Is Anyone Else Getting Tired Of The Queer Agenda???

[rightwinger]

LOL- but I am not complaining.

Nor are the gay couples who are happily getting married.

The ones complaining are you- and Patty- and the others with their panties all wadded up because gay couples are now treated exactly the same as my wife and I are.

But you have every right to try to end legal marriage in America. Let us know how it goes.

I will. I vote Republican in hopes the Republican President can load our Supreme Court with justices that actually understand what our founders intended for this country--an no, it wasn't gay marriage.

As the saying goes, you won the battle but not the war.

And down the road, I hope people will be able to explain to their children and grandchildren how our society got so F'd up, so freakish, so morally bankrupt by liberals. By that time, men will be marrying their dogs, children will be marrying grandparents to get their SS check when they die, and sisters will be marrying their brothers.

And by that time, marriage will be such a joke that nobody will participate in it any longer, and it will be ruined forever. Then liberals can truly celebrate, because the only time a liberal is happy is when they take happiness away from other people.

You're right, our founding fathers never meant to have the government endorsing marriage, gay or otherwise.

Dumb fuck authoritarian.

Our liberal founders never envisioned what a 21st century society would be like

 

[Seawytch]

LOL- but I am not complaining.

Nor are the gay couples who are happily getting married.

The ones complaining are you- and Patty- and the others with their panties all wadded up because gay couples are now treated exactly the same as my wife and I are.

But you have every right to try to end legal marriage in America. Let us know how it goes.

I will. I vote Republican in hopes the Republican President can load our Supreme Court with justices that actually understand what our founders intended for this country--an no, it wasn't gay marriage.

As the saying goes, you won the battle but not the war.

And down the road, I hope people will be able to explain to their children and grandchildren how our society got so F'd up, so freakish, so morally bankrupt by liberals. By that time, men will be marrying their dogs, children will be marrying grandparents to get their SS check when they die, and sisters will be marrying their brothers.

And by that time, marriage will be such a joke that nobody will participate in it any longer, and it will be ruined forever. Then liberals can truly celebrate, because the only time a liberal is happy is when they take happiness away from other people.

You're right, our founding fathers never meant to have the government endorsing marriage, gay or otherwise.

Dumb fuck authoritarian.

They apparently never envisioned women with property rights...which is why government ended up "involved" in marriage in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- but I am not complaining.

Nor are the gay couples who are happily getting married.

The ones complaining are you- and Patty- and the others with their panties all wadded up because gay couples are now treated exactly the same as my wife and I are.

But you have every right to try to end legal marriage in America. Let us know how it goes.

I will. I vote Republican in hopes the Republican President can load our Supreme Court with justices that actually understand what our founders intended for this country--an no, it wasn't gay marriage.

As the saying goes, you won the battle but not the war.

And down the road, I hope people will be able to explain to their children and grandchildren how our society got so F'd up, so freakish, so morally bankrupt by liberals. By that time, men will be marrying their dogs, children will be marrying grandparents to get their SS check when they die, and sisters will be marrying their brothers.

And by that time, marriage will be such a joke that nobody will participate in it any longer, and it will be ruined forever. Then liberals can truly celebrate, because the only time a liberal is happy is when they take happiness away from other people.

You're right, our founding fathers never meant to have the government endorsing marriage, gay or otherwise.

Dumb fuck authoritarian.

Our liberal founders never envisioned what a 21st century society would be like

They certainly didn't envision a black President.

 

[Syriusly]

[
And down the road, I hope people will be able to explain to their children and grandchildren how our society got so F'd up, so freakish, so morally bankrupt by liberals. By that time, men will be marrying their dogs, children will be marrying grandparents to get their SS check when they die, and sisters will be marrying their brothers.

And by that time, marriage will be such a joke that nobody will participate in it any longer, and it will be ruined forever. Then liberals can truly celebrate, because the only time a liberal is happy is when they take happiness away from other people.

Don't get your hopes up- you aren't going to be able to marry your dog or your grandparents or your sister.

I know you feel like society has gone to hell ever since the Supreme Court told Virginia that bans on mixed race marriages were unconstitutional, but that is just your sad psychosis on display.

