Kaine also added that, if all else fails, “there are ways of making the Catholic Church listen to the voice of reason,” which is how he dubbed all those who advocate LGBT equality. “At the end of the day, you know, we’re a civilized people, of course the first thing we’ll do is act nicely and ask nicely,” he said. “Then, if that doesn’t work, we’ll use our law and our legal system to enable ourselves to be who we are, or rather the LBGT community will do that – and it has. The Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage was a crucial milestone in our legal system that proves it works, it actually functions.”
“So, what I’m saying here,” he argued, “is that, while I respect the Catholic Church as I’m sure millions of Americans do, you know, at some point it is going to start acting contrary to the Christian faith, and we’re talking about an institution that’s supposed to be the first one on the front line defending it. So, when that happens, and that’s what’s happening with condemning LGBT rights, we’ll state an ultimatum. The United States of America, more precisely, the future President of the United States of America, Hillary Clinton, will state an ultimatum. And that ultimatum will be to either change its stance on same-sex marriage or pack its bags and get out of America. And yes – the President of the country can do that.”
So let me get this straight. When a conservative says they want to temporarily halt immigration from Muslims countries until we can vet those immigrants better, it’s an outrage. But when a liberal says the president can kick a religion out of the country because of their stance on same sex marriage, nothing. Got it.
First of all… Catholics aren’t the only ones with that stance on same sex marriage. There are a ton of religions – including Islam – that are not friendly to the LGBT cause.
Secondly, no, Tim, the president can’t kick a religion out of the country or make a religion illegal.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Although, if Hillary does become the next president, she’ll make sure to appoint Supreme Court justices who can “living document” that into full legality for her. So I guess anything is possible.