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

[beagle9]

Yurt is letting the hurt flow through his buttgroove yet again.

The only reason that beagle9 looks sentient is that he is standing next to Yurt.

To prove the point is that Yurt, who says is for marriage equality, is in a something-some with Sil and beagle9.

Is that an argument you would use in court or just ad hominem to detract from the fact that in this thread "court" you are losing your argument on the merits?

You've read DOMA I'm assuming. You realize they visited the 14th by bringing up Loving v Virginia and decided anyway that gay marriage wasn't allowed in all 50 states, right? You've read how the hub of Windsor/DOMA was a state's right to determine marriage under the context of the question of legality of gay marriage, right?

Of course you have..

...back to your ad hominems now counsellor...

Not only that, but it is some real fillababble..LOL

Yurt is letting the hurt flow through his butt groove yet again. ((Nasty))

The only reason that beagle9 looks sentient is that he is standing next to Yurt.... Yurt he fears your intellect with a statement like this one..

To prove the point is that Yurt, who says is for marriage equality, is in a something-some with Sil and beagle9.

What is a something-some ? Babble babble blah blah blah deflect deflect.. That's Jake !

 

[Seawytch]

FACT: the electorate can take away civil rights....those rights do not come back UNLESS scotus says the do.

This is fundamentally inaccurate.

Government has the authority to place reasonable restrictions on our rights, which although inalienable, are not absolute; government may not ‘take away’ civil rights, and the burden rests most heavily on the state to justify any restrictions it wishes to place on our rights.

The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” meaning equal access to the law, including marriage law. The states are at liberty to seek to deny certain persons access to their laws provided such prohibitions are rationally based, are predicated on objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end – absent these legal criteria any restriction would be in violation of the 14th Amendment, where laws prohibiting same-sex couples fail to manifest these legal criteria.

This is why laws prohibiting children under a certain age from marrying are Constitutional – such laws are applied to everyone equally, they are rationally based, they are predicated on objective, documented evidence, and they pursue a proper legislative end.

If, however, a state were to disallow only Asian-American children under a certain age from marrying, such a measure would be un-Constitutional as it lacks a rational basis, it seeks only to disadvantage one class of persons for no other reason than to make them different from everyone else.

Just as states lack a rational, objective motive to disallow only Asian-American children from marrying, so too do the states lack a rational, objective reason to disallow same-sex couples from marrying, as such measures seek only to disadvantage gay Americans.

Consequently, the Supreme Court does not ‘restore’ rights, rather they uphold or overturn a lower court’s ruling determining whether or not a given state met its burden where a law seeks to restrict a civil right.

With regard to same-sex couples’ right to access marriage law, the Supreme Court will likely review a Federal appeals court’s ruling upholding a Federal judge’s opinion invalidating a state measure denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

Isn't this what Sil has been arguing, and that it is her hopes that the feds or states will not allow access to those who would abuse that access when it comes to children, and the adoption of those children through the allowance of full blown marriage within what she describes as a cult who would abuse that access if were granted the full blown privilege as a right under the law ? Her findings are that they are glorifying a hustler and a bad man who is being lifted up by them even so, and here he has done some despicable things, and yet he is still glorified and lifted up regardless of this bad (or) is she wrong in concerns of that maybe ? Is she wrong within her findings in connection too that access because of what she has found in all that she has learned, and has found out about in the situation ? Could Sil's arguments be brought forth in a case for a state or states to consider, otherwise if she was a representative of such a state or states ? Is there any merits to her findings at all or is she to be ignored in her findings ?

Her "finding" are all bullshit. Children are not any more at risk with gay parents than they are with heterosexual parents. Children of gays are at no disadvantage to kids with straight parents.

Kids' Voices Key On Both Sides Of Gay-Marriage Debate

On Thursday, the American Academy of Pediatrics announced its support of same-sex marriage as being good for kids, Majors says.

The Rev. Gene Robinson, along with his daughter Ella and partner Mark Andrew, attend a news conference after Robinson was confirmed as bishop of the Episcopal Church in Minneapolis in 2003. Robinson was the church's first openly gay bishop, and his daughter is an advocate for gay marriage.

"More than 30 years of social science research tells us that the children have the same outcomes, the same positive outcomes, as children raised by opposite-sex couples," he says.[...]

