Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You misunderstand the Supremacy clause.
The Supremacy clause is limited to the specifically enumerated powers granted to the States in union, all other powers are retained by each State individually.
No, you misunderstand the Supremacy Clause.Swim Expert,No kidding. Fed judges aka tyrants in robes really should stop trying to dictate their opinions to the states.
Yeah, yeah! Stand up for the constitution! The constitution says that federal law is supreme to state law. The federal judges should stop telling states how the federal constitution works in order to.....
Wait, no....turns out you're a fucking idiot.
There is no reason to use insults. You misunderstand the Supremacy clause. The Supremacy clause is limited to the specifically enumerated powers granted to the States in union, all other powers are retained by each State individually. By the adoption of the Constitution, the States jointly surrendered some 17 specific and well defined powers to the federal Congress, which related strictly to external affairs of the States. There is NO power granting jurisdiction over the set legal definition of marriage within a State.
YOUR SCOTUS rendered the opinion in....
New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837), that......
" A State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and exclusive," 36 U.S., at 139.
I can State that I do support Colorado's standing for its jurisdiction, I also support Montana's standing up for its Jurisdiction on the second amendment.No kidding. Fed judges aka tyrants in robes really should stop trying to dictate their opinions to the states.
Yeah, yeah! Stand up for the constitution! The constitution says that federal law is supreme to state law. The federal judges should stop telling states how the federal constitution works in order to.....
Wait, no....turns out you're a fucking idiot.
Do you support Colorado's legalization of marijuana?
No, you misunderstand the Supremacy Clause.Swim Expert,No kidding. Fed judges aka tyrants in robes really should stop trying to dictate their opinions to the states.
Yeah, yeah! Stand up for the constitution! The constitution says that federal law is supreme to state law. The federal judges should stop telling states how the federal constitution works in order to.....
Wait, no....turns out you're a fucking idiot.
There is no reason to use insults. You misunderstand the Supremacy clause. The Supremacy clause is limited to the specifically enumerated powers granted to the States in union, all other powers are retained by each State individually. By the adoption of the Constitution, the States jointly surrendered some 17 specific and well defined powers to the federal Congress, which related strictly to external affairs of the States. There is NO power granting jurisdiction over the set legal definition of marriage within a State.
YOUR SCOTUS rendered the opinion in....
New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837), that......
" A State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and exclusive," 36 U.S., at 139.
Article VI renders the Constitution, its case law, Federal law, and the rulings of Federal courts to be the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions.
The states may not 'ignore' or 'nullify' Federal law, the states may not 'ignore' the Constitution and its case law, and the states may not 'reject' the rulings of Federal courts:
'The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P.358 U. S. 18.
No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 358 U. S. 18.' Cooper v. Aaron (1958).
As a fact of Constitutional law the Alabama Supreme Court is wrong, it is at war against the Constitution, and its members have violated their solemn oath to support the Constitution.
This fact of law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
Again, you use insults because you find yourself losing the debate.You misunderstand the Supremacy clause.
Yes
The Supremacy clause is limited to the specifically enumerated powers granted to the States in union, all other powers are retained by each State individually.
No.
You are a fucking idiot. No state may enforce a law that is contrary to the federal constitution. Any law that is contrary to the constitution is void. It does not actually exist, in law. Period. Once again, you are a fucking idiot, period.
Oral sex is also considered sodomy.Yes a sodomite is anyone who practices sodomy, however a marriage is consummated through sexual relations, and here is where sodomy is exclusive between same sex couples making them sodomites without recourse otherwize. I hate that the proper definition is offensive to you, it is not meant as a slur, it is only meant to use the proper definition as "Gay" does not actually mean sodomite outside of fiction. There is no such word as homosexual as in ....Perhaps this is the point in which we should return to the basics of the contention.The People cannot vote away the rights of a minority, which is precisely why our Founders created a judicial branch.
Nor can the minority dictate the rights of the majority.
You are absolutely correct- the Constitution protects the rights of both the minority and the majority.
And the judiciary is the branch that resolves whether the law is Constitutional or not.
The question is not that of equal rights, as the Sodomite .
You keep using that word.
View attachment 37489
'Sodomite' means anyone who has anal sex.
So it would apply to heterosexuals who have anal sex and those homosexuals who have anal sex.
It would not apply to heterosexuals who do not have anal sex and would not apply to homosexuals who do not have anal sex.
