DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[JakeStarkey]

mumble snerf a derp mumble goes bigrebnc.,

 

[bigrebnc1775]

trolls back on the boards.^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[JakeStarkey]

mumble snerf a derp mumble goes bigrebnc.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

you need to take those dicks out of your hands your typing is getting erratic

 

[WinterBorn]

I never said they recruit anyone I said they indoctrinate them. You lying fuck.

Same thing, numbnuts. If they take straight kinds and "indoctrinate them" into being gay it is recruiting.

But you can tell us all how aggravated sodomy, statutory sodomy and sodomy are all the same thing. Coming from a cop that is laughable. maybe this shows you were never a cop, if the words "statutory" and "aggravated" don't mean anything to you.

Same thing, numbnuts. If they take straight kinds and "indoctrinate them" into being gay it is recruiting

.
No it isn't,brain dead bitch.

But you can tell us all how aggravated sodomy, statutory sodomy and sodomy are all the same thing. Coming from a cop that is laughable. maybe this shows you were never a cop, if the words "statutory" and "aggravated" don't mean anything to you

I said people are still being arrested for those crimes your argument has been they have not.

Class dismissed.

Another lie. You claimed that sodomy is illegal. And you claimed aggravated sodomy and statutory sodomy are the same as sodomy. And that is something a cop would know the difference in.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Same thing, numbnuts. If they take straight kinds and "indoctrinate them" into being gay it is recruiting.

But you can tell us all how aggravated sodomy, statutory sodomy and sodomy are all the same thing. Coming from a cop that is laughable. maybe this shows you were never a cop, if the words "statutory" and "aggravated" don't mean anything to you.

.
No it isn't,brain dead bitch.

But you can tell us all how aggravated sodomy, statutory sodomy and sodomy are all the same thing. Coming from a cop that is laughable. maybe this shows you were never a cop, if the words "statutory" and "aggravated" don't mean anything to you

I said people are still being arrested for those crimes your argument has been they have not.

Class dismissed.

Another lie. You claimed that sodomy is illegal. And you claimed aggravated sodomy and statutory sodomy are the same as sodomy. And that is something a cop would know the difference in.

It is illegal haven't I proven that already? or do you have too much cum covering your eyes?

Continued Enforcement


Nearly a decade after Lawrence, many states have continued to enforce laws prohibiting private, consensual sex between same-sex adults.

In Michigan, the practice of charging and convicting gay men under the state’s “Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature” or “Gross Indecency” laws still exists, with violators facing the risk of having to register as sex offenders and prison sentences of up to 15 years. According to Rudy Serra, attorney and Chairman of the Executive Clemency Council for the State of Michigan, police officers continue to aggressively prosecute LGBT people without legal challenge:


Lawrence’s Loopholes

Several state legislatures and courts have attempted to exploit loopholes in the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas in order to continue enforcing laws criminalizing homosexuality. At the end of the majority opinion in Lawrence, Justice Kennedy wrote a paragraph outlining the parameters of the Supreme Court’s decision:

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. [emphasis added]
This paragraph has been the source of a great amount of ambiguity for those attempting to determine the constitutionality of state sodomy laws. It is frequently cited by state and lower federal courts in order to attempt to limit the scope of Lawrence, especially when dealing with prostitution and sex with minors. As Joseph Wardenski, a trial attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, wrote:

Despite the Lawrence majority's broad themes of equality and dignity for gay men and lesbians, several commentators have argued that the decision's scope is much less expansive. Indeed, in several early decisions applying Lawrence, courts have interpreted the decision quite narrowly. The Court itself has thus far declined to weigh in on the correct reach of Lawrence. [Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 95 No. 4, 6/22/05, via Nexis]

State Sodomy Laws Continue To Target LGBT Americans | Equality Matters

 

[JakeStarkey]

August 2011? Really, bigrebnc? A few jurisdictions are having trouble with the law, trying to get around it, and are getting slapped down? That's it? Wow.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

August 2011? Really, bigrebnc? A few jurisdictions are having trouble with the law, trying to get around it, and are getting slapped down? That's it? Wow.