I have been happily married for over 20 years. You would like to be able to reverse the marriages of everyone in the United States- you are the only one here who is actively working to take happiness away from others.

You- and your buddy Patty.

 

[Syriusly]

but the Supreme Court is the institution to decide on the Constitutionality of laws.

Exactly! And that is not what they did with Obergefell, junior. They implemented a new law forcing all 50 states to accept gay marriage. They do not have that authority. Never have. Never will. Only the legislative branch can create legislation. The Supreme Court is part of the Judicial branch.
.

Nope- just as in Loving V. Virginia, the Supreme Court overturned unconstitutional State laws- specifically the laws in question.

It applies to other states by precedent- but technically the Supreme Court ruled on the 4 or 5 states that were part of the Obergefell appeal- just as they did when they ruled on Virginia's appeal.

Good grief...you don't even know the Obergefell decision. r.

Good grief- you show your ignorance of the law in every post.

 

[Syriusly]

Sure, hater dupe bigot. Change the channel. Google something- goes on forever. Only 22 states protect gays on housing and employment.
15 Examples Of Anti-Gay Discrimination Conservatives Want To ...
thinkprogress.org/lgbt/.../15-examples-of-anti-gay-discrimination-cons...
ThinkProgress
Jul 2, 2013 - Jennie McCarthy and Melisa Erwin filed a complaint against New York's ... but similarly highlighted 15 examples of discrimination against gay ...
The New York Times Shares Examples of Discrimination Facing LGBT ...
www.hrc.org/.../the-new-york-times-shares-examples-of-disc...
Human Rights Campaign
Jul 15, 2015 - ... the stories of LGBT people facing discrimination across the country. ... have any Islamic churches even spoken out against homosexuality.

More crap from the crap pusher.

In your first link, it told of businesses that did not want to cater to gay weddings. Good, I think it's their right to not go against their religious or moral beliefs. That's not discrimination.

Your second article talks about ONE couple who SAID they were denied rental because they were lesbians. Of course, what would you expect but one side from a left-wing rag like Think Progress?

Digging further into the story, Fox reported that the landlord agreed to their questioning and he claims the application was not filled out properly. They just "assumed" (as most liberals do) they were not given the house because they were gay. No proof of anything, just make the allegation. I have not accepted many rental applications because there was something wrong with the application. This happens all the time to people of all kinds of backgrounds.

I can't read all the crap you post that has no empirical evidence. Go peddle it somewhere else. My time is better spent elsewhere.

There are 28 states with no protection for gays against discrimination in housing and employment. Your position is ridiculous.

We know what your position is when it comes to gays...bent over and squealing like Obama negotiating with the Ayatollah.

Why does Deltex always share his personal masturbatory fantasies with everyone here at USMB?

Meanwhile- in all 50 states- Americans can now legally marry, regardless of gender.

 

[Syriusly]

The only marriage in question is legal marriage.

You know- the type of marriage you want to deny gay couples and are peeved that you can't.

Under admiralty law (which we are under) marriage is simply the merging of two corporate entities with the state being a third party to it thus subjecting this "union" to the acts, statutes and codes of the Universal Commercial Code.

LOL 'admiralty law'?

No- 'we' are not under admiralty law except if 'we' are on the water

Admiralty law or maritime law is a distinct body of law that governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of both domestic law governing maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private entities that operate vessels on the oceans. It deals with matters including marine commerce, marine navigation, marine salvaging, shipping, sailors, and the transportation of passengers and goods by sea. Admiralty law also covers many commercial activities, although land based or occurring wholly on land, that are maritime in character.

Did I stutter? "Law of the Flag" pertains to the gold fringe around the American flag that you see in court and in "gubermint" offices....they didn't put the gold fringe on there just so they could "pimp the flag". It is symbolic. You see, I know more than you. District courts are admiralty courts and that is a fact.


"Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag", a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: "Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." - Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.


The committee also alluded to "the great force" of "the great constitutional question as to the power of Congress to extend maritime jurisdiction beyond the ground occupied by it at the adoption of the Constitution...." - Ibid. H.R. Rep. No. 72 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1850)

"This power is as extensive upon land as upon water. The Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on (my note - remember what the law of the flag said when you receive benefits from the king.) It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on land." -- Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)

Oh- so you are completely delusional.

