushed in the court system to any substantial degree.

However, it's not entirely off base as a legal argument, as there has been court cases where Judges have suggested in their opinions that there may be a legitimate question regrading the constitutionality of the laws as it relates to gender.

As to your "repeat" statement, I will once again "repeat" that you pushing a slipper slope boogeyman is not a legitimate argument against the point that I've continued to make (and you've continued to fail to provide one actual reason why it's wrong), but is rather simply a fallacious attempt to suggest that the point should simply be ignored due to potential unknown consequences that MAY occur.

Click to expand...

I've known what your argument has been but if no one has been arguing against SSM bans using your gender argument, why do you think that is?
And you claim that I haven't given a reason why your argument is wrong while at the same time dismissing its' resulting slippery slope byproduct kind of ties my hands a bit, don't you think?
To that you'd say "The slippery slope is not a legal argument" and to that I'd say "When you think about it, the slippery slope kind of argument is really the foundation of a system of Law that's built on personal freedom."

Lursa said:

Gay people, as has been pointed out, have always been allowed to marry. There are no questions, no relevant criteria, in the marriage 'contract' regarding that. So sexual orientation doesnt seem to be the issue. Same gender couples does. That is gender discrimination.

Click to expand...

That's long ago been established as the proposition by Zyph.
But it's still a red herring.
I hesitate to continue this because I have that whole other thing going here, but how many same gender couples who aren't gay do you know of who want to marry?

chromium said:

It would not only fail, but we hardly need to detract from the real issue, which is it's about gay rights, not gender rights.

This idea that a hetero man is deprived of the right to marry another hetero man, or for 2 hetero females to marry, not only undermines the struggle of gay couples but is obviously absurd. Heterosexuals being unable to marry the same sex, where is the harm done? How would they even be granted standing in a court?

Click to expand...

Take it up with Zyph and Lursa ... they believe they're on to a winning argument.

chromium said:

i would expect someone like ted cruz or rick santorum to say they'd pick a SCOTUS judge based on what god tells them to do

we should believe david axelrod, who was *selling a book*, because?

i said years ago i believe obama is atheist. However, that is a far cry from suggesting he would pick a SCOTUS judge based solely on their stance on SSM. It wouldn't matter anyway, because opinions change. I doubt very much Roberts would've been nominated if he had supported SSM at the time, yet it wouldn't surprise me at all if he voted in favor in june. Same with the other 3 judges who will vote in favor that were on the bench long before obama was prez

Click to expand...

There is other evidence about Obama and SSM beside Axelrod's book.
Do I really need to present it to you?
You really find it hard to believe seeing what you've seen these past 6 years?