Thanks Obama- Oklahoma Mom who once Married her Son will now go to Jail for Marrying her Daughter

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Another liberal mantra - “incest is best, but only when kept in the family.”

Where do you get that shit from. ? Sounds more like a right wing red neck grade school drop out mantra

 

[Geaux4it]

Obama endorsed this behavior married to a tranny and all

-Geaux

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Obama endorsed this behavior married to a tranny and all

-Geaux

Do you have to work at coming up with this stupid shit, or does it come naturally?

 

[Disir]

Patricia told authorities that she lost custody of her children when they were young, and the kids were raised by their grandparents. She said she and Misty “hit it off” when she came back into their lives about two years ago.

However, Cody says Patricia reentered their lives in 2007 or 2008, claiming to be a friend rather than their biological mother. Cody says he, Patricia and his siblings spent some time in Texas where Patricia and Jody became close. The two eventually married, but when the family returned to Oklahoma, everyone learned the truth about being related.

“My grandmother looked at my brother and told him that was his mom,” Cody recalls. “My brother … said that he wanted to get away from her – that was not what he wanted. And she threatened to kill him. She threatened to poison him.”

He says Jody was allegedly “manipulated, forced and threatened” after he learned the truth. He said that after that marriage was annulled, Patricia set her sights on Misty, allegedly threatening her with poisoning and kidnapping if Misty refused.

“My sister was manipulated and scared into this. Was she an adult? Yes she was. But my sister was scared,” Cody says.
Oklahoma Mother Accused of Incest Allegedly 'Manipulated and Threatened' Daughter into Relationship, Son Says

Found it.

 

[Reasonable]

The left owns this freak of nature

-Geaux
------------

Patricia Ann Spann, 46, and her biological daughter Misty Velvet Dawn Spann, 26, got married in the town of Lawton about 17 months after same-sex marriage became legal in the state of Oklahoma.

To get around the potential snag of their shared family name, Patricia Spann listed her name as Patricia Ann Clayton on the pair’s marriage license application, filed with Comanche County.

For her part in marrying her daughter, two years after she was legally allowed to contact her children following an annulled marriage to her biological son, Patricia Spann will serve time in jail, according to the Oklahoman.

The newspaper reported that she pleaded guilty to felony incest Tuesday, and under a plea deal, the 46-year-old will serve two years in prison followed by eight years of probation. She will have to register as a sex offender following her release.

Oklahoma mom who once married her son will now go to jail for marrying her daughter

Deep in the heart of Trump country. Figures.

 

[Tilly]

If a parent thinks that they want to marry an offspring, or if siblings want to marry, I for one think that they should pursue the matter through legislation or the courts and try to make the case.

Oh Good Lord. I really didn’t think you could sink any lower in my estimation of you.

 

[Silhouette]

If a parent thinks that they want to marry an offspring, or if siblings want to marry, I for one think that they should pursue the matter through legislation or the courts and try to make the case.

Oh Good Lord. I really didn’t think you could sink any lower in my estimation of you.

What is so low about promoting a deviant sexual behavior as legal (Lawrence v Texas) and then using that precedent to force that behavior into "rights to marry" at the USSC level?

True, that would be sinking rather low. But for some reason in certain icky sex behaviors, it doesn't bother you. That's a very subjective and hypocritical stance you have. What if the mother in question here is sexually oriented since birth to her own adult children? I mean if using another guy's asshole as an artificial vagina is "oriented since birth", why is her case "for sure not oriented since birth"??

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If a parent thinks that they want to marry an offspring, or if siblings want to marry, I for one think that they should pursue the matter through legislation or the courts and try to make the case.

Oh Good Lord. I really didn’t think you could sink any lower in my estimation of you.

What is so low about promoting a deviant sexual behavior as legal (Lawrence v Texas) and then using that precedent to force that behavior into "rights to marry" at the USSC level?

True, that would be sinking rather low. But for some reason in certain icky sex behaviors, it doesn't bother you. That's a very subjective and hypocritical stance you have. What if the mother in question here is sexually oriented since birth to her own adult children? I mean if using another guy's asshole as an artificial vagina is "oriented since birth", why is her case "for sure not oriented since birth"??