Yet public opinion is moving rapidly in favor of same-sex marriage. A decade ago, the Pew Research Center found that most Americans thought it would undermine the traditional family. Today, researcher Michael Dimock says, most do not.

"We see a lot of support for same-sex couples raising children," he says. "Sixty-four percent in the current poll say that same-sex couples can be as good as parents as heterosexual couples. That's much higher than support for gay marriage."

In fact, Dimock says, Americans seem to regard same-sex marriage and parenting as two separate issues.​

 

[Seawytch]

>

Ohio and Kentucky - yep.


Need more coffee.





>>>>

States are falling so fast, it's hard to keep track without a Program.

 

[JakeStarkey]

beagle9 and Sil have no points that will stand up in court. Period.

Yurt is simply upset that he lies and gets caught every time.

Guys, it is what it is: it is not going to change.

Since Yurt will troll wherever I post on the Board in hope to derail the thread, I have put him on Ignore.

beagle9, I am going to work with you.

 

[beagle9]

This is fundamentally inaccurate.

Government has the authority to place reasonable restrictions on our rights, which although inalienable, are not absolute; government may not ‘take away’ civil rights, and the burden rests most heavily on the state to justify any restrictions it wishes to place on our rights.

The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” meaning equal access to the law, including marriage law. The states are at liberty to seek to deny certain persons access to their laws provided such prohibitions are rationally based, are predicated on objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end – absent these legal criteria any restriction would be in violation of the 14th Amendment, where laws prohibiting same-sex couples fail to manifest these legal criteria.

This is why laws prohibiting children under a certain age from marrying are Constitutional – such laws are applied to everyone equally, they are rationally based, they are predicated on objective, documented evidence, and they pursue a proper legislative end.

If, however, a state were to disallow only Asian-American children under a certain age from marrying, such a measure would be un-Constitutional as it lacks a rational basis, it seeks only to disadvantage one class of persons for no other reason than to make them different from everyone else.

Just as states lack a rational, objective motive to disallow only Asian-American children from marrying, so too do the states lack a rational, objective reason to disallow same-sex couples from marrying, as such measures seek only to disadvantage gay Americans.

Consequently, the Supreme Court does not ‘restore’ rights, rather they uphold or overturn a lower court’s ruling determining whether or not a given state met its burden where a law seeks to restrict a civil right.

With regard to same-sex couples’ right to access marriage law, the Supreme Court will likely review a Federal appeals court’s ruling upholding a Federal judge’s opinion invalidating a state measure denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

Isn't this what Sil has been arguing, and that it is her hopes that the feds or states will not allow access to those who would abuse that access when it comes to children, and the adoption of those children through the allowance of full blown marriage within what she describes as a cult who would abuse that access if were granted the full blown privilege as a right under the law ? Her findings are that they are glorifying a hustler and a bad man who is being lifted up by them even so, and here he has done some despicable things, and yet he is still glorified and lifted up regardless of this bad (or) is she wrong in concerns of that maybe ? Is she wrong within her findings in connection too that access because of what she has found in all that she has learned, and has found out about in the situation ? Could Sil's arguments be brought forth in a case for a state or states to consider, otherwise if she was a representative of such a state or states ? Is there any merits to her findings at all or is she to be ignored in her findings ?

Her "finding" are all bullshit. Children are not any more at risk with gay parents than they are with heterosexual parents. Children of gays are at no disadvantage to kids with straight parents.

Kids' Voices Key On Both Sides Of Gay-Marriage Debate

On Thursday, the American Academy of Pediatrics announced its support of same-sex marriage as being good for kids, Majors says.

The Rev. Gene Robinson, along with his daughter Ella and partner Mark Andrew, attend a news conference after Robinson was confirmed as bishop of the Episcopal Church in Minneapolis in 2003. Robinson was the church's first openly gay bishop, and his daughter is an advocate for gay marriage.

"More than 30 years of social science research tells us that the children have the same outcomes, the same positive outcomes, as children raised by opposite-sex couples," he says.[...]

Yet public opinion is moving rapidly in favor of same-sex marriage. A decade ago, the Pew Research Center found that most Americans thought it would undermine the traditional family. Today, researcher Michael Dimock says, most do not.

"We see a lot of support for same-sex couples raising children," he says. "Sixty-four percent in the current poll say that same-sex couples can be as good as parents as heterosexual couples. That's much higher than support for gay marriage."