Can you site in court cases that have change the source?

 

[SillyWabbit]

I have to take crap, so I'm just checking in.

Wait, Siri says I'm a dork.

I can't throw the first stone (I'd probably hit myself). Are you sure you two aren't the same person? Cuz you both keep sucking each other over the same shit.

Here: Abraham Lincoln Vampire Killer

---or----

Shit, I'm watching hockey.

 

[SillyWabbit]

August 2011? Really, bigrebnc? A few jurisdictions are having trouble with the law, trying to get around it, and are getting slapped down? That's it? Wow.

Can you site in court cases that have change the source?

You're not on crack are you?

My teeth are melting.

 

[WinterBorn]

I never said they recruit anyone I said they indoctrinate them. You lying fuck.

Same thing, numbnuts. If they take straight kinds and "indoctrinate them" into being gay it is recruiting.

But you can tell us all how aggravated sodomy, statutory sodomy and sodomy are all the same thing. Coming from a cop that is laughable. maybe this shows you were never a cop, if the words "statutory" and "aggravated" don't mean anything to you.

Same thing, numbnuts. If they take straight kinds and "indoctrinate them" into being gay it is recruiting

.
No it isn't,brain dead bitch.

Tell me the difference between recruiting kids to be gay and indoctrinating straight kids into being gay.

 

[WinterBorn]

.
No it isn't,brain dead bitch.



I said people are still being arrested for those crimes your argument has been they have not.

Class dismissed.

Another lie. You claimed that sodomy is illegal. And you claimed aggravated sodomy and statutory sodomy are the same as sodomy. And that is something a cop would know the difference in.

It is illegal haven't I proven that already? or do you have too much cum covering your eyes?

Continued Enforcement


Nearly a decade after Lawrence, many states have continued to enforce laws prohibiting private, consensual sex between same-sex adults.

In Michigan, the practice of charging and convicting gay men under the state’s “Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature” or “Gross Indecency” laws still exists, with violators facing the risk of having to register as sex offenders and prison sentences of up to 15 years. According to Rudy Serra, attorney and Chairman of the Executive Clemency Council for the State of Michigan, police officers continue to aggressively prosecute LGBT people without legal challenge:


Lawrence’s Loopholes

Several state legislatures and courts have attempted to exploit loopholes in the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas in order to continue enforcing laws criminalizing homosexuality. At the end of the majority opinion in Lawrence, Justice Kennedy wrote a paragraph outlining the parameters of the Supreme Court’s decision:

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. [emphasis added]
This paragraph has been the source of a great amount of ambiguity for those attempting to determine the constitutionality of state sodomy laws. It is frequently cited by state and lower federal courts in order to attempt to limit the scope of Lawrence, especially when dealing with prostitution and sex with minors. As Joseph Wardenski, a trial attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, wrote:

Despite the Lawrence majority's broad themes of equality and dignity for gay men and lesbians, several commentators have argued that the decision's scope is much less expansive. Indeed, in several early decisions applying Lawrence, courts have interpreted the decision quite narrowly. The Court itself has thus far declined to weigh in on the correct reach of Lawrence. [Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 95 No. 4, 6/22/05, via Nexis]

State Sodomy Laws Continue To Target LGBT Americans | Equality Matters

No, you have only shown that bigots are harrassing gays using invalid laws.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Another lie. You claimed that sodomy is illegal. And you claimed aggravated sodomy and statutory sodomy are the same as sodomy. And that is something a cop would know the difference in.

It is illegal haven't I proven that already? or do you have too much cum covering your eyes?

Continued Enforcement


Nearly a decade after Lawrence, many states have continued to enforce laws prohibiting private, consensual sex between same-sex adults.

