[South40]

He is FOR states rights. But then that concept is a little above your paygrade isn’t it, Temper?

You mean he was for states' rights before he was against them.

“Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me,”

”I support constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage and abortion”

[big'ol_freeper]

And you can’t understand the difference between an issue that is currently outside the purview of the federal government and a constitutional amendment ratified by the states which legally changes the constitution to deal with the issue on a federal level?

You’re an ignorant dumbass.

[The Bronze Titan]

Hey S40, the guy’s all over the place. His supporters are gonna have to play “Whack-A-Mole’ to defend all the canards that’ll be coming up.

[DRey]

No. He’s always been states’ rights. And it was me that posted that.

[TexMom7]

Right but

In order to have a constitutional amendment, it has to go to all the states and be voted on. If the majority vote yes, then it is ratified —by the states—.

But at the moment it is up to each state.

That’s the Rule of Law.

He has never been against State’s Rights.