Are you saying that heterosexuals who have anal sex cannot get married and lesbian couples can?
Ho•mo
(ˈhoʊ moʊ)
n., pl. -mos.
1. (italics) the genus of bipedal primates that includes modern humans and several extinct forms, as H. erectus and H. habilis,distinguished by their large brains and a dependence on tools.
Such is simply placing a more softening usage for the offended when hearing the true definition. Sodomite goes back to Sodom and Gomorrah wherein such was practiced.
I simply choose to use what is the proper term for such. Again, it is not meant as a slur.
Oral sex is also considered sodomy.
I know the definition of Sodomy, I do not need any help in understanding of the definition.Oral sex is also considered sodomy.Yes a sodomite is anyone who practices sodomy, however a marriage is consummated through sexual relations, and here is where sodomy is exclusive between same sex couples making them sodomites without recourse otherwize. I hate that the proper definition is offensive to you, it is not meant as a slur, it is only meant to use the proper definition as "Gay" does not actually mean sodomite outside of fiction. There is no such word as homosexual as in ....Perhaps this is the point in which we should return to the basics of the contention.Nor can the minority dictate the rights of the majority.
You are absolutely correct- the Constitution protects the rights of both the minority and the majority.
And the judiciary is the branch that resolves whether the law is Constitutional or not.
The question is not that of equal rights, as the Sodomite .
You keep using that word.
View attachment 37489
'Sodomite' means anyone who has anal sex.
So it would apply to heterosexuals who have anal sex and those homosexuals who have anal sex.
It would not apply to heterosexuals who do not have anal sex and would not apply to homosexuals who do not have anal sex.
Are you saying that heterosexuals who have anal sex cannot get married and lesbian couples can?
Ho•mo
(ˈhoʊ moʊ)
n., pl. -mos.
1. (italics) the genus of bipedal primates that includes modern humans and several extinct forms, as H. erectus and H. habilis,distinguished by their large brains and a dependence on tools.
Such is simply placing a more softening usage for the offended when hearing the true definition. Sodomite goes back to Sodom and Gomorrah wherein such was practiced.
I simply choose to use what is the proper term for such. Again, it is not meant as a slur.
Keep up the good fight Bama
-Geaux
-------------------
Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.
Alabama- always fighting the good fight.
FAIL
No comparison
-Geaux
Who is comparing anything?
I am just stating the facts:
Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.
Alabama- always fighting the good fight
In this case, indeed they are
-Geaux
I am sure Alabamans always feel like they are fighting the good fight- just like before
Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.
Alabama- always fighting the good fight
Again, you keep comparing homosexual marriage to civil rights movement. Again, no comparison
-Geaux
I assume that you are referring to Cooper v Brown? The problem that you have is that the 14th amendment does not apply concerning a States Jurisdiction in the traditional and set legal definition of a marriage which is a simple contract between a man and a woman. The only case in which the 14th amendment would apply, and trump the State of Alabama's jurisdiction is if the Sodomite were being denied the right to contract a civil union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.No, you misunderstand the Supremacy Clause.Swim Expert,No kidding. Fed judges aka tyrants in robes really should stop trying to dictate their opinions to the states.
Yeah, yeah! Stand up for the constitution! The constitution says that federal law is supreme to state law. The federal judges should stop telling states how the federal constitution works in order to.....
Wait, no....turns out you're a fucking idiot.
There is no reason to use insults. You misunderstand the Supremacy clause. The Supremacy clause is limited to the specifically enumerated powers granted to the States in union, all other powers are retained by each State individually. By the adoption of the Constitution, the States jointly surrendered some 17 specific and well defined powers to the federal Congress, which related strictly to external affairs of the States. There is NO power granting jurisdiction over the set legal definition of marriage within a State.
YOUR SCOTUS rendered the opinion in....
New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837), that......
" A State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and exclusive," 36 U.S., at 139.
Article VI renders the Constitution, its case law, Federal law, and the rulings of Federal courts to be the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions.
The states may not 'ignore' or 'nullify' Federal law, the states may not 'ignore' the Constitution and its case law, and the states may not 'reject' the rulings of Federal courts:
'The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P.358 U. S. 18.
No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 358 U. S. 18.' Cooper v. Aaron (1958).
As a fact of Constitutional law the Alabama Supreme Court is wrong, it is at war against the Constitution, and its members have violated their solemn oath to support the Constitution.