In Michigan, the practice of charging and convicting gay men under the state’s “Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature” or “Gross Indecency” laws still exists, with violators facing the risk of having to register as sex offenders and prison sentences of up to 15 years. According to Rudy Serra, attorney and Chairman of the Executive Clemency Council for the State of Michigan, police officers continue to aggressively prosecute LGBT people without legal challenge:


Lawrence’s Loopholes

Several state legislatures and courts have attempted to exploit loopholes in the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas in order to continue enforcing laws criminalizing homosexuality. At the end of the majority opinion in Lawrence, Justice Kennedy wrote a paragraph outlining the parameters of the Supreme Court’s decision:

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. [emphasis added]
This paragraph has been the source of a great amount of ambiguity for those attempting to determine the constitutionality of state sodomy laws. It is frequently cited by state and lower federal courts in order to attempt to limit the scope of Lawrence, especially when dealing with prostitution and sex with minors. As Joseph Wardenski, a trial attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, wrote:

Despite the Lawrence majority's broad themes of equality and dignity for gay men and lesbians, several commentators have argued that the decision's scope is much less expansive. Indeed, in several early decisions applying Lawrence, courts have interpreted the decision quite narrowly. The Court itself has thus far declined to weigh in on the correct reach of Lawrence. [Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 95 No. 4, 6/22/05, via Nexis]

State Sodomy Laws Continue To Target LGBT Americans | Equality Matters

No, you have only shown that bigots are harrassing gays using invalid laws.

So let's just forget about those loops holes that was mentioned in that pro gay source I used.

 

[WinterBorn]

It is illegal haven't I proven that already? or do you have too much cum covering your eyes?

Continued Enforcement


Nearly a decade after Lawrence, many states have continued to enforce laws prohibiting private, consensual sex between same-sex adults.

In Michigan, the practice of charging and convicting gay men under the state’s “Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature” or “Gross Indecency” laws still exists, with violators facing the risk of having to register as sex offenders and prison sentences of up to 15 years. According to Rudy Serra, attorney and Chairman of the Executive Clemency Council for the State of Michigan, police officers continue to aggressively prosecute LGBT people without legal challenge:


Lawrence’s Loopholes

Several state legislatures and courts have attempted to exploit loopholes in the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas in order to continue enforcing laws criminalizing homosexuality. At the end of the majority opinion in Lawrence, Justice Kennedy wrote a paragraph outlining the parameters of the Supreme Court’s decision:

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. [emphasis added]
This paragraph has been the source of a great amount of ambiguity for those attempting to determine the constitutionality of state sodomy laws. It is frequently cited by state and lower federal courts in order to attempt to limit the scope of Lawrence, especially when dealing with prostitution and sex with minors. As Joseph Wardenski, a trial attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, wrote:

Despite the Lawrence majority's broad themes of equality and dignity for gay men and lesbians, several commentators have argued that the decision's scope is much less expansive. Indeed, in several early decisions applying Lawrence, courts have interpreted the decision quite narrowly. The Court itself has thus far declined to weigh in on the correct reach of Lawrence. [Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 95 No. 4, 6/22/05, via Nexis]

State Sodomy Laws Continue To Target LGBT Americans | Equality Matters

No, you have only shown that bigots are harrassing gays using invalid laws.

So let's just forget about those loops holes that was mentioned in that pro gay source I used.

Loopholes? If sodomy is not illegal, why would they need to try and find loopholes?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Same thing, numbnuts. If they take straight kinds and "indoctrinate them" into being gay it is recruiting.

But you can tell us all how aggravated sodomy, statutory sodomy and sodomy are all the same thing. Coming from a cop that is laughable. maybe this shows you were never a cop, if the words "statutory" and "aggravated" don't mean anything to you.

Same thing, numbnuts. If they take straight kinds and "indoctrinate them" into being gay it is recruiting

.
No it isn't,brain dead bitch.

Tell me the difference between recruiting kids to be gay and indoctrinating straight kids into being gay.

