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.
Oh and Fishy, we don't give a shit how you refer you our legal marriage, we KNOW we're married legally and spiritually. Our kids know it too and that's what's most important.
Pediatricians: Gay Marriage Good for Kids' Health
and I don't give a shit how you and the state of california define it.
The people of your state voted against you twice, but you found a judge to overturn the will of the prople---------so much for democracy.
Maybe the San Andreas fault will solve the problem for you and us.
You can't pass laws that violate the U.S. Constitution. Surely this is not new information to you is it?
You do realize that more than one judge has affirmed his ruling don't you? He wrote his opinion so incredibly well that the SCOTUS justices were afraid to rule on the case and instead kicked the can down the road. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for the defenders of equality, they won't be able to put it off for long.
Did you just wish an Earthquake on me Fishy? How sweet.
Oh and Fishy, we don't give a shit how you refer you our legal marriage, we KNOW we're married legally and spiritually. Our kids know it too and that's what's most important.
Pediatricians: Gay Marriage Good for Kids' Health
"Gay marriage good for children's health"
Yes, nothing says "healthy" like coming from a fucked-up home where the parents aren't actually married (well, in 98% of all cases anyway), where you have 2 mom's or 2 dad's and thus have zero balance as nature intended, and where that selfish parental arrangement causes the children to be complete outcasts at any event.
Man, you have to love the libtards definition of "healthy"...
Words change, (some) people progress
Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you the reason for the cancer known as liberalism/progressivism/etc. in one tidy little fragmented sentence.
This really does sum up why liberals collapse society (ahem - Detroit!). Words have no meaning to a Dumbocrat. A signed, legal document (ahem - Constitution!) means nothing to a Dumncorat. Laws mean nothing to a Dumbocrat. Even in black & white, signed by them, they will try to make the case that "words change".
My dear, words do not change (well, not to a civilized, educated person anyway - sadly giving in to libtard Dumbocrats has forced words to have no meaning). Freedom, to a civilized, educated person means the same thing now as it did 300 years ago. Murder, to a civilized, educated person means the same thing now as it did 300 years ago. Life, to a civilized, educated person means the same thing now as it did 300 years ago.
But being that you're a Dumbocrat, I don't expect you to understand any of that. I just expect you to march society on a path to destruction where gays are worshipped as "wonders of society", NAMBLA is the second most important organization for protecting "freedom" (behind Think Progress of course), and poverty is celebrated because it forces all of us to live "equal". Ah, the libtard "utopia"! Doesn't it just sound grand? Well, that is, if they don't change the meaning of "grand" in the near future...
I didn't say they had no meaning, I said some change and progress. Emphasis on the some, caveweiler.
and I don't give a shit how you and the state of california define it.
The people of your state voted against you twice, but you found a judge to overturn the will of the prople---------so much for democracy.
Maybe the San Andreas fault will solve the problem for you and us.
You can't pass laws that violate the U.S. Constitution. Surely this is not new information to you is it?
You do realize that more than one judge has affirmed his ruling don't you? He wrote his opinion so incredibly well that the SCOTUS justices were afraid to rule on the case and instead kicked the can down the road. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for the defenders of equality, they won't be able to put it off for long.
Did you just wish an Earthquake on me Fishy? How sweet.
No matter how many times you LIE Seawytch, it will never change reality. If you had taken just 10 minutes out of your life, you would know that "marriage" is not a right. No such right exists in the U.S. Constitution. It never has in our 237 year history. Not even for heterosexual people.
And therefore, marriage is something that is subject to the will of the people.
Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you the reason for the cancer known as liberalism/progressivism/etc. in one tidy little fragmented sentence.
This really does sum up why liberals collapse society (ahem - Detroit!). Words have no meaning to a Dumbocrat. A signed, legal document (ahem - Constitution!) means nothing to a Dumncorat. Laws mean nothing to a Dumbocrat. Even in black & white, signed by them, they will try to make the case that "words change".
My dear, words do not change (well, not to a civilized, educated person anyway - sadly giving in to libtard Dumbocrats has forced words to have no meaning). Freedom, to a civilized, educated person means the same thing now as it did 300 years ago. Murder, to a civilized, educated person means the same thing now as it did 300 years ago. Life, to a civilized, educated person means the same thing now as it did 300 years ago.
