that user is a “dumb white” angry at other “dumb whites”. he is very tribal when it comes to politics:

Reasoning moves acknowledge that federal government has force majeure, which is a long-standing principle in American law. This reason is how we ended unconstitutional bans on racial marriage, gay marriage, how Jim Crow laws were defeated via Plessy V Ferguson. Plessy V Ferguson is the Federal government limiting state's rights. But modern state's rights and state's rights advocates have only been concerned with one state right, which is the right of the state to discriminate against some of its citizens based on demographics.

All the sudden Virginia is within their rights in Loving v Virginia. Virginia can have things like a racial integrity act. Clarence Thomas lives in Montgomery Georgia and has a white wife. I think he is secretly trying to get rid of her.



Yes, I'm white AF. Quotes are verification little fella, even with the edits.

Either way since we are making laws about what the state can do with our bodies don't bitch about this mask stuff, that is way less intrusive than being ripped open by a baby and a staggering bill in a society that allows fathers to be deadbeats with a payment system to get out of parenthood. It is funny the people setting all this up think they're good, and most of them want to get rid of the deadbeat payment system. They want to force women to have babies they don't have to take care of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminization_of_poverty

I feel like witch hunts are about to start again.

Anyway you guys one and I'm quite disgusted. The flag on my porch is upside down currently because I'm ashamed of my countrymen. I'm not even sure what I enlisted and fought for if we are running away from freedom and into authoritarian chains. I feel despair because there hasn't been a good president in 10 years, congress sucks, and we have a bunch of liars for judges.



How many kids do you have? I have one in high school and one in college. I bet you even struggle to find women to have sex with, much less want to have a child with. You really made a multi to make this post? What a fucking loser hiding behind a multi. Yeehaw babydick.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jun 24 2022 02:56pm

True colors how this user views motherhood. The baby rips her open and hands her a bill.

Wow!!!!! I say let the left speak!!!!!!!!!

I don't know what the abortion laws are in Canada or Mexico, but would a pregnant American woman face consequences in the US if she had a (legal) abortion abroad? Of course assuming the laws in the US (like in the state of her residency) were against it.

These laws only affect poor people because people with means can just go get abortions where they are legal, which is what they will do, especially those who fought tooth and nail for this.

Furthermore nobody who supports this law is someone who would naturally be concerned with abortion. They are either old or incel males if young. If men could get pregnant then abortion would be widely available and it wouldn't be controversial at all.

This law violates a lot of religious freedoms too. Jewish law permits abortion if the mother is in danger for example.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jun 24 2022 03:05pm

They wouldn't need to go to Canada or Mexico, they can simply go to one of the great number of states where abortion access won't significantly change.

Nope. I'm sorry. That makes too much sense.
Much better to go insane, riot, burn and pillage instead.
No other way to get those big screen TVs.

yeah that was a disgusting rant but it’s not surprise from that user

LOL

Nonsensical drivel alert!

The 10th Amendment trumps your "reasoning". The Constitution and it's Amendments specifically outlines the illegality of discrimination based on age, race, and sex. Therefore shit such as racial marriage and Jim Crowe laws fell directly within the scope of the Constitution because they were in violation of treating everyone under the same law. Given that marriage requires the approval of the State you intend to get married in, if the State you intend to get married in refuses to permit it based on race, they are in direct violation of your Constitutional rights.

There's no Constitutional mention of marriage directly though, marriage itself is not a federal right. Do you understand? That means that if a State defines marriage as "Between one man, and one woman" then that's what marriage is. That's what they're licensing. The "legalization of gay marriage" wasn't that at all. Instead it was an attempt to force all states to recognize marriages licensed by other states, and hold a state to their standard of benefits/privileges based on a marriage they themselves did not license. One of the side effects of that particular judgement is that a singular State no longer has the right to deny marriage where something major is at stake. Meaning, if the owner of 1/4 of the land in Texas were to die, and 3 weeks earlier, some 19 year old Californian married them in Hawaii, that 19 year old would now stand to inherit a quarter of the land in Texas, in a clear cash and political grab, when the State never had an opportunity to say "no".

The "gay marriage" case was never about gay marriage in the first place, just like Roe wasn't about women's rights. Today's decision WAS about the 10th Amendment trumping your "reasoning" though.