Your stupidity and ignorance isn't my problem.

No- your problem is your inability to make a coherent post.

 

[rightwinger]

LOL- but I am not complaining.

Nor are the gay couples who are happily getting married.

The ones complaining are you- and Patty- and the others with their panties all wadded up because gay couples are now treated exactly the same as my wife and I are.

But you have every right to try to end legal marriage in America. Let us know how it goes.

I will. I vote Republican in hopes the Republican President can load our Supreme Court with justices that actually understand what our founders intended for this country--an no, it wasn't gay marriage.

As the saying goes, you won the battle but not the war.

And down the road, I hope people will be able to explain to their children and grandchildren how our society got so F'd up, so freakish, so morally bankrupt by liberals. By that time, men will be marrying their dogs, children will be marrying grandparents to get their SS check when they die, and sisters will be marrying their brothers.

And by that time, marriage will be such a joke that nobody will participate in it any longer, and it will be ruined forever. Then liberals can truly celebrate, because the only time a liberal is happy is when they take happiness away from other people.

You're right, our founding fathers never meant to have the government endorsing marriage, gay or otherwise.

Dumb fuck authoritarian.

Our liberal founders never envisioned what a 21st century society would be like

They certainly didn't envision a black President.

Or a woman President

 

[Seawytch]

LOL- but I am not complaining.

Nor are the gay couples who are happily getting married.

The ones complaining are you- and Patty- and the others with their panties all wadded up because gay couples are now treated exactly the same as my wife and I are.

But you have every right to try to end legal marriage in America. Let us know how it goes.

I will. I vote Republican in hopes the Republican President can load our Supreme Court with justices that actually understand what our founders intended for this country--an no, it wasn't gay marriage.

As the saying goes, you won the battle but not the war.

And down the road, I hope people will be able to explain to their children and grandchildren how our society got so F'd up, so freakish, so morally bankrupt by liberals. By that time, men will be marrying their dogs, children will be marrying grandparents to get their SS check when they die, and sisters will be marrying their brothers.

And by that time, marriage will be such a joke that nobody will participate in it any longer, and it will be ruined forever. Then liberals can truly celebrate, because the only time a liberal is happy is when they take happiness away from other people.

You're right, our founding fathers never meant to have the government endorsing marriage, gay or otherwise.

Dumb fuck authoritarian.

Our liberal founders never envisioned what a 21st century society would be like

They certainly didn't envision a black President.

Or a woman President

You've got to wonder which one the FFs would have found more objectionable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rdean]

What is the LGBT agenda??

That is one hilarious poster.

Then you see the endless stories like this:

A three-year-old boy 'accidentally' shot his sister in the head

and this:

5-year-old Kentucky boy fatally shoots 2-year-old sister - CNN.com

Just Google "child shoots sister" or "child shoots brother" and there are a million hits from states like Alabama and Kentucky.

 

[P@triot]

Do you disagree with the SCOTUS ruling on Loving?

I've said "yes" to this question about half a dozen times now. The federal government has no authority over marriage and the Supreme Court has no authority to make law as they are part of the judicial branch and laws can only be made by the legislative branch.

 

[P@triot]

Righties don't like college, so they haven't taken those first year intro to logic courses. As a result, don't know the difference between facts and opinion

As opposed to liberals who go to college (while making someone else pay for it because you're too lazy to pay for it yourself) where you promptly show up and smoke pot and snort coke up your noses (like Barry Serento) or did lots of acid (like Bill Ayers). No wonder you people are so stupid as adults. You fried what little brain cells you had in your early 20's.

 

[P@triot]

Seems like the "Queer Agenda" has added one more item to the agenda - getting armed. Wow does that break with the libtard agenda. What are liberals going to do when they lose the gay vote because they want to outlaw firearms?

 

[rdean]

Seems like the "Queer Agenda" has added one more item to the agenda - getting armed. Wow does that break with the libtard agenda. What are liberals going to do when they lose the gay vote because they want to outlaw firearms?

