Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[Seawytch]

Unequal treatment for what? In California for example, those "targeted" for unequal treatment in the law that is Prop 8 and other statutes are homosexuals and polygamists and minors and those too closely related by blood. All of those people are currently "targeted" for unequal treatment. As they should be. DOMA defined that states have the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage for themselves outside of barriers to racial marriage only.

The cult of LGBT has not passed the test for the 14th as to marriage. In fact, nowhere in the constitution is there a mention of a federal authority for marriage. Loving does not apply to the Harvey-Milkers because they are a culture, not a race. Behaviors cannot be considered a race; however reflexive or compulsive they might feel.

Pitted against the church of LGBT trying to get the 14th to apply to them in marriage is the 1st amendment rights of Utahans to vote their faith at the polls. They did so. 2/3rds majority. You say it's less than that now. Then put another initiative on the ballot since you're sure you'll win there the only way it's legal.

And yet court after court is finding in favor of marriage equality and are citing the 14th. Just how do you reconcile that with your musings?

Huh.

Is it me, or is the member representing the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality standing upon Popularity, with seemingly NO CONCERN for a sound sustainable Morality?

Sure looks like it.

What she appears to be doing there is applauding: 'The Subjective Ruling by the judiciary, dismissing the objective 'will of the Peoples'.

That always tickles me.

A collectivist, who likely has spread throughout her record on this board, innumerable instances touting "DEMOCRACY", is standing today, upon judicial tyranny; an outright proponent AGAINST the representatives of "the Peoples', voting for that which the MAJORITY OF 'THE PEOPLES' WANT.

See how that works?

It's a subjective desire which could NOT CARE LESS about THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, and ONLY WHAT IS LEGAL.

Notice the trend. See this 'movement' for what it is.

And ask yourself, does the subjective 'RULING', over a case brought to court by a subjective advocacy, which contests an OBJECTIVE, DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

Does it serve that which is GOOD? Does it promote a viable healthy, sustainable culture or does it serve divisiveness, dividing the culture?

Does it undermine the objective 'rule of law'?

Does it promote or subvert sound governance?

Does it HELP or HARM your means to reasonably expect that your government represents you? Does it help or harm your means to raise your children in a safe and morally sound, sustainable environment?

Yes, when civil rights are violated I support the judicial over-ruling the "will of the people" (see also tyranny of the majority).

Like here in 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia. I agree with the court's decision in that case despite overwhelming public opinion to the contrary.

See where public opinion was in 1967? Do you see where "the will of the people" would have allowed blacks to marry whites?

When the "will of the people" violates the US Constitution, it is the job of the judicial to rule. See Heller if you're curious how it works.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yet another absolutely baseless rant from Jake.

What jake is doing, is appealing to what he believes will be popularly accepted by his comrades. Our local logicians will recognize this as argumentum ad populum, or the appeal to popularity.

It is a fatally flawed logical construct, thoroughly specious and absolutely unworthy of consideration.

It is also ALL that one can reasonably expect from the brighter socialists. (The dimmer collectivist bulbs simply have no means to communicate, period. See: The Non-Occupying Occupiers)

Meaning that if Obama himself were here, THAT is the BEST you could expect from him.

The coolest part is that if the entire cadre of comrades in DC were on this board, they'd fare no better than these poor basket cases.

Where_, your silliness is just . . . silliness.

That you won't accept the Constitution and SCOTUS opinions is your problem.

Somehow in your mind, abortion rights are 'socialism.' Son, here this will help you if you think throwing out words is all you have to do instead of logic, fact, and analysis.

You opinion on the context of the Constitution is only that, kid. You don't make the law.

SCOTUS opinions are what the law follows, not your silliness.

You have every right to express your opinion yet not escape how foolish you look.

Abortion is a medical procedure and murder is a legal term.

Now, even Rush L knows words have meanings. Use the dictionary before you expose your foolishness again. Hmmm.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Example of a red herring: "There is not a single state, county or local municipality which prohibits a homosexual from marrying anyone that they can talk into it, as long as the person with whom they apply, represents the distinct gender."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Example of Jacksonian democratic majority argument: "There is not a single state, county or local municipality which prohibits a homosexual from marrying anyone that they can talk into it, as long as the person with whom they apply, represents the distinct gender."