This fact of law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
No one gives a shit about what the faggots want except other faggots and faggot lovers.
Or those interested in constitutional guarantees and the protection of them. And I'll gladly admit to being part of that group.
Until it involves types of marriages with which your kind disagrees. At that point, all sorts of reasons to oppose them are considered valid.
Says who? Can you quote me saying this? Or Like your imaginary 'demand that anyone agree with what I believe', is this just more mythical nonsense you've made up?
Do you support a brother/sister marriage? Polygamous marriages?
Well, at least your asking me this time. Rather than telling me what my opinion is.
I don't really have an opinion on brother and sister marriage. I don't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently.
Our laws aren't set up for poly marriage, so we have no way of regulating it. If two people are married and they add a third, are both married to the third person, or only one of them? If one of the three wants a divorce, does that mean that the other two are no longer married once the divorce goes through? Or the other two are still married? If you divorce, does property get split 3 ways? Or does it get split based on the time in the relationship? Does every member of a poly marriage have conjugal rights to every other member? What if one person wanted to add a third, but the other didn't?
We have no precedent for any of this. Nor any laws to cover it. And the issues get more wildly complicated the larger the number of participants grow.
We have answers for every such question in two person marriage. And all the same rules apply for gays as apply for straights. There need be no adjustment to any law save that you stop excluding gays.
Poly marriage would require massive changes to our laws, and all new precedent for hundreds of unresolved legal issues that our law has no tools to resolve.
Until it involves types of marriages with which your kind disagrees. At that point, all sorts of reasons to oppose them are considered valid.
Says who? Can you quote me saying this? Or Like your imaginary 'demand that anyone agree with what I believe', is this just more mythical nonsense you've made up?
Do you support a brother/sister marriage? Polygamous marriages?
Well, at least your asking me this time. Rather than telling me what my opinion is.
I don't really have an opinion on brother and sister marriage. I don't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently.
Our laws aren't set up for poly marriage, so we have no way of regulating it. If two people are married and they add a third, are both married to the third person, or only one of them? If one of the three wants a divorce, does that mean that the other two are no longer married once the divorce goes through? Or the other two are still married? If you divorce, does property get split 3 ways? Or does it get split based on the time in the relationship? Does every member of a poly marriage have conjugal rights to every other member? What if one person wanted to add a third, but the other didn't?
We have no precedent for any of this. Nor any laws to cover it. And the issues get more wildly complicated the larger the number of participants grow.
We have answers for every such question in two person marriage. And all the same rules apply for gays as apply for straights. There need be no adjustment to any law save that you stop excluding gays.
Poly marriage would require massive changes to our laws, and all new precedent for hundreds of unresolved legal issues that our law has no tools to resolve.
It's not something you have to study. It's a simple question based on equality. If a brother and sister, both of whom are consenting adults, want to marry, should they have the same equality you demand for same sex couples under the 14th amendment. If you truly support equality, you can answer it.
If a man and woman are of mixed race- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?
If a man and woman, brother and sister- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?
If you truly support equality you should be able to answer it.
I would disagree with you assertion, or better stated reference to "Federal policy": The fact is that there no longer exists any federal aspect within the U.S. government. The U.S. government under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution established a federal system cobbled together with a national system establishing neither a wholly federal system nor a wholly national system, this may be understood by reading James Madison's explanation in the CONstitutional debates #s 39 and 62.Excuse me? I have been a "trucker" for 38 years, and I know the difference between a tractor and trailer, and a "Truck". A "truck" is NOT a tractor and trailor. A tractor pulls a trailer, the trailer to which you refer is 53', the combination of the two exceeds 53'.Excuse me? It is 53 feet long and can haul 80,000 pounds, a tractor trailer, or a truck. My dad was a trucker for 8 years. I went on 2 hauls with him to California and back. I know what I'm talking about.
Now you didnt answer my question concerning "civil union".
Also in a so called "gay marriage" between two of the same sex, which is the husband, and which is the wife, as you see now you must establish a new fiction wherein a woman may be a husband and a man may be a wife. Now a husband and wife may no longer refer to the sex of the individual. Fiction, fiction, fiction.
Please answer at least this one question....
Why is it so important to create a fiction, rather than contract a "civil union" between sodomites,wherein there is neither husband or wife?
Just excellent points here and presented through a soundly reasoned construct. Just a well stated point of view.