Tilly and Silhouette....The twisted crack pots of the USMB. Obsessed with "deviant sexual behavior" and imagining that every one is promoting it

 

[Silhouette]

^^ I'm not imagining Lawrence v Texas, nor Obergefell, nor Dumont v Lyons, nor the plethora of laws we've seen recently passed requiring teaching of "LGBT" (deviant sex behaviors as identity) to kids "as normal" (under the stealthy umbrella of "no bullying") in school as young as kindergarten..

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

^^ I'm not imagining Lawrence v Texas, nor Obergefell, nor Dumont v Lyons, nor the plethora of laws we've seen recently passed requiring teaching of "LGBT" (deviant sex behaviors as identity) to kids "as normal" (under the stealthy umbrella of "no bullying") in school as young as kindergarten..

Lawrence, Obergefell, and Dumont require the teaching deviant sexual behavior??

And now you going to try to tell me that you're not a few fries short of a happy meal?

 

[centerleftFL]

The left owns this freak of nature

-Geaux
------------

Patricia Ann Spann, 46, and her biological daughter Misty Velvet Dawn Spann, 26, got married in the town of Lawton about 17 months after same-sex marriage became legal in the state of Oklahoma.

To get around the potential snag of their shared family name, Patricia Spann listed her name as Patricia Ann Clayton on the pair’s marriage license application, filed with Comanche County.

For her part in marrying her daughter, two years after she was legally allowed to contact her children following an annulled marriage to her biological son, Patricia Spann will serve time in jail, according to the Oklahoman.

The newspaper reported that she pleaded guilty to felony incest Tuesday, and under a plea deal, the 46-year-old will serve two years in prison followed by eight years of probation. She will have to register as a sex offender following her release.

Oklahoma mom who once married her son will now go to jail for marrying her daughter

 

[Tilly]

If a parent thinks that they want to marry an offspring, or if siblings want to marry, I for one think that they should pursue the matter through legislation or the courts and try to make the case.

Oh Good Lord. I really didn’t think you could sink any lower in my estimation of you.

What is so low about promoting a deviant sexual behavior as legal (Lawrence v Texas) and then using that precedent to force that behavior into "rights to marry" at the USSC level?

True, that would be sinking rather low. But for some reason in certain icky sex behaviors, it doesn't bother you. That's a very subjective and hypocritical stance you have. What if the mother in question here is sexually oriented since birth to her own adult children? I mean if using another guy's asshole as an artificial vagina is "oriented since birth", why is her case "for sure not oriented since birth"??

Tilly and Silhouette....The twisted crack pots of the USMB. Obsessed with "deviant sexual behavior" and imagining that every one is promoting it

That you think people who find sex between parents and their children and siblings abhorrent says everything about you that anyone ever needs to know, regressiveperv.

 

[centerleftFL]

The left owns this freak of nature

-Geaux
------------

Patricia Ann Spann, 46, and her biological daughter Misty Velvet Dawn Spann, 26, got married in the town of Lawton about 17 months after same-sex marriage became legal in the state of Oklahoma.

To get around the potential snag of their shared family name, Patricia Spann listed her name as Patricia Ann Clayton on the pair’s marriage license application, filed with Comanche County.

For her part in marrying her daughter, two years after she was legally allowed to contact her children following an annulled marriage to her biological son, Patricia Spann will serve time in jail, according to the Oklahoman.

The newspaper reported that she pleaded guilty to felony incest Tuesday, and under a plea deal, the 46-year-old will serve two years in prison followed by eight years of probation. She will have to register as a sex offender following her release.

Oklahoma mom who once married her son will now go to jail for marrying her daughter

I'm gonna throw in 1 obvious point and one that should be asked!! A--the entire OK system failed this family! B--Isn't OK one of the biggest Mormon population states? And there are SOME fucked up 'family units' among that group.

ZERO to do with same sex marriage. NO immediate family members are allowed to be married, male or female. Maybe Obama 'slipped it in'.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If a parent thinks that they want to marry an offspring, or if siblings want to marry, I for one think that they should pursue the matter through legislation or the courts and try to make the case.

Oh Good Lord. I really didn’t think you could sink any lower in my estimation of you.

What is so low about promoting a deviant sexual behavior as legal (Lawrence v Texas) and then using that precedent to force that behavior into "rights to marry" at the USSC level?

True, that would be sinking rather low. But for some reason in certain icky sex behaviors, it doesn't bother you. That's a very subjective and hypocritical stance you have. What if the mother in question here is sexually oriented since birth to her own adult children? I mean if using another guy's asshole as an artificial vagina is "oriented since birth", why is her case "for sure not oriented since birth"??

