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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Not true.
How many times do I need to post this before the phobes get it?
Wow. How many times has the SCOTUS/Legislature already made mistakes on marriage. Quite a few, according to that image..... 1900, 1965, 1975, 1981, 1993. That's pretty pathetic.
What does gender matter when it comes to fucking? LOL. You pounded the square pegs into the round holes as a child. Still do. You support a dad marrying his adult son to be consistent with your statement. Why does tyranny in any form matter? Maybe not to you but society as a whole should define itself, not the most vocal.Yes there is, two loving members of the same sex want to get married, yes, genders do matter, when it comes to fucking, what does it matter there? Marriage destruction? LOL. Do you think two gay men getting married destroys marriage? You must have a shitty marriage then.There's no logical reason to have same sex marriage. Genders matter. So homophobia is now defined as fear of marriage destruction? You have a unique dictionary.Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)
I have no issues with your homosexual pleasure seeking, rich lifestyle. I do not have issues for homosexuals getting into legally binding contracts but do not called it marriage. That's where the issues come when you try to destroy families to fade the lines between normal people and pleasure seeking homosexuals.Yes there is, two loving members of the same sex want to get married, yes, genders do matter, when it comes to fucking, what does it matter there? Marriage destruction? LOL. Do you think two gay men getting married destroys marriage? You must have a shitty marriage then.There's no logical reason to have same sex marriage. Genders matter. So homophobia is now defined as fear of marriage destruction? You have a unique dictionary.Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)
How is allowing gays access to marriage destroying families? Specifically.
That isn't what gays are after.
It will go 6-3 in favor
maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married
but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?
the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.
It will go 6-3 in favor
Wait a minute. Wasn't Kagan recused from this argument, or did she not recuse herself?
Perhaps I read something erroneously in the last days.
I was busy writing a small book somewhere else.
I have no issues with your homosexual pleasure seeking, rich lifestyle. I do not have issues for homosexuals getting into legally binding contracts but do not called it marriage. That's where the issues come when you try to destroy families to fade the lines between normal people and pleasure seeking homosexuals.Yes there is, two loving members of the same sex want to get married, yes, genders do matter, when it comes to fucking, what does it matter there? Marriage destruction? LOL. Do you think two gay men getting married destroys marriage? You must have a shitty marriage then.There's no logical reason to have same sex marriage. Genders matter. So homophobia is now defined as fear of marriage destruction? You have a unique dictionary.Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)
How is allowing gays access to marriage destroying families? Specifically.
That isn't what gays are after.
We know how she's going to vote. Her officiating at a same sex marriage is an indication that her mind is made up. It would not be surprising to see the decision of the court unanimous.It will go 6-3 in favor
Wait a minute. Wasn't Kagan recused from this argument, or did she not recuse herself?
Perhaps I read something erroneously in the last days.
I was busy writing a small book somewhere else.
she should recuse because she officiated a gay wedding, but she hasn't. She clearly has a conflict of interest.
Kagan officiated a same-sex marriage in Maryland. The duly-elected legislators of the state passed same sex marriage and the two questions before the court will have no effect on same-sex couples getting married in the Maryland. There is no conflict of interest. The only reason you and others want her to reuse herself is b/c you do not believe she is going to vote the way you want her to vote.
Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)Homophobes are gonna be homophobes. (People in this thread)
the thread is about the division in the SC. I don't really think that anyone posting in this thread is afraid of gays.
but what is quite clear is that you fear open equal debate. Because when its open and equal you always lose, your left wing bullshit always loses, your marxist collectivist bullshit always loses. In short, you are a loser.
The fact that she's gay herself would be enough for recusal.It will go 6-3 in favor
Wait a minute. Wasn't Kagan recused from this argument, or did she not recuse herself?
Perhaps I read something erroneously in the last days.
I was busy writing a small book somewhere else.
she should recuse because she officiated a gay wedding, but she hasn't. She clearly has a conflict of interest.