There is nothing about the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality that does not rest in deceit, thus which is not entirely fraudulent... . As the entire ruse is political and designed to influence the ignorant, as a means to alter US Federal Policy, toward undermining the viability of the Culture, by fundamentally changing the United States of America.
The most pitiful part of which, is that the idiots advocating for such live here... there's lives being intrinsically built here and they're entirely incapable of understanding that they're literally undermining their own viability in the process; so we can see that the deceit begins within the disorder of their own minds.
Thus providing yet another glimpse of 'The Harm' that homosexuality represents to you, the reader.
The evidence just keeps pouring in... .
The federal portion was the State governments participation in legislation via their appointed representatives, ( their senators appointed by each State legislature to represent their State government within the central body= the collective of States in union assembled), the 17th amendment removed the federal portion leaving only the national portion in place. The national portion is the House of representatives divided by districts without regard to State government affiliation, this national portion represents the whole of the people, not the individual State governments which made the Union of States= The United States.
Now both the House of representatives and the Senate represent the party to which its members are affiliated rather than the State governments or the people. Those two party's are owned and controlled by international corporations which fund them and they in turn fund their candidates thus own them and their loyalty.
I'd like to post a contest, if for nothing else the shear entertainment of the exercise, but in all candor, I find the spirit disinterested in mounting a defense for a system which has long since been corrupted by the endless tide of half measure and compromise.
I am however enjoying reading your work... nothing cuts through the crapola like sound reason. Keep it up.
Summarily ignoring the 14th amendment and citing only cases that precede it isn't 'sound reason'. As the 14th amendment does exist. And it radically changed the relationship of the States and Federal government.
And, of course, every challenge to state gay marriage bans being heard by the court are on the basis of the violation of the 14th amendment.
Making the willful ignorance of the 14th a bizarre exercise in pointless denial.
It's easy to tell you're hateful, ignorant, and wrong.As long as one is male and one is female. I wouldn't do it.
Then why don't you support brother/sister marriage?
I've never said either way about brother/sister. .
Okay I will restate it- you said you would support a mixed race marriage as long as one is male and one is female.
Would you support a brother sister marriage where one is male and one is female?
From a personal standpoint, no. However, the argument from you same sex supporters isn't from a personal standpoint. The ones of you that argue marriage should be allowed for two consenting adults based on the concept of equality are the same ones, when asked about a brother/sister marriage, to deny the concept of equality you claim exists. It's easy to tell you aren't about equality but about a faggot agenda. If you're not willing to apply the concept of equality you says exists to other types of marriages involving consenting adults, it makes you a hypocrite.
Comparing same-sex couples to siblings fails as both a false comparison fallacy and a slippery slope fallacy – so your 'argument' is dead from the outset.
Same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, they can enter into marriage contracts because the law is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners who are not related.
Siblings are not eligible to enter into marriage contracts because the law isn't written to accommodate such a union; indeed, no law exists to accommodate such a union.
Consequently, there's no 'hypocrisy' on the part of those who advocate for gay Americans being afforded equal protection of the law, as required by the 14th Amendment.
By your argument, the 14th Amendment supports the rights of NAMBLA. If you take it to mean, "you shall not make laws that discriminate on ANY basis," then ultimately any group can pursue equal treatment under the law. If you're going to broaden the 14th Amendment beyond those classes of people it specifies, you can't arbitrarily draw the line at gay people and insist it goes no further.
By your argument, the 14th Amendment supports the rights of NAMBLA. If you take it to mean, "you shall not make laws that discriminate on ANY basis," then ultimately any group can pursue equal treatment under the law. If you're going to broaden the 14th Amendment beyond those classes of people it specifies, you can't arbitrarily draw the line at gay people and insist it goes no further.
They're not even TRYING to pretend to do so anymore.
A generation ago, they flatly denied it ... but today, not so much.
All over this site, the ANSA Cult is stating that there's no reason polygamists shouldn't be allowed to marry... we have them on record claiming that the incest is no big deal to them, as long as they're consenting adults. "The means to 'legally consent' is the scope of their concern for Adult's pursuing children for sexual gratification.
As has been noted MANY times... what we're dealing with here, is EVIL!
And no mind is more suitable for evil than the DISORDERED MIND and HOW ODD is it, that the Homosexual; deniers of ANY sort of mental deviancy... are the purveyors of precisely the same crap that EVIL is known for FAR AND WIDE!?