Tilly and Silhouette....The twisted crack pots of the USMB. Obsessed with "deviant sexual behavior" and imagining that every one is promoting it

That you think people who find sex between parents and their children and siblings abhorrent says everything about you that anyone ever needs to know, regressiveperv.

Who the hell are "you people" and who here said that it is a good thing? I only said that if someone wants to marry their child or sibling, that have the right to pursue it legally. In our system based on equal protection under the law, access to the legal system should not be based on anyone's visceral reaction to the issue. What part of that do you not understand.?

 

[centerleftFL]

If a parent thinks that they want to marry an offspring, or if siblings want to marry, I for one think that they should pursue the matter through legislation or the courts and try to make the case.

Oh Good Lord. I really didn’t think you could sink any lower in my estimation of you.

What is so low about promoting a deviant sexual behavior as legal (Lawrence v Texas) and then using that precedent to force that behavior into "rights to marry" at the USSC level?

True, that would be sinking rather low. But for some reason in certain icky sex behaviors, it doesn't bother you. That's a very subjective and hypocritical stance you have. What if the mother in question here is sexually oriented since birth to her own adult children? I mean if using another guy's asshole as an artificial vagina is "oriented since birth", why is her case "for sure not oriented since birth"??

Tilly and Silhouette....The twisted crack pots of the USMB. Obsessed with "deviant sexual behavior" and imagining that every one is promoting it

That you think people who find sex between parents and their children and siblings abhorrent says everything about you that anyone ever needs to know, regressiveperv.

Who the hell are "you people" and who here said that it is a good thing? I only said that if someone wants to marry their child or sibling, that have the right to pursue it legally. In our system based on equal protection under the law, access to the legal system should not be based on anyone's visceral reaction to the issue. What part of that do you not understand.?

No actually they should not. There are a number of reasons which I don't have time for now but YES, it will diminish the blood/gene line. That's why we have laws about marrying children and have FOR centuries.

Fuck the stupidass bible. It has to do with survival of the species. Mother nature wins over JESUS.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh Good Lord. I really didn’t think you could sink any lower in my estimation of you.

What is so low about promoting a deviant sexual behavior as legal (Lawrence v Texas) and then using that precedent to force that behavior into "rights to marry" at the USSC level?

True, that would be sinking rather low. But for some reason in certain icky sex behaviors, it doesn't bother you. That's a very subjective and hypocritical stance you have. What if the mother in question here is sexually oriented since birth to her own adult children? I mean if using another guy's asshole as an artificial vagina is "oriented since birth", why is her case "for sure not oriented since birth"??

Tilly and Silhouette....The twisted crack pots of the USMB. Obsessed with "deviant sexual behavior" and imagining that every one is promoting it

That you think people who find sex between parents and their children and siblings abhorrent says everything about you that anyone ever needs to know, regressiveperv.

Who the hell are "you people" and who here said that it is a good thing? I only said that if someone wants to marry their child or sibling, that have the right to pursue it legally. In our system based on equal protection under the law, access to the legal system should not be based on anyone's visceral reaction to the issue. What part of that do you not understand.?

No actually they should not. There are a number of reasons which I don't have time for now but YES, it will diminish the blood/gene line. That's why we have laws about marrying children and have FOR centuries.

Fuck the stupidass bible. It has to do with survival of the species. Mother nature wins over JESUS.

Should not what? Have access to the courts or representative? Look, I agree with you that such inbreeding would not be a good thing and if anyone were crazy enough to pursue it, it is doubtful that they would get very far for the reasons that you cite and more.

You know, I have often been called a hypocrite by the bigots who oppose unrelated same sex marriage for not supporting other "variations " on marriage. My answer is always "go for it" It kind of deflates the blowhards.

 

[Tilly]

If a parent thinks that they want to marry an offspring, or if siblings want to marry, I for one think that they should pursue the matter through legislation or the courts and try to make the case.

Oh Good Lord. I really didn’t think you could sink any lower in my estimation of you.

What is so low about promoting a deviant sexual behavior as legal (Lawrence v Texas) and then using that precedent to force that behavior into "rights to marry" at the USSC level?

True, that would be sinking rather low. But for some reason in certain icky sex behaviors, it doesn't bother you. That's a very subjective and hypocritical stance you have. What if the mother in question here is sexually oriented since birth to her own adult children? I mean if using another guy's asshole as an artificial vagina is "oriented since birth", why is her case "for sure not oriented since birth"??