SCOTUS was quite clear that states cannot violate civil liberties.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Example of false equivalency: "Does anyone know if this is the first time on this board that an Advocate for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality has publicly stated that their advocacy includes: The Normalization of Bestiality?"

Why is that perverted social cons get excited about bestiality?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where_ has an issue with adult consent, obviously, and marriage.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

False, Romber v. Evans demonstrates quite conclusively that laws targeting homosexuals for unequal treatment under the law are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Your "understanding" is faulty.



>>>>

Well it is a good thing that the marriage standard does not 'target' homosexuals. As The Marriage standard treats every single person who applies, equally.

There is not a single state, county or local municipality which prohibits a homosexual from marrying anyone that they can talk into it, as long as the person with whom they apply, represents the distinct gender. Meaning that a homosexual male can marry a homosexual female; note for those keeping score that THAT is TWO HOMOSEXUALS, who will not be denied a license to marry anywhere in the United States. PROVING that there is NO discrimination against a person because they are homosexual. The marriage standard, like ANY standard denies membership, to promote the best interest of the institution. What homosexuals are upset about is that THE STANDARD EXISTS! And it is THAT which they are attacking. It is just another example of the Ideological Left undermining the viability of the United States. This toward the goal of undermining the means of the United States to project influence in defense of our interests.

That "gays can marry someone of the opposite sex" argument sounds vaguely familiar...where have I heard it before?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.​

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

When anti miscegenation laws were struck down, that argument was finally rejected (and it set a precedent)

But with that said, Homosexuality is a behavior.

What you're saying is that a court decided that it is wrong to 'target' someone because of a behavior that they claim is beyond their means to control?

Well, I expect that this will come as welcome news to the murderin', stealing, harassin', psycho and sociopaths out there nestled into their bunks for life.

What other destructive behaviors that threaten a culture's viability are protected by the US Constitution?

Sexual orientation is innate...acting out on it is the behavior. Both gay and straight sex is a behavior, but the attractions are innate.

Neither "behaviors" are illegal. Murder and theft are both crimes. Consenting adults fucking is not a crime. Do you propose to criminalize consenting adult sexual behavior?

If one has a RIGHT to be a homosexual, what responsibility sustains that right? Can ya tell me at least THAT much? We know that by claiming to be unable to control one's sexual cravings for sexual gratification with another person of their same gender, a fair percentage of this board feels that THAT comes with a right to redefine fundamental cultural principles.

What responsibility does one need to bear to have a valid claim to THAT RIGHT?

Enjoy the silence folks, it will be followed by irrational, unbridled and thoroughly feckless hysteria.

What responsibility sustains your right to be heterosexual? What responsibility sustains your right to your free exercise of religion?

Even if you insist against all scientific research and the testimony of gays themselves who say that their sexual orientation is not a choice, in a free society what difference does it make?

Gays don't have to establish a societal benefit in their being married or simply being, you have to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing gays to marry or exist. So far? Epic fail.

My 'right to be' a heterosexual, would be sustained by my responsibility to not exercise that right to the detriment of another to exercise their own right.

My right to freely exercise my religion is sustained by my not exercising my religion to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own.

For instance, I would not exercise my right to be sexually normal, in such a way that would threaten the means to another to exercise their right to be sexually normal.

And as far as that goes, I do not exercise my rights in any way that threatens the means of others to be sexually abnormal, as long as they are not subjectively rationalizing that their need for sexual gratification overrides my right to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the soundly reasoned principles of nature, which provide that Children are not suitable sexual partners.

Now the thing about right sustaining responsibilities is that, where someone threatens one's means to exercise their rights, it falls to the righteous to defend themselves from that threat.

This is me, defending my means to exercise my right to reason objectively, which is sustained by my responsibility to not exercise my right to the detriment of another to do the same.

Which is threatened by those who eschew objectivity.