In fact, Dimock says, Americans seem to regard same-sex marriage and parenting as two separate issues.​

Ok, now you say that hetero-sexual's can be bad or just as bad also, so we do understand that there is an admitting that bad can exist on both sides of the situation, but to what degree does this bad exist in either case studies now talked about I wonder ? Is there any good measuring stick for these statistics to be known ? Now does gay parenting (all depending) increase the bad (i.e. add to the bad) or does it decrease the bad (i.e. actually lessons the bad) for the children ? How is any of it actually measured other than the studies or findings that are reported on or investigated within the layers? Has there ever been a thorough investigation into these things, and if so what were the findings, because it is important for you and everyone to know. When children are at risk, it is important to know the patterns of both hetero and gay in which puts them at risk, wouldn't you agree ?

If the findings are egregious on either fronts, then the study needs to reveal what and why they are in this way. Then action needs to be taken in order to save the children from abusive situations, but no one can do that if they don't understand the patterns or the situations if such stats are hidden or not spoken about honestly.

 

[Seawytch]

Ok, now you say that hetero-sexual's can be bad or just as bad also, so we do understand that there is an admitting that bad can exist on both sides of the situation, but to what degree does this bad exist in either case studies now talked about I wonder ? Is there any good measuring stick for these statistics to be known ? Now does gay parenting (all depending) increase the bad (i.e. add to the bad) or does it decrease the bad (i.e. actually lessons the bad) for the children ? How is any of it actually measured other than the studies or findings that are reported on or investigated within the layers? Has there ever been a thorough investigation into these things, and if so what were the findings, because it is important for you and everyone to know. When children are at risk, it is important to know the patterns of both hetero and gay in which puts them at risk, wouldn't you agree ?

If the findings are egregious on either fronts, then the study needs to reveal what and why they are in this way. Then action needs to be taken in order to save the children from abusive situations, but no one can do that if they don't understand the patterns or the situations if such stats are hidden or not spoken about honestly.

The "studies" have all been debunked. Think logically...would the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association ALL have policy statements in support of gay parenting if there was any validity to them?

 

[Silhouette]

Ok, now you say that hetero-sexual's can be bad or just as bad also, so we do understand that there is an admitting that bad can exist on both sides of the situation, but to what degree does this bad exist in either case studies now talked about I wonder ? Is there any good measuring stick for these statistics to be known ? Now does gay parenting (all depending) increase the bad (i.e. add to the bad) or does it decrease the bad (i.e. actually lessons the bad) for the children ? How is any of it actually measured other than the studies or findings that are reported on or investigated within the layers? Has there ever been a thorough investigation into these things, and if so what were the findings, because it is important for you and everyone to know. When children are at risk, it is important to know the patterns of both hetero and gay in which puts them at risk, wouldn't you agree ?

If the findings are egregious on either fronts, then the study needs to reveal what and why they are in this way. Then action needs to be taken in order to save the children from abusive situations, but no one can do that if they don't understand the patterns or the situations if such stats are hidden or not spoken about honestly.

The "studies" have all been debunked. Think logically...would the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association ALL have policy statements in support of gay parenting if there was any validity to them?

Every single one of those entities you mentioned is beholden/takes their walking instructions from the American Psychological Association. What's wrong with that? Maybe that a cabal of gay people overtook it in the 1970s, summarily removed themselves from the DSM and then quietly "disappeared" the ruling Leona Tyler principle from the bedrock of its structure. It was perhaps to date the most insidious infiltration in the "let's inappropriately access children" movement of the church of LGBT I can think of.

A former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), who also introduced the motion to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness in 1975, says that the APA has been taken over by “ultraliberals” beholden to the “gay rights movement,” who refuse to allow an open debate on reparative therapy for homosexuality.

Dr. Nicholas Cummings was President of the APA from 1979 to 1980, and also served as a member of the organization’s Council of Representatives. He served for years as Chief of Mental Health with the Kaiser-Permanente Health Maintenance Organization, and is the author of the book “Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm.”