But being that you're a Dumbocrat, I don't expect you to understand any of that. I just expect you to march society on a path to destruction where gays are worshipped as "wonders of society", NAMBLA is the second most important organization for protecting "freedom" (behind Think Progress of course), and poverty is celebrated because it forces all of us to live "equal". Ah, the libtard "utopia"! Doesn't it just sound grand? Well, that is, if they don't change the meaning of "grand" in the near future...
I didn't say they had no meaning, I said some change and progress. Emphasis on the some, caveweiler.
Hey genius - if it can change, then it doesn't mean what it meant before and therefore has no meaning...
Oh and Fishy, we don't give a shit how you refer you our legal marriage, we KNOW we're married legally and spiritually. Our kids know it too and that's what's most important.
Pediatricians: Gay Marriage Good for Kids' Health
"Gay marriage good for children's health"
Yes, nothing says "healthy" like coming from a fucked-up home where the parents aren't actually married (well, in 98% of all cases anyway), where you have 2 mom's or 2 dad's and thus have zero balance as nature intended, and where that selfish parental arrangement causes the children to be complete outcasts at any event.
Man, you have to love the libtards definition of "healthy"...
You just made the point of the pediatrician's statement about being "actually married".
Our children are quite healthy, as study after study has shown, despite our being able to legally marry in only 13 states. Is that why you're afraid to treat gays equally in regards to marriage laws? Afraid if we're on an even playing field we'll do it better than y'all?
Our kids don't think we're selfish for wanting them, planning and preparing for them (no accidental pregnancies here) and then loving them unconditionally before they'd even arrived. Our kids are doing fine. Worry about kids that actually need your pity...like the gay ones growing up in homes where their parents reject and shun them for their orientation.
Oh and Fishy, we don't give a shit how you refer you our legal marriage, we KNOW we're married legally and spiritually. Our kids know it too and that's what's most important.
Pediatricians: Gay Marriage Good for Kids' Health
and I don't give a shit how you and the state of california define it.
The people of your state voted against you twice, but you found a judge to overturn the will of the prople---------so much for democracy.
Maybe the San Andreas fault will solve the problem for you and us.
You can't pass laws that violate the U.S. Constitution. Surely this is not new information to you is it?
You do realize that more than one judge has affirmed his ruling don't you? He wrote his opinion so incredibly well that the SCOTUS justices were afraid to rule on the case and instead kicked the can down the road. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for the defenders of equality, they won't be able to put it off for long.
Did you just wish an Earthquake on me Fishy? How sweet.
I didn't say they had no meaning, I said some change and progress. Emphasis on the some, caveweiler.
Hey genius - if it can change, then it doesn't mean what it meant before and therefore has no meaning...
NAMBLA? Really? Getting desperate again I see. Grab a page out of the dictionary, Rotty, and see how many words have more than one meaning.
Here, I'll help in case you don't have one.
Words with More Than One Meaning
"Gay marriage good for children's health"
Yes, nothing says "healthy" like coming from a fucked-up home where the parents aren't actually married (well, in 98% of all cases anyway), where you have 2 mom's or 2 dad's and thus have zero balance as nature intended, and where that selfish parental arrangement causes the children to be complete outcasts at any event.
Man, you have to love the libtards definition of "healthy"...
You just made the point of the pediatrician's statement about being "actually married".
Our children are quite healthy, as study after study has shown, despite our being able to legally marry in only 13 states. Is that why you're afraid to treat gays equally in regards to marriage laws? Afraid if we're on an even playing field we'll do it better than y'all?
Our kids don't think we're selfish for wanting them, planning and preparing for them (no accidental pregnancies here) and then loving them unconditionally before they'd even arrived. Our kids are doing fine. Worry about kids that actually need your pity...like the gay ones growing up in homes where their parents reject and shun them for their orientation.
Well of course not you buffoon. You've brainwashed them since birth. It's all they know. Why don't you ask someone who hasn't been influenced by you to believe you are right?!?
I'm still waiting for you to answer that brilliant question by the (13 year old?) girl who showed more intelligence than every libtard on the planet combined: "which parent does she not need"? According to gays, redundantly having two mom's or two dad's works just fine. So which parent of this bright young lady is "unnecessary"?