To take it a step further, I claim the right to keep my sexual life private. In sustaining that right I bear the responsibility to not publicly discuss my sexual life. I do not require the culture to salute my sexual desires. As I require the public to leave me alone on the subject.

I don't go out and lobby congress to allow me to marry. I don't ask for permission from anyone to do what I am rightfully entitled to do. I just do it.

This in contrast say, YOU, who requires that the public RECOGNIZE you as a person who craves sexual gratification from people of her own gender.

IF I were saddled with such, I'd just go about my business and wouldn't ask anyone to accept it or not. As, I do not give a red rat's ass what anyone thinks about my sexual life. But it truth, it's never come up, BECAUSE: I DO NOT DISCUSS THAT WHICH IS PRIVATE, IN PUBLIC.

See how that works?

Here, say it with me: "I DO NOT DISCUSS THAT WHICH IS PRIVATE, IN PUBLIC."

Doesn't that feel good? It frees you, doesn't it?

There're those things which are appropriate for public discourse and those things which are PRIVATE, thus are INAPPROPRIATE for public discourse.

YOU, on the other hand, CLAIM the right to sexual privacy, while you simultaneously PROMOTE YOUR SEXUAL LIFE, going so far as to DEFINE YOURSELF, BY YOUR SEXUALITY.

You are sexually abnormal, great, who gives a fuck, as long as ya stay away from the kids.

But, it's not enough for you to just BE what you are, which is what you people claim to want.

No, NO! You can't even be satisfied with EVERYONE SALUTING YOU FOR WHO AND WHAT YOU ARE! You NEED THE ENTIRE WORLD TO PRETEND THAT YOUR NORMAL, WHEN YOU ARE DECIDEDLY ABNORMAL.

You claim that you're just being honest, when EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR MOVEMENT IS A LIE!

We call this INSANITY.

Anything gettin' through here?

 

[Bumberclyde]

^^^^^^^^^^^^ MORON ALERT!!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where_'s hetero-fascism is on full rant.

If you are ever in a position where you are being forced to marry someone of your own sex, put the Jake Signal to the skies, and I will fly and save you.

You are, simply, a bombastic dunderhead.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And FWIW: miscegenation and the laws against it, were not comparable to Homosexuality.

Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, NOT a GENDER or a FUNCTION OF SKIN Color.

A black person is black. They're black no matter who they screw.

Just as a female remains a female no matter who she screws, same with a male.

This is a function of biology. A natural, immutable fact.

Now homosexuality is the ONLY notion which someone can bring to the table and expect 'special status', wherein there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS. At BEST it reflects a hormonal malfunction. Meaning that it is little more than AN ATTITUDE.

One can be queer as the King one day and straight as an arrow the next.

I have SEEN IT, FIRST HAND! WITNESSING THE DAY TO DAY TRANSITION OF A FEMALE, FROM STRAIGHT TO HOMO, consistently cycling, sometimes inside a single 24 hour day.

It's all nonsense.

You want to nibble the notch, FINE... just shut up and do it and keep it to yourself and your ADULT twisted sister.

Because when you ADVERTISE it, you INFLUENCE OTHERS, who may be less capable of understanding that what you're DOING is harmful to YOU and your twisted ass partner. THE KIDS for instance.

Anything gettin' thru here?

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the ranting continues.

Nope, Where_, you are wrong: philosophically, socially, culturally, legally, morally, and so on and so forth.

Your religious and civil liberties are not violated by marriage of two consenting adults.

 

[Seawytch]

Well it is a good thing that the marriage standard does not 'target' homosexuals. As The Marriage standard treats every single person who applies, equally.

There is not a single state, county or local municipality which prohibits a homosexual from marrying anyone that they can talk into it, as long as the person with whom they apply, represents the distinct gender. Meaning that a homosexual male can marry a homosexual female; note for those keeping score that THAT is TWO HOMOSEXUALS, who will not be denied a license to marry anywhere in the United States. PROVING that there is NO discrimination against a person because they are homosexual. The marriage standard, like ANY standard denies membership, to promote the best interest of the institution. What homosexuals are upset about is that THE STANDARD EXISTS! And it is THAT which they are attacking. It is just another example of the Ideological Left undermining the viability of the United States. This toward the goal of undermining the means of the United States to project influence in defense of our interests.

