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.
It is the court's job to determine constitutionality. Which they did in the Obergefell ruling.
And we told you they were going to do. We told you the split, the precedent that would be cited, the legal principles that would be employed, the amendments that would be used, we even told you who would write the ruling.
But you insisted that you and your pseudo-legal gibberish knew better.
How'd that work out for you?
Lots of kids looking to get adopted. I'm grateful gay couples are around to adopt them and raise them in a loving home, rather than having them shipped around in foster care. Now if only petty Christians like yourself would stop assaulting these children and their families so that they can get on with their lives and be happy.
The founders did not want that at all. And BTW, when a cult takes over the judicial branch of government, (and the POTUS too for that matter), you're 2/3rds of the way to a theocracy. Only, your God is the pagan god of deviant sex acts and the Christian one is vastly more sublime.We should become a Theocracy and have religious leaders dictate to us. Like the founders wanted.That sucks man. Good thing it affects you in no way whatsoever.
I'll put you down on the very long list then of LGBT advocates who don't give one flying fuck about the considerations of children in the marriage debate. First time ever we as a nation (well, 5 of us anyway) have declared "mothers don't matter" or "fathers don't matter"...as a matter of law.
Your meltdown continues.
You have never given a flying fuck about any children, other than to use them in your ongoing war against homosexuals.
You are fine with intentionally trying to cause harm to children whose parents are homosexuals.
Now in 50 states- children whose parents are homosexuals can have married parents.
Meanwhile- millions of children are being raised by one parent- and you don't give a flying fuck.
Meanwhile- over 100,000 children are waiting to be adopted after their biological mother and father abandoned them- and you don't give a flying fuck about them- you would prefer that they rot in foster care or age out of the system rather than have parents who happen to be gay.
It is the court's job to determine constitutionality. Which they did in the Obergefell ruling.
And we told you they were going to do. We told you the split, the precedent that would be cited, the legal principles that would be employed, the amendments that would be used, we even told you who would write the ruling.
But you insisted that you and your pseudo-legal gibberish knew better.
How'd that work out for you?
Interesting. Were you also on the committee who set up and tested the rainbow lights display before June 26, 2015 that was shown just hours after in defiance of the ruling majority on the issue of gay marriage?
Your obsession with gay men in banana hammocks is weird, bordering on creepy.Lots of kids looking to get adopted. I'm grateful gay couples are around to adopt them and raise them in a loving home, rather than having them shipped around in foster care. Now if only petty Christians like yourself would stop assaulting these children and their families so that they can get on with their lives and be happy.
Sure, and after gay dudes are done dry-humping in a pride parade with banana hammocks on in full view of kids, they can march into any adoption agency they like, wearing Harvey Milk t-shirts and take home a couple of wayward orphaned boys into their ...um..."loving" home...
Your obsession with gay men in banana hammocks is weird, bordering on creepy.Lots of kids looking to get adopted. I'm grateful gay couples are around to adopt them and raise them in a loving home, rather than having them shipped around in foster care. Now if only petty Christians like yourself would stop assaulting these children and their families so that they can get on with their lives and be happy.
Sure, and after gay dudes are done dry-humping in a pride parade with banana hammocks on in full view of kids, they can march into any adoption agency they like, wearing Harvey Milk t-shirts and take home a couple of wayward orphaned boys into their ...um..."loving" home...
Your obsession with gay men in banana hammocks is weird, bordering on creepy.
You want to see some heterosexual debauchery? Go to Mardi Gras, Carnivale, college spring break. All glorified by society.
Heard this before? Polygamy was quite recently decriminalized in Utah. Like Lawrence v Texas, it's just a matter of time before that applies to all 50 states. If it's legal for a man to use another man's anus as an artificial vagina (closet issues anyone?), then a man simply taking the natural use of women and needing more than one partner to stay sexually satisfied is a legal-no-brainer. It's a shoe-in..
Your obsession with gay men in banana hammocks is weird, bordering on creepy.
You want to see some heterosexual debauchery? Go to Mardi Gras, Carnivale, college spring break. All glorified by society.
Certain toutine days/nights of drunken debauchery in areas essentially roped off and well known in advance as "no go zones" for children (no matter which idiots take their kids in spite of this or not) are different than mid-day sober parades and any and all times of the year, of "pride" (lewd acts in front of kids) of a movement that gives itself an identiy by which to sue Christians into submission.
Back to the topic which I notice the usual hired hands are here in droves to deflect away from...do you think polygamy will be up to the states TheOldSchool?
We should become a Theocracy and have religious leaders dictate to us. Like the founders wanted.
We should become a Theocracy and have religious leaders dictate to us. Like the founders wanted.
That sucks man. Good thing it affects you in no way whatsoever.The founders did not want that at all. And BTW, when a cult takes over the judicial branch of government, (and the POTUS too for that matter), you're 2/3rds of the way to a theocracy. Only, your God is the pagan god of deviant sex acts and the Christian one is vastly more sublime.We should become a Theocracy and have religious leaders dictate to us. Like the founders wanted.
Neither does a guy humping a donkey?
Because it doesn't, you want that legal
Got it
There are. For one, the legal hurdles in a polygamous marriage contract. Guardianship of children, division of assets, tax status for all parties, etc. It's completely different from gay marriage, the same as how different marriage to an animal or object are different. But if someone wants to work all that out, and demand it, well whatever. It doesn't affect me. I doubt they'll manage it though.We should become a Theocracy and have religious leaders dictate to us. Like the founders wanted.
You think there aren't secular reasons to desire polygamy remain banned?
It IS legal in some states. Like Texas.That sucks man. Good thing it affects you in no way whatsoever.The founders did not want that at all. And BTW, when a cult takes over the judicial branch of government, (and the POTUS too for that matter), you're 2/3rds of the way to a theocracy. Only, your God is the pagan god of deviant sex acts and the Christian one is vastly more sublime.We should become a Theocracy and have religious leaders dictate to us. Like the founders wanted.
Neither does a guy humping a donkey?
Because it doesn't, you want that legal
Got it
I bet they do deny it. Wanna bet? Your already 0 for 1.Neither does a guy humping a donkey?
Because it doesn't, you want that legal
Got it
Silly... I'm talking about a human sexual orientation: polyamory. Leave your fantasies out of this. This is a serious topic. The Brown family has vowed to take their case to the US Supreme Court. You think the Court will deny them and let states continue to suppress the love polygamists share into the proverbial closet? Or do you think they'll take up the case and see if one sexual orientation is as good as any other when it comes to sex between HUMANS as assigned new "rights to marry"?
One of the major arguments against gay marriage was that throughout history marriage has never been defined as between 2 people of the same sex. I wonder if it will matter to you all that marriage HAS been defined, and in some places still IS, as okay between multiple spouses and close relatives?Polygamy and close relatives marrying is about a decade away at most.