I didn't say they had no meaning, I said some change and progress. Emphasis on the some, caveweiler.
Hey genius - if it can change, then it doesn't mean what it meant before and therefore has no meaning...
NAMBLA? Really? Getting desperate again I see. Grab a page out of the dictionary, Rotty, and see how many words have more than one meaning.
Here, I'll help in case you don't have one.
Words with More Than One Meaning
You just made the point of the pediatrician's statement about being "actually married".
Our children are quite healthy, as study after study has shown, despite our being able to legally marry in only 13 states. Is that why you're afraid to treat gays equally in regards to marriage laws? Afraid if we're on an even playing field we'll do it better than y'all?
Our kids don't think we're selfish for wanting them, planning and preparing for them (no accidental pregnancies here) and then loving them unconditionally before they'd even arrived. Our kids are doing fine. Worry about kids that actually need your pity...like the gay ones growing up in homes where their parents reject and shun them for their orientation.
Well of course not you buffoon. You've brainwashed them since birth. It's all they know. Why don't you ask someone who hasn't been influenced by you to believe you are right?!?
I'm still waiting for you to answer that brilliant question by the (13 year old?) girl who showed more intelligence than every libtard on the planet combined: "which parent does she not need"? According to gays, redundantly having two mom's or two dad's works just fine. So which parent of this bright young lady is "unnecessary"?
That's a ridiculous strawman. Which parent would you take from our children? Well both i guess since you wished an earthquake on us.
Nobody is "taking" anything from anybody. You simply have to understand that families don't fit your neat little Ozzie and Harriet fantasy, but they can be happy, healthy, well-adjusted and loving.
You just made the point of the pediatrician's statement about being "actually married".
Our children are quite healthy, as study after study has shown, despite our being able to legally marry in only 13 states. Is that why you're afraid to treat gays equally in regards to marriage laws? Afraid if we're on an even playing field we'll do it better than y'all?
Our kids don't think we're selfish for wanting them, planning and preparing for them (no accidental pregnancies here) and then loving them unconditionally before they'd even arrived. Our kids are doing fine. Worry about kids that actually need your pity...like the gay ones growing up in homes where their parents reject and shun them for their orientation.
Well of course not you buffoon. You've brainwashed them since birth. It's all they know. Why don't you ask someone who hasn't been influenced by you to believe you are right?!?
I'm still waiting for you to answer that brilliant question by the (13 year old?) girl who showed more intelligence than every libtard on the planet combined: "which parent does she not need"? According to gays, redundantly having two mom's or two dad's works just fine. So which parent of this bright young lady is "unnecessary"?
That's a ridiculous strawman. Which parent would you take from our children? Well both i guess since you wished an earthquake on us.
Nobody is "taking" anything from anybody. You simply have to understand that families don't fit your neat little Ozzie and Harriet fantasy, but they can be happy, healthy, well-adjusted and loving.
Well of course not you buffoon. You've brainwashed them since birth. It's all they know. Why don't you ask someone who hasn't been influenced by you to believe you are right?!?
I'm still waiting for you to answer that brilliant question by the (13 year old?) girl who showed more intelligence than every libtard on the planet combined: "which parent does she not need"? According to gays, redundantly having two mom's or two dad's works just fine. So which parent of this bright young lady is "unnecessary"?
That's a ridiculous strawman. Which parent would you take from our children? Well both i guess since you wished an earthquake on us.
Nobody is "taking" anything from anybody. You simply have to understand that families don't fit your neat little Ozzie and Harriet fantasy, but they can be happy, healthy, well-adjusted and loving.
My wife has a gay aunt. She is now almost 80. Over the years she has had several "roommates". But she was never presumptuous enough to call any of her relationships a "marriage". I respect her for her honesty and openness. She realized that her lifestyle was out of the norm but did not try to force anyone to condone or sanctify it.
You, on the other hand, are trying to get the govt to force the rest of us to accept your aberant lifestyle as some sort of alternative normalcy. Its not.
You can't pass laws that violate the U.S. Constitution. Surely this is not new information to you is it?
You do realize that more than one judge has affirmed his ruling don't you? He wrote his opinion so incredibly well that the SCOTUS justices were afraid to rule on the case and instead kicked the can down the road. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for the defenders of equality, they won't be able to put it off for long.
