We need to talk about Donald: cursing and swearing allowed

[Forty Two]

But Trump supreme will ban gay marriage yet.

There is no mechanism under American law for the Supreme Court to ban gay marriage.

[Svartalf]

MMmh it can declare laws forbidding gay marriage legal and those allowing it unconsitutional... the reasoning behind such decisions would be completely absurd, but nobody can review a Nazgûl decision, except a later, differently composed set.

[Forty Two]

It can't declare state laws allowing gay marriage unconstitutional, because that's a state issue in the US. It could decline to rule that state laws forbidding gay marriage, if any, are legal, but that would not be in any way, shape or form a ban on gay marriage.

Can't other countries make laws banning gay marriage? I mean, there was just a referendum to make it legal in Australia. Nobody was carping about the Prime Minister or the Supreme Court of Oz not making it legal.

[Rum]

In the UK they would simply repeal the law allowing it.

No chance of that....for now anyway.

[Forty Two]

Well, here it's already been ruled a matter of equal protection. So, if the law is going to have official marriages between two people at all, it's going to have to allow same sex marriages. The state could, conceivably, eliminate marriage as a legal institution, and just treat people as individuals.

[Tero]

This is in fact the state in many European countries. You buy property together, have kids together. Either can deduct the kids if there is a tax advantage. Nordic countries do not tax jointly.

[Tero]

hated media produces beautiful children for Trump photo-op
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/924002187306512384

[pErvinalia]

First indictment by Mueller coming out on Monday.

[Tero]

Donald Trump's 'Middle Finger Politics' Are Toxic | National Review
http://www.nationalreview.com/
hmm, link failed, went to old Hillary article

[Tero]

Lock him up!
”Could Mueller instead identify President Trump by name as an “unindicted coconspirator” when bringing charges against other individuals? The stakes are enormously high. Such action would have some of the same reverberations across the country as a criminal indictment of the President.

A facile answer would rely simply on the fact that the Special Prosecutor in Watergate did just that. The Watergate grand jury named President Richard M. Nixon as an unindicted coconspirator when it issued indictments of others.”

https://www.justsecurity.org/46415/muel ... nspirator/

[Brian Peacock]

Hail to the chief: cyclist gives Trump the middle finger



The president of the United States is used to being saluted, but a cyclist in Virginia put her own particular slant on the tradition on Saturday when she was overtaken by Donald Trump’s motorcade.

The woman on her bike was photographed raising her middle finger when Trump’s vehicles passed her on their way out from the Trump National Golf Club on the banks of the Potomac river, on the outskirts of Washington DC. She repeated the gesture when she caught up with the motorcade.

As noted in the White House pool report, “POTUS’s motorcade departed the Trump National Golf Club at 3.12pm, passing two pedestrians, one of whom gave a thumbs-down sign. Then it overtook a female cyclist, wearing a white top and cycling helmet, who responded by giving the middle finger.

“The motorcade had to slow and the cyclist caught up, still offering the finger, before turning off in a different direction. Motorcade is now gathering speed and heading for DC.”...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... dle-finger

[pErvinalia]

Deport her.

[JimC]

It's a wonder she wasn't mown down by a hail of SS bullets, the brazen Marxist hussy!

[Hermit]

Can't other countries make laws banning gay marriage? I mean, there was just a referendum to make it legal in Australia. Nobody was carping about the Prime Minister or the Supreme Court of Oz not making it legal.

It's not a referendum. It's a plebiscite, which is not binding. The votes will be counted some time in November. Our states have laws concerning marriages. The federal government has the Marriage Act 1961, which overrides anything state legislation may say on the matter. In 2004 the then Prime Minister John Howard (may he get hung by his testicles) amended it by adding the following definition to section 5 Interpretation of the Act: marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. In case that addition was not comprehensive enough he added another entire section, 88EA. It reads:

Certain unions are not marriages
A union solemnised in a foreign country between:
(a) a man and another man; or
(b) a woman and another woman;
must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.

None of those changes were deemed to necessitate a prior plebiscite or referendum. The current Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has never explained why undoing them does require one.

[pErvinalia]

Everyone knows the reason. Two words.... Tony Abbott.