In an interview with representatives of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) in late April, Cummings said that the organization’s problems began with the rejection of the Leona Tyler Principle, which required that all public positions of the APA be supported by scientific evidence Anglican Mainstream » Blog Archive » Former president of APA says organization controlled by ?gay rights? movement

The APA “started changing pretty drastically by the late 1980s,” said Cummings. “By the mid 1990s, the Leona Tyler principle was absolutely forgotten, that political stances seemed to override any scientific results. Cherry-picking results became the mode. The gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.”...

...“The first time it came up, and I was a member of [the] Council, this would have been, oh, 1975, because I remember that that’s when I made the resolution,” Cummings said. “I made the resolution that being gay was not a mental illness, that it was characterological. And it passed the Council of Representatives. And that was the first issue that came up. I also said with that, that the APA, if it passes this resolution, will also vote to continue research that demonstrates whatever the research demonstrates. Unbiased, open research. It was never done.” http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/fo...rganization-controlled-by-gay-rights-movement

I'll stick with the Mayo Clinic and the CDC and the compilation in Canada of 300 researchers who all agree that the evidence is overwhelming that homosexuality is learned and learned from social or other environmental pressures. You don't replace scientific studies with political ones and cite them to run all the world of psychology and medicine.

When you do, you get things happening like MDs performing amputations on perfectly healthy organs in stark violation of the hippocratic oath of medicine. Like in the case of enabling the mental issues of so-called transsexuals by helping them mutilate their bodies instead of helping them come to terms with the body they were born in.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Fail.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Fail.

These aren't "my facts":

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

Mayo Clinic 2007

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review

James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

FACT: the electorate can take away civil rights....those rights do not come back UNLESS scotus says the do.

This is fundamentally inaccurate.

Government has the authority to place reasonable restrictions on our rights, which although inalienable, are not absolute; government may not ‘take away’ civil rights, and the burden rests most heavily on the state to justify any restrictions it wishes to place on our rights.

The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” meaning equal access to the law, including marriage law. The states are at liberty to seek to deny certain persons access to their laws provided such prohibitions are rationally based, are predicated on objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end – absent these legal criteria any restriction would be in violation of the 14th Amendment, where laws prohibiting same-sex couples fail to manifest these legal criteria.

This is why laws prohibiting children under a certain age from marrying are Constitutional – such laws are applied to everyone equally, they are rationally based, they are predicated on objective, documented evidence, and they pursue a proper legislative end.

If, however, a state were to disallow only Asian-American children under a certain age from marrying, such a measure would be un-Constitutional as it lacks a rational basis, it seeks only to disadvantage one class of persons for no other reason than to make them different from everyone else.

Just as states lack a rational, objective motive to disallow only Asian-American children from marrying, so too do the states lack a rational, objective reason to disallow same-sex couples from marrying, as such measures seek only to disadvantage gay Americans.

Consequently, the Supreme Court does not ‘restore’ rights, rather they uphold or overturn a lower court’s ruling determining whether or not a given state met its burden where a law seeks to restrict a civil right.

With regard to same-sex couples’ right to access marriage law, the Supreme Court will likely review a Federal appeals court’s ruling upholding a Federal judge’s opinion invalidating a state measure denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

Isn't this what Sil has been arguing, and that it is her hopes that the feds or states will not allow access to those who would abuse that access when it comes to children, and the adoption of those children through the allowance of full blown marriage within what she describes as a cult who would abuse that access if were granted the full blown privilege as a right under the law ? Her findings are that they are glorifying a hustler and a bad man who is being lifted up by them even so, and here he has done some despicable things, and yet he is still glorified and lifted up regardless of this bad (or) is she wrong in concerns of that maybe ? Is she wrong within her findings in connection too that access because of what she has found in all that she has learned, and has found out about in the situation ? Could Sil's arguments be brought forth in a case for a state or states to consider, otherwise if she was a representative of such a state or states ? Is there any merits to her findings at all or is she to be ignored in her findings ?

There is no objective, documented evidence that children in a family with same-sex parents are ‘at risk.’

Because seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law has no rational basis, is not supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursues no proper legislative end, such laws are un-Constitutional, and are invalidated accordingly.

Amendment 3 sought only to make gay Americans different from everyone else. “This [Utah] cannot do. A state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans (1996).

Consequently the ‘children at risk’ argument fails, it’s merely a pathetic, desperate, last-ditch attempt by those hostile to gay Americans to deny them their civil liberties.