I don't see the problem. Should an NRA member recuse themselves from discussions on gun control? You'd be screaming if they had to. Thurgood Marshall was a civil rights lawyer. Did he have to recuse himself when civil rights measures came before the court? Justices have opinions and biases acquired during their lives. They're human. It's up to the lawyers presenting the case to try and change their minds.she should recuse because she officiated a gay wedding, but she hasn't. She clearly has a conflict of interest.
Civil rights are not up for a vote, and never should have been. You might as well allow them to define a state religion, and we don't. It's also not up for a vote.Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)Homophobes are gonna be homophobes. (People in this thread)
the thread is about the division in the SC. I don't really think that anyone posting in this thread is afraid of gays.
but what is quite clear is that you fear open equal debate. Because when its open and equal you always lose, your left wing bullshit always loses, your marxist collectivist bullshit always loses. In short, you are a loser.
There's also no logical reason to not allow states to decide that from themselves so that marriage truly reflects the value of the people, not activist judges.
It will go 6-3 in favor
maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married
but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?
the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.
The only thing real is the right wing hysteria about every change in society dating back to the women getting the right to vote, integrating the military, etc...
You've been on the wrong side of the argument 100% of the time.
Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)Homophobes are gonna be homophobes. (People in this thread)
the thread is about the division in the SC. I don't really think that anyone posting in this thread is afraid of gays.
but what is quite clear is that you fear open equal debate. Because when its open and equal you always lose, your left wing bullshit always loses, your marxist collectivist bullshit always loses. In short, you are a loser.
There's also no logical reason to not allow states to decide that from themselves so that marriage truly reflects the value of the people, not activist judges.
Lifestyle choice is not a civil right.Civil rights are not up for a vote, and never should have been. You might as well allow them to define a state religion, and we don't. It's also not up for a vote.Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)Homophobes are gonna be homophobes. (People in this thread)
the thread is about the division in the SC. I don't really think that anyone posting in this thread is afraid of gays.
but what is quite clear is that you fear open equal debate. Because when its open and equal you always lose, your left wing bullshit always loses, your marxist collectivist bullshit always loses. In short, you are a loser.
There's also no logical reason to not allow states to decide that from themselves so that marriage truly reflects the value of the people, not activist judges.
What does thd marriage license provide? What does it create? A next-of-kin relationship where no such relationship previously exists. The incests primrose path you are so fearful of simply does not exist in the context of the marriage contract.It will go 6-3 in favor
maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married
but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?
the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.
It will go 6-3 in favor
maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married
but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?
the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.
The only thing real is the right wing hysteria about every change in society dating back to the women getting the right to vote, integrating the military, etc...
You've been on the wrong side of the argument 100% of the time.
But amazingly, you're wrong about both.It will go 6-3 in favor
maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married
but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?
the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.
The only thing real is the right wing hysteria about every change in society dating back to the women getting the right to vote, integrating the military, etc...
You've been on the wrong side of the argument 100% of the time.
Lifestyle choice and women's suffrage are two different things, skid mark.
Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)Homophobes are gonna be homophobes. (People in this thread)
the thread is about the division in the SC. I don't really think that anyone posting in this thread is afraid of gays.
but what is quite clear is that you fear open equal debate. Because when its open and equal you always lose, your left wing bullshit always loses, your marxist collectivist bullshit always loses. In short, you are a loser.
There's also no logical reason to not allow states to decide that from themselves so that marriage truly reflects the value of the people, not activist judges.
Sure there is.
If you're an employee who is managing a branch of a bank and you're up for a promotion that involves moving to a state where you and your partner will be breaking the law and/or whose marriage won't be recognized, you're being deprived of the 3L's by the government.
Amazing how you right wing shitballs love talking about how evil the government it right up until you want to use it to bless marriage.
That's YOUR opinion and is meaningless. And again, its ignorant, impotent, anti-Americans like you that make our constitution necessary. Deal with it.
It will go 6-3 in favor
maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married
but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?
the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.
The only thing real is the right wing hysteria about every change in society dating back to the women getting the right to vote, integrating the military, etc...
You've been on the wrong side of the argument 100% of the time.
oh yeah, History made up by the hysteria of the left. If anyone protested women rights to vote it would have been the Democrat party the same they did with he black people trying for their civil rights. tsk tsk in lying