Recruit is too enlist them because they would have already decided they were gay
indoctrinating is too brainwash into think gay was ok.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, you have only shown that bigots are harrassing gays using invalid laws.

So let's just forget about those loops holes that was mentioned in that pro gay source I used.

Loopholes? If sodomy is not illegal, why would they need to try and find loopholes?

Read that last part one line

The Court itself has thus far declined to weigh in on the correct reach of Lawrence.

 

[SillyWabbit]

Well, I hope you all don't work it out.

One of you is not so wrong or right as the other?

 

[WinterBorn]

So let's just forget about those loops holes that was mentioned in that pro gay source I used.

Loopholes? If sodomy is not illegal, why would they need to try and find loopholes?

Read that last part one line

The Court itself has thus far declined to weigh in on the correct reach of Lawrence.

Sodomy is not illegal. You have seen the brief from the SCOTUS and even your own link said the laws were invalidated.

The loophopes are concerning children or prostitution. It is not regular sodomy.

So tell us the difference between recruiting straight kids or indoctrinating straight kids into homosexuality.

 

[WinterBorn]

.
No it isn't,brain dead bitch.



I said people are still being arrested for those crimes your argument has been they have not.

Class dismissed.

Another lie. You claimed that sodomy is illegal. And you claimed aggravated sodomy and statutory sodomy are the same as sodomy. And that is something a cop would know the difference in.

Lawrence’s Loopholes

Several state legislatures and courts have attempted to exploit loopholes in the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas in order to continue enforcing laws criminalizing homosexuality. At the end of the majority opinion in Lawrence, Justice Kennedy wrote a paragraph outlining the parameters of the Supreme Court’s decision:

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. [emphasis added]
This paragraph has been the source of a great amount of ambiguity for those attempting to determine the constitutionality of state sodomy laws. It is frequently cited by state and lower federal courts in order to attempt to limit the scope of Lawrence, especially when dealing with prostitution and sex with minors. As Joseph Wardenski, a trial attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, wrote:

Despite the Lawrence majority's broad themes of equality and dignity for gay men and lesbians, several commentators have argued that the decision's scope is much less expansive. Indeed, in several early decisions applying Lawrence, courts have interpreted the decision quite narrowly. The Court itself has thus far declined to weigh in on the correct reach of Lawrence. [Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 95 No. 4, 6/22/05, via Nexis]

State Sodomy Laws Continue To Target LGBT Americans | Equality Matters

Lets look at that again:

"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle."

The case DOES involve two adults having consentual sex. Did you see that? In other words, sodomy is not illegal.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Another lie. You claimed that sodomy is illegal. And you claimed aggravated sodomy and statutory sodomy are the same as sodomy. And that is something a cop would know the difference in.

Lawrence’s Loopholes

Several state legislatures and courts have attempted to exploit loopholes in the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas in order to continue enforcing laws criminalizing homosexuality. At the end of the majority opinion in Lawrence, Justice Kennedy wrote a paragraph outlining the parameters of the Supreme Court’s decision:

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. [emphasis added]
This paragraph has been the source of a great amount of ambiguity for those attempting to determine the constitutionality of state sodomy laws. It is frequently cited by state and lower federal courts in order to attempt to limit the scope of Lawrence, especially when dealing with prostitution and sex with minors. As Joseph Wardenski, a trial attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, wrote:

Despite the Lawrence majority's broad themes of equality and dignity for gay men and lesbians, several commentators have argued that the decision's scope is much less expansive. Indeed, in several early decisions applying Lawrence, courts have interpreted the decision quite narrowly. The Court itself has thus far declined to weigh in on the correct reach of Lawrence. [Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 95 No. 4, 6/22/05, via Nexis]

State Sodomy Laws Continue To Target LGBT Americans | Equality Matters

Lets look at that again:

"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle."

The case DOES involve two adults having consentual sex. Did you see that? In other words, sodomy is not illegal.

Let's read the next paragraph case in point and that last part The Court itself has thus far declined to weigh in on the correct reach of Lawrence