Did you just wish an Earthquake on me Fishy? How sweet.
No matter how many times you LIE Seawytch, it will never change reality. If you had taken just 10 minutes out of your life, you would know that "marriage" is not a right. No such right exists in the U.S. Constitution. It never has in our 237 year history. Not even for heterosexual people.
And therefore, marriage is something that is subject to the will of the people.
If you just read Supreme Court case law, you'd know you're bloviating out of your virginal fourth point of contact.
If they both were born to be lesbians, why did one jump the fence?If youre so easily confused then perhaps you should simply not concern yourself with it, and allow Americans to conduct their private lives as they see fit, free from interference by the state.
This has nothing to do with the state.
it also has nothing to do with you not allowing Americans to conduct their private lives as they see fit......Jones should learn how to read.....but then he is somewhat of a dipshit....
Well of course not you buffoon. You've brainwashed them since birth. It's all they know. Why don't you ask someone who hasn't been influenced by you to believe you are right?!?
I'm still waiting for you to answer that brilliant question by the (13 year old?) girl who showed more intelligence than every libtard on the planet combined: "which parent does she not need"? According to gays, redundantly having two mom's or two dad's works just fine. So which parent of this bright young lady is "unnecessary"?
That's a ridiculous strawman. Which parent would you take from our children? Well both i guess since you wished an earthquake on us.
Nobody is "taking" anything from anybody. You simply have to understand that families don't fit your neat little Ozzie and Harriet fantasy, but they can be happy, healthy, well-adjusted and loving.
Whenever a liberal has been pinned into a corner with facts they cry "strawman" (and what's hilarious is they don't even know what it means).
I've answered your imitation of this question many times and I'll answer it again: EITHER one of you. You're both women, therefore you are redundant. You can be replaced by a man. Your S.O. can be replaced by a man.
Also, stop with your disingenuous response of "nobody is taking her parent". Her question is posed not because she "fears" you are "taking" a parent, but because it illustrates the absurdity of gay parenting. Which parent is unnecessary and thus can be replaced by someone of the same sex of the remaking parent?
and I don't give a shit how you and the state of california define it.
The people of your state voted against you twice, but you found a judge to overturn the will of the prople---------so much for democracy.
Maybe the San Andreas fault will solve the problem for you and us.
You can't pass laws that violate the U.S. Constitution. Surely this is not new information to you is it?
You do realize that more than one judge has affirmed his ruling don't you? He wrote his opinion so incredibly well that the SCOTUS justices were afraid to rule on the case and instead kicked the can down the road. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for the defenders of equality, they won't be able to put it off for long.
Did you just wish an Earthquake on me Fishy? How sweet.
There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees gay marriage, or any marriage for that matter. Yes, liberal judges have overruled the will of the people---I consider that a violation of the constitution.
Maybe God put the San Andreas fault where it is for a reason. Time will tell.
Hey genius - if it can change, then it doesn't mean what it meant before and therefore has no meaning...
NAMBLA? Really? Getting desperate again I see. Grab a page out of the dictionary, Rotty, and see how many words have more than one meaning.
Here, I'll help in case you don't have one.
Words with More Than One Meaning
Well now we see Seawytch (out of desperation - yet again) move the goalposts. When did we ever discuss "more than one meaning"? The discussion was CHANGE the meaning (you know, like when the Constitution guarantees our right to keep & bear arms and libtards try to change that and make the case that it's not "really" what it means?).
No matter how many times you LIE Seawytch, it will never change reality. If you had taken just 10 minutes out of your life, you would know that "marriage" is not a right. No such right exists in the U.S. Constitution. It never has in our 237 year history. Not even for heterosexual people.
And therefore, marriage is something that is subject to the will of the people.
If you just read Supreme Court case law, you'd know you're bloviating out of your virginal fourth point of contact.
My dear, as I have also explained to you a zillion times already, the Supreme Court has zero authortity to define the Constitution. It simply doesn't exist. Quite the contrary, the U.S. Constitution has authority over the Supreme Court.
The job of the Supreme Court is to rule on a case as that issue applies to the Constitution. It is not within their power to rule on the Constitution itself. The Constitution is written in black & white and says exactly what it says (this goes back to libtards believing words have no meaning).