Tilly and Silhouette....The twisted crack pots of the USMB. Obsessed with "deviant sexual behavior" and imagining that every one is promoting it

That you think people who find sex between parents and their children and siblings abhorrent says everything about you that anyone ever needs to know, regressiveperv.

Who the hell are "you people" and who here said that it is a good thing? I only said that if someone wants to marry their child or sibling, that have the right to pursue it legally. In our system based on equal protection under the law, access to the legal system should not be based on anyone's visceral reaction to the issue. What part of that do you not understand.?

Where did I say ‘you people’, regressiveperv?

And of course you are supporting it.
Normal people don’t suggest that sickos who want to have sex with their children and siblings FIGHT in court for the right to do so!

The myriad reasons it is wrong have already been established hence it is illegal.

What next? Would you like people to fight for the right to have sex with their toddlers?
With their dogs?

You entertain some very sick notions in that twisted mind of yours and your attempt at disguising them is thoroughly transparent, regressiveperv. Yuck!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh Good Lord. I really didn’t think you could sink any lower in my estimation of you.

What is so low about promoting a deviant sexual behavior as legal (Lawrence v Texas) and then using that precedent to force that behavior into "rights to marry" at the USSC level?

True, that would be sinking rather low. But for some reason in certain icky sex behaviors, it doesn't bother you. That's a very subjective and hypocritical stance you have. What if the mother in question here is sexually oriented since birth to her own adult children? I mean if using another guy's asshole as an artificial vagina is "oriented since birth", why is her case "for sure not oriented since birth"??

Tilly and Silhouette....The twisted crack pots of the USMB. Obsessed with "deviant sexual behavior" and imagining that every one is promoting it

That you think people who find sex between parents and their children and siblings abhorrent says everything about you that anyone ever needs to know, regressiveperv.

Who the hell are "you people" and who here said that it is a good thing? I only said that if someone wants to marry their child or sibling, that have the right to pursue it legally. In our system based on equal protection under the law, access to the legal system should not be based on anyone's visceral reaction to the issue. What part of that do you not understand.?

Where did I say ‘you people’, regressiveperv?

And of course you are supporting it.
Normal people don’t suggest that sickos who want to have sex with their children and siblings FIGHT in court for the right to do so!

The myriad reason it is wrong have already been established hence it is illegal.

What next? Would you like people to fight for the right to have sex with their toddlers?
With their dogs?

You entertain some very sick notions in that twisted mind of yours and your attempt at disguising them is thoroughly transparent, regressiveperv. Yuck!

Settle the fuck down! So you don't believe in equal protection under the law and due process. Got that! I would not be surprised if you were one of the people who would stoop to calling me a hypocrite for coming out unequivocally against sibling/ parent-child marriage while supporting gay marriage. YOU PEOPLE just use these issue in a feeble attempt to score points

 

[Silhouette]

Settle the fuck down! So you don't believe in equal protection under the law and due process. Got that! I would not be surprised if you were one of the people who would stoop to calling me a hypocrite for coming out unequivocally against sibling/ parent-child marriage while supporting gay marriage. YOU PEOPLE just use these issue in a feeble attempt to score points

I like your summation of the 14th Amendment there PP. Where in Obergefell did is say "but other minority sexual orientations are exempt from these findings"?

For that matter, where in the 14th does it mention sexual behaviors? Or where does it mention "just these deviant sexual behaviors, but not others"...?

You understand that the 14th Amendment is about equality, right? No matter how "icky" other people find the minority in question...Your cult's lawyers argued this constantly in court, yet know you invoke it as a means to deny other icky orientations the same rights you insisted were yours.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I like your summation of the 14th Amendment there PP. Where in Obergefell did is say "but other minority sexual orientations are exempt from these findings"?

From page 27 of the decision https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

"ON THE SAME TERMS AS ACCORDED TO COUPLES OF THE OPPOSITE SEX. SAME TERMS

Couples of the opposite sex cannot include a sibling

Couples of the opposite sex cannot include an offspring

Couples of the opposite sex cannot include a human males and a female of another species

Couples of the opposite sex cannot go and marry a third or 4th person

Couples of the opposite sex cannot include a dead person....shall I go on?

Therefor SAME SEX couples cannot do any of those things either. Next stupid question

Note: From pg. 1-2
The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.