Now what CAN we make of THAT?
Obviously you do.I know the definition of Sodomy, I do not need any help in understanding of the definition.Oral sex is also considered sodomy.Yes a sodomite is anyone who practices sodomy, however a marriage is consummated through sexual relations, and here is where sodomy is exclusive between same sex couples making them sodomites without recourse otherwize. I hate that the proper definition is offensive to you, it is not meant as a slur, it is only meant to use the proper definition as "Gay" does not actually mean sodomite outside of fiction. There is no such word as homosexual as in ....Perhaps this is the point in which we should return to the basics of the contention.You are absolutely correct- the Constitution protects the rights of both the minority and the majority.
And the judiciary is the branch that resolves whether the law is Constitutional or not.
The question is not that of equal rights, as the Sodomite .
You keep using that word.
View attachment 37489
'Sodomite' means anyone who has anal sex.
So it would apply to heterosexuals who have anal sex and those homosexuals who have anal sex.
It would not apply to heterosexuals who do not have anal sex and would not apply to homosexuals who do not have anal sex.
Are you saying that heterosexuals who have anal sex cannot get married and lesbian couples can?
Ho•mo
(ˈhoʊ moʊ)
n., pl. -mos.
1. (italics) the genus of bipedal primates that includes modern humans and several extinct forms, as H. erectus and H. habilis,distinguished by their large brains and a dependence on tools.
Such is simply placing a more softening usage for the offended when hearing the true definition. Sodomite goes back to Sodom and Gomorrah wherein such was practiced.
I simply choose to use what is the proper term for such. Again, it is not meant as a slur.
Thanks just the same.
Says who? Can you quote me saying this? Or Like your imaginary 'demand that anyone agree with what I believe', is this just more mythical nonsense you've made up?
Do you support a brother/sister marriage? Polygamous marriages?
Well, at least your asking me this time. Rather than telling me what my opinion is.
I don't really have an opinion on brother and sister marriage. I don't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently.
Our laws aren't set up for poly marriage, so we have no way of regulating it. If two people are married and they add a third, are both married to the third person, or only one of them? If one of the three wants a divorce, does that mean that the other two are no longer married once the divorce goes through? Or the other two are still married? If you divorce, does property get split 3 ways? Or does it get split based on the time in the relationship? Does every member of a poly marriage have conjugal rights to every other member? What if one person wanted to add a third, but the other didn't?
We have no precedent for any of this. Nor any laws to cover it. And the issues get more wildly complicated the larger the number of participants grow.
We have answers for every such question in two person marriage. And all the same rules apply for gays as apply for straights. There need be no adjustment to any law save that you stop excluding gays.
Poly marriage would require massive changes to our laws, and all new precedent for hundreds of unresolved legal issues that our law has no tools to resolve.
It's not something you have to study. It's a simple question based on equality. If a brother and sister, both of whom are consenting adults, want to marry, should they have the same equality you demand for same sex couples under the 14th amendment. If you truly support equality, you can answer it.
If a man and woman are of mixed race- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?
If a man and woman, brother and sister- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?
If you truly support equality you should be able to answer it.
Your age of consent laws are discriminatory against NAMBLA. Who are you to say they're love is wrong? Why do you oppose equality?
By your argument, the 14th Amendment supports the rights of NAMBLA. If you take it to mean, "you shall not make laws that discriminate on ANY basis," then ultimately any group can pursue equal treatment under the law. If you're going to broaden the 14th Amendment beyond those classes of people it specifies, you can't arbitrarily draw the line at gay people and insist it goes no further.
They're not even TRYING to pretend to do so anymore.
A generation ago, they flatly denied it ... but today, not so much.
All over this site, the ANSA Cult is stating that there's no reason polygamists shouldn't be allowed to marry... we have them on record claiming that the incest is no big deal to them, as long as they're consenting adults. "The means to 'legally consent' is the scope of their concern for Adult's pursuing children for sexual gratification.
As has been noted MANY times... what we're dealing with here, is EVIL!
And no mind is more suitable for evil than the DISORDERED MIND and HOW ODD is it, that the Homosexual; deniers of ANY sort of mental deviancy... are the purveyors of precisely the same crap that EVIL is known for FAR AND WIDE!?
Now what CAN we make of THAT?
Depravity, like water, is always seeking lower ground.