That "gays can marry someone of the opposite sex" argument sounds vaguely familiar...where have I heard it before?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.​

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

When anti miscegenation laws were struck down, that argument was finally rejected (and it set a precedent)



Sexual orientation is innate...acting out on it is the behavior. Both gay and straight sex is a behavior, but the attractions are innate.

Neither "behaviors" are illegal. Murder and theft are both crimes. Consenting adults fucking is not a crime. Do you propose to criminalize consenting adult sexual behavior?

If one has a RIGHT to be a homosexual, what responsibility sustains that right? Can ya tell me at least THAT much? We know that by claiming to be unable to control one's sexual cravings for sexual gratification with another person of their same gender, a fair percentage of this board feels that THAT comes with a right to redefine fundamental cultural principles.

What responsibility does one need to bear to have a valid claim to THAT RIGHT?

Enjoy the silence folks, it will be followed by irrational, unbridled and thoroughly feckless hysteria.

What responsibility sustains your right to be heterosexual? What responsibility sustains your right to your free exercise of religion?

Even if you insist against all scientific research and the testimony of gays themselves who say that their sexual orientation is not a choice, in a free society what difference does it make?

Gays don't have to establish a societal benefit in their being married or simply being, you have to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing gays to marry or exist. So far? Epic fail.

My 'right to be' a heterosexual, would be sustained by my responsibility to not exercise that right to the detriment of another to exercise their own right.

My right to freely exercise my religion is sustained by my not exercising my religion to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own.

For instance, I would not exercise my right to be sexually normal, in such a way that would threaten the means to another to exercise their right to be sexually normal.

And as far as that goes, I do not exercise my rights in any way that threatens the means of others to be sexually abnormal, as long as they are not subjectively rationalizing that their need for sexual gratification overrides my right to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the soundly reasoned principles of nature, which provide that Children are not suitable sexual partners.

Now the thing about right sustaining responsibilities is that, where someone threatens one's means to exercise their rights, it falls to the righteous to defend themselves from that threat.

This is me, defending my means to exercise my right to reason objectively, which is sustained by my responsibility to not exercise my right to the detriment of another to do the same.

Which is threatened by those who eschew objectivity.

To take it a step further, I claim the right to keep my sexual life private. In sustaining that right I bear the responsibility to not publicly discuss my sexual life. I do not require the culture to salute my sexual desires. As I require the public to leave me alone on the subject.

I don't go out and lobby congress to allow me to marry. I don't ask for permission from anyone to do what I am rightfully entitled to do. I just do it.

This in contrast say, YOU, who requires that the public RECOGNIZE you as a person who craves sexual gratification from people of her own gender.

IF I were saddled with such, I'd just go about my business and wouldn't ask anyone to accept it or not. As, I do not give a red rat's ass what anyone thinks about my sexual life. But it truth, it's never come up, BECAUSE: I DO NOT DISCUSS THAT WHICH IS PRIVATE, IN PUBLIC.

See how that works?

Here, say it with me: "I DO NOT DISCUSS THAT WHICH IS PRIVATE, IN PUBLIC."

Doesn't that feel good? It frees you, doesn't it?

There're those things which are appropriate for public discourse and those things which are PRIVATE, thus are INAPPROPRIATE for public discourse.

YOU, on the other hand, CLAIM the right to sexual privacy, while you simultaneously PROMOTE YOUR SEXUAL LIFE, going so far as to DEFINE YOURSELF, BY YOUR SEXUALITY.

You are sexually abnormal, great, who gives a fuck, as long as ya stay away from the kids.

But, it's not enough for you to just BE what you are, which is what you people claim to want.

No, NO! You can't even be satisfied with EVERYONE SALUTING YOU FOR WHO AND WHAT YOU ARE! You NEED THE ENTIRE WORLD TO PRETEND THAT YOUR NORMAL, WHEN YOU ARE DECIDEDLY ABNORMAL.

You claim that you're just being honest, when EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR MOVEMENT IS A LIE!

We call this INSANITY.

Anything gettin' through here?