Who says they want to outlaw fire arms.

Oh,

Wait,

You're lying.

Got it!

I took you seriously for a second. Sorry.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Don't get your hopes up- you aren't going to be able to marry your dog or your grandparents or your sister.

I know you feel like society has gone to hell ever since the Supreme Court told Virginia that bans on mixed race marriages were unconstitutional, but that is just your sad psychosis on display.

I have been happily married for over 20 years. You would like to be able to reverse the marriages of everyone in the United States- you are the only one here who is actively working to take happiness away from others.

You- and your buddy Patty.

In an earlier post, you told me that queer marriages had nothing to do with happiness. Now you reverse that opinion?

And yes, it won't be long before others who are refused marriage based on who or what they wish to marry will be before the SC and based on the gay marriage ruling, they will have to rule those marriages constitutional as well.

You said it yourself: equal protection. So if your marriage is legit by equal protection, why won't a family member or pet marriage be protected?

Oh! But that will never happen! Oh yeah?

Well if you could go back in a time machine 50 years from today, go to a bar, and tell people that you were from the future, and in the future, gays would legally be married, they would have thrown you out of that bar.

It may not happen this year, next year, or even ten years, but it's going to happen unless we get real judges in the SC to overturn this ruling and preserve real marriage in the US.

 

[P@triot]

Who says they want to outlaw fire arms. Oh, Wait, You're lying. Got it! I took you seriously for a second. Sorry.

Oops..... how stupid do you look right now rdean???

 

[P@triot]

A very large portion of America is getting tired of the Queer Agenda because of nonsense just like this...

Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies may soon face lawsuits for treating male and female patients according to their biological sex, thanks to a health care rule finalized in May as part of the Affordable Care Act.

If a medical doctor, based on biological evidence, sees a male patient, but the patient claims to be a female, the doctor must treat the patient as a female. Failure to do so could leave the doctor vulnerable to lawsuits, lost federal funding, and federal investigation by the Office of Civil Rights, the HHS arm implementing this policy.

Ok...well ignoring a male problem (say - prostrate cancer) and treating the man as a woman for PMS will end with the patient dying. Which will also end with a lawsuit for the physician. So either way they end up with a law suit.

Rule Requires Doctors To Treat Trans Patients As Pretend Sex

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A very large portion of America is getting tired of the Queer Agenda because of nonsense just like this...

Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies may soon face lawsuits for treating male and female patients according to their biological sex, thanks to a health care rule finalized in May as part of the Affordable Care Act.

If a medical doctor, based on biological evidence, sees a male patient, but the patient claims to be a female, the doctor must treat the patient as a female. Failure to do so could leave the doctor vulnerable to lawsuits, lost federal funding, and federal investigation by the Office of Civil Rights, the HHS arm implementing this policy.

Ok...well ignoring a male problem (say - prostrate cancer) and treating the man as a woman for PMS will end with the patient dying. Which will also end with a lawsuit for the physician. So either way they end up with a law suit.

Rule Requires Doctors To Treat Trans Patients As Pretend Sex

Right, because we don't have enough accidental deaths in hospitals as it is.

Treating all these patients gets confusing for medical staff. In the rush, they do make mistakes. Now they are going to have to wrestle with the idea of patients who they think they are instead of who they actually are?

Liberalism will be the end this country yet.

 

[Seawytch]

Do you disagree with the SCOTUS ruling on Loving?

I've said "yes" to this question about half a dozen times now. The federal government has no authority over marriage and the Supreme Court has no authority to make law as they are part of the judicial branch and laws can only be made by the legislative branch.

Gosh, I'm so sorry. I confuse my homophobes sometimes. Glad you're consistently wrong.

Oh, and striking down unconstitutional laws is not "making new law". You're welcome.

 

[Seawytch]

Who says they want to outlaw fire arms. Oh, Wait, You're lying. Got it! I took you seriously for a second. Sorry.

Oops..... how stupid do you look right now rdean???

Not as stupid as you do for posting a clip about assault rifles (you know, the kind like Reagan wanted to ban) and try to make it about all guns.