 

[Seawytch]

And yet, oddly, Sil's argument isn't winning in court (or in public opinion). Why is that I wonder? Could it be because the sane world doesn't discount the professional opinion of well renowned organizations and peer reviewed journals?

The scientific community is in agreement that sexual orientation is not a choice or a "learned behavior". You can't make yourself gay or straight (which is why "reparative therapy" has a success rate under 10% and is dismissed by the medical and psychological community and junk science).

 

[Silhouette]

[

There is no objective, documented evidence that children in a family with same-sex parents are ‘at risk.’ ...

... the ‘children at risk’ argument fails, it’s merely a pathetic, desperate, last-ditch attempt by those hostile to gay Americans to deny them their civil liberties.

Except orphaned children that via marriage in Utah can then be accessed by the new initiates into the top-tier preference: and the lawsuits they will file then if denied.

This presents a problem to Utah's orphans. Over 60 LGBT groups in the US, Canada and Mexico lobbied fiercely to have the Harvey Milk postage stamp issued. Harvey Milk is renowned by the LGBT community for being the first openly gay man to hold a public office.

Only, "openly gay" meant in his case, sodomizing teen orphaned/runaway boys on drugs, one after the other. Several of them committed suicide as a result.

Worse still, knowing this, those 60 LGBT groups promoted him anyway as representative of the values of the LGBT movement. So that presents a problem for Utah's "only married people can adopt" issue:

 

[Barb]

[

There is no objective, documented evidence that children in a family with same-sex parents are ‘at risk.’ ...

... the ‘children at risk’ argument fails, it’s merely a pathetic, desperate, last-ditch attempt by those hostile to gay Americans to deny them their civil liberties.

Except orphaned children that via marriage in Utah can then be accessed by the new initiates into the top-tier preference: and the lawsuits they will file then if denied.

This presents a problem to Utah's orphans. Over 60 LGBT groups in the US, Canada and Mexico lobbied fiercely to have the Harvey Milk postage stamp issued. Harvey Milk is renowned by the LGBT community for being the first openly gay man to hold a public office.

Only, "openly gay" meant in his case, sodomizing teen orphaned/runaway boys on drugs, one after the other. Several of them committed suicide as a result.

Worse still, knowing this, those 60 LGBT groups promoted him anyway as representative of the values of the LGBT movement. So that presents a problem for Utah's "only married people can adopt" issue:

you have red coming each and every time you falsely tie pedophilia with homosexuality. every. fucking. time. "several of them?" you lying skank. Meanwhile, that man had problems all his own, ones that had NO relationship with Harvey Milk.

 

[Silhouette]

you have red coming each and every time you falsely tie pedophilia with homosexuality. every. fucking. time. "several of them?" you lying skank. Meanwhile, that man had problems all his own, ones that had NO relationship with Harvey Milk.

'

People can verify whether or not I am "lying" by reading the biography of Harvey Milk. And they can verify what you stand for by reading your autobiography here at this website as it unfolds...

 

[jodylee]

This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.


Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News


The Supreme Court on Monday put gay marriage on hold in Utah, giving the state time to appeal a federal judge's ruling against Utah's same-sex marriage ban.

The court issued a brief order Monday blocking any new same-sex unions in the state. The ruling comes after a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay and lesbian couples' constitutional rights.

so you agree with Puttin?

 

[Yurt]

clayton, can states violate your civil rights?

yes or no.

 

[Yurt]

yes they can

see prop 8

See the SCOTUS ruling, friend. States' cannot violate civil rights. Why would you lie about this?

jake is a special kind of retard

 

[Jarlaxle]

you have red coming each and every time you falsely tie pedophilia with homosexuality. every. fucking. time. "several of them?" you lying skank. Meanwhile, that man had problems all his own, ones that had NO relationship with Harvey Milk.

'

People can verify whether or not I am "lying" by reading the biography of Harvey Milk. And they can verify what you stand for by reading your autobiography here at this website as it unfolds...

You lie every time you open your cake flap, Silly. Are you CAPABLE of discerning the truth from a lie anymore?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Fail.

These aren't "my facts":

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

Mayo Clinic 2007

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review

James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

They are medical issues, not constitutional barriers.

Yes, it is only your opinion.

 

[Yurt]

See the SCOTUS ruling, friend. States' cannot violate civil rights. Why would you lie about this?

jake is a special kind of retard

jake is more stupid than a retard