We call your post insanity too. Rambling insanity.

Wanting to be legally married is not "discussing in public what is private". It's just a marriage license drama queen.

 

[Seawytch]

And FWIW: miscegenation and the laws against it, were not comparable to Homosexuality.

Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, NOT a GENDER or a FUNCTION OF SKIN Color.

A black person is black. They're black no matter who they screw.

Just as a female remains a female no matter who she screws, same with a male.

This is a function of biology. A natural, immutable fact.

Now homosexuality is the ONLY notion which someone can bring to the table and expect 'special status', wherein there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS. At BEST it reflects a hormonal malfunction. Meaning that it is little more than AN ATTITUDE.

One can be queer as the King one day and straight as an arrow the next.

I have SEEN IT, FIRST HAND! WITNESSING THE DAY TO DAY TRANSITION OF A FEMALE, FROM STRAIGHT TO HOMO, consistently cycling, sometimes inside a single 24 hour day.

It's all nonsense.

You want to nibble the notch, FINE... just shut up and do it and keep it to yourself and your ADULT twisted sister.

Because when you ADVERTISE it, you INFLUENCE OTHERS, who may be less capable of understanding that what you're DOING is harmful to YOU and your twisted ass partner. THE KIDS for instance.

Anything gettin' thru here?

Wanting to have sex with a member of another race is a behavior. Were they born with that behavior to want to have sex with someone of another race or did they choose it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wanting to be legally married is not "discussing in public what is private". It's just a marriage license drama queen.

Oh, just so.

Well played. Where_ the drama queen.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Where_'s hetero-fascism is on full rant.

If you are ever in a position where you are being forced to marry someone of your own sex, put the Jake Signal to the skies, and I will fly and save you.

You are, simply, a bombastic dunderhead.

Hetero-fascism again?

What happened, did the Homophobe farce, did that finally play out? It was only a matter of time before enough people figured out that it was a fake word that in no way meant what they claimed it said.

That word always tickled me: Homophobe: "Fear of self"

Me: "Please stop undermining cultural viability through your attempts to force everyone to pretend that abnormality is normal."

Advocate for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality: "You FEAR YOURSELF PAL! "

Me: LOL! Whuh?

Funny stuff.

But not nearly as funny as the new one, wherein we're FORCING PEOPLE TO MARRY!

Classic Deceit, fraudulently advance as a means to influence the ignorant.

Deceit <=> FRAUD <=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where_'s hetero-fascism is on full rant.

If you are ever in a position where you are being forced to marry someone of your own sex, put the Jake Signal to the skies, and I will fly and save you.

You are, simply, a bombastic dunderhead.

Hetero-fascism again?

What happened, did the Homophobe farce, did that finally play out? It was only a matter of time before enough people figured out that it was a fake word that in no way meant what they claimed it said.

That word always tickled me: Homophobe: "Fear of self"

Me: "Please stop undermining cultural viability through your attempts to force everyone to pretend that abnormality is normal."

Advocate for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality: "You FEAR YOURSELF PAL! "

Me: LOL! Whuh?

Funny stuff.

But not nearly as funny as the new one, wherein we're FORCING PEOPLE TO MARRY!

Classic Deceit, fraudulently advance as a means to influence the ignorant.

Deceit <=> FRAUD <=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<

homosexuality = socialism?



forcing people to marry?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And FWIW: miscegenation and the laws against it, were not comparable to Homosexuality.

Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, NOT a GENDER or a FUNCTION OF SKIN Color.

A black person is black. They're black no matter who they screw.

Just as a female remains a female no matter who she screws, same with a male.

This is a function of biology. A natural, immutable fact.

Now homosexuality is the ONLY notion which someone can bring to the table and expect 'special status', wherein there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS. At BEST it reflects a hormonal malfunction. Meaning that it is little more than AN ATTITUDE.

One can be queer as the King one day and straight as an arrow the next.

I have SEEN IT, FIRST HAND! WITNESSING THE DAY TO DAY TRANSITION OF A FEMALE, FROM STRAIGHT TO HOMO, consistently cycling, sometimes inside a single 24 hour day.

It's all nonsense.

You want to nibble the notch, FINE... just shut up and do it and keep it to yourself and your ADULT twisted sister.

Because when you ADVERTISE it, you INFLUENCE OTHERS, who may be less capable of understanding that what you're DOING is harmful to YOU and your twisted ass partner. THE KIDS for instance.

Anything gettin' thru here?

Wanting to have sex with a member of another race is a behavior. Were they born with that behavior to want to have sex with someone of another race or did they choose it?

There's nothing preventing you from getting married legally.

Just find a person of the opposite gender and apply for a license. Fill it out. It's automatically approved, then you find a person who is licensed to marry folks and PRESTO! You are legally married.

(Notice folks, that this is the end of the line for her most recent deceitful rationalization, because if she responds to this point, her only option is to discuss what she claims is a private matter, IN PUBLIC.)

Don't you agree SW?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just find a person of the opposite gender and apply for a license. Fill it out.

That is a violation of the 14th.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And FWIW: miscegenation and the laws against it, were not comparable to Homosexuality.

Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, NOT a GENDER or a FUNCTION OF SKIN Color.

A black person is black. They're black no matter who they screw.

Just as a female remains a female no matter who she screws, same with a male.

This is a function of biology. A natural, immutable fact.

Now homosexuality is the ONLY notion which someone can bring to the table and expect 'special status', wherein there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS. At BEST it reflects a hormonal malfunction. Meaning that it is little more than AN ATTITUDE.

One can be queer as the King one day and straight as an arrow the next.

I have SEEN IT, FIRST HAND! WITNESSING THE DAY TO DAY TRANSITION OF A FEMALE, FROM STRAIGHT TO HOMO, consistently cycling, sometimes inside a single 24 hour day.

It's all nonsense.

You want to nibble the notch, FINE... just shut up and do it and keep it to yourself and your ADULT twisted sister.

Because when you ADVERTISE it, you INFLUENCE OTHERS, who may be less capable of understanding that what you're DOING is harmful to YOU and your twisted ass partner. THE KIDS for instance.

Anything gettin' thru here?

Wanting to have sex with a member of another race is a behavior. Were they born with that behavior to want to have sex with someone of another race or did they choose it?

There's nothing preventing you from getting married legally.

Just find a person of the opposite gender and apply for a license. Fill it out. It's automatically approved, then you find a person who is licensed to marry folks and PRESTO! You are legally married.

(Notice folks, that this is the end of the line for her most recent deceitful rationalization, because if she responds to this point, her only option is to discuss what she claims is a private matter, IN PUBLIC.)

Don't you agree SW?

There was nothing preventing individuals from getting married legally under interracial bans.

Just find a person of the same race and apply for a license. Fill it out. It was automatically approved, then they find a person who was licensed to marry folks and PRESTO! They were legally married.

Don't you agree WRMK?


>>>>

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Where_'s hetero-fascism is on full rant.

If you are ever in a position where you are being forced to marry someone of your own sex, put the Jake Signal to the skies, and I will fly and save you.

You are, simply, a bombastic dunderhead.

Hetero-fascism again?

What happened, did the Homophobe farce, did that finally play out? It was only a matter of time before enough people figured out that it was a fake word that in no way meant what they claimed it said.

That word always tickled me: Homophobe: "Fear of self"

Me: "Please stop undermining cultural viability through your attempts to force everyone to pretend that abnormality is normal."

Advocate for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality: "You FEAR YOURSELF PAL! "

Me: LOL! Whuh?

Funny stuff.

But not nearly as funny as the new one, wherein we're FORCING PEOPLE TO MARRY!

Classic Deceit, fraudulently advance as a means to influence the ignorant.

Deceit <=> FRAUD <=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<

homosexuality = socialism?



forcing people to marry?

Does anyone recall who it was the initiated the whole 'forced to marry' thing?

I ask, because Jake, here, is implying that its me. And he knows that its not true, yet he implies it as truth.

(Jake, just to help ya through this, cause I'm a compassionate person, that means that you're either a liar or a fool. It doesn't matter which, because both are equally unenviable and for the same reason.)