Gay Marriage, Is It Really Legal in All 50 States & Who Has Standing To Challenge It?

[80zephyr]

Obergefell is fatally-flawed on about four different levels.

All it would take for standing is for a state to deny gays a marriage license based on their own writing of marriage laws; citing Windsor 2013. Then Windsor would be pitted against Obergefell and Obergefell would lose. Since Obergefell did not seek to overturn Windsor, and the two cases' opinions are diametrically opposed on the issue of states having the final say on marriage definition, the conflict would be referred to the US Constitution to resolve either for the state or for the gay couple (polygamists?) seeking marriage there. If the new USSC finds that there is no language that overturns Windsor's **56-assertions that marriage definition is exclusively up to the states, Obergefell is defunct and the state would win the case.

** Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Not sure on who would have standing to have Obergefell thrown out for violating Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009 (USSC) on the grounds that Ginsburg openly flaunted her bias to the press just weeks before the Hearing in 2015....where she was asked to, but refused to recuse herself...

Then there's the issue of who would have standing to challenge its conflicting Constitutionality citing the 14th Amendment as its justification where polygamy and other types of marriages derived from lifestyles "other than" one man/one woman still (arbitrarily and unfairly re: 14th Amendment) cannot marry. Think: polygamy & incest. If you cite a damage to children for their adults not being able to marry as the justification for Obergefell, you cannot arbitrarily choose which children will remain 'damaged' by their adults STILL NOT able to marry. Either all children must be "saved from the damage" or else marriage is approved based on some other rationale.

Obergefell is the swiss cheese of USSC decisions, so full of holes that Scalia simply couldn't take living in the same universe as that decision.

So take your pick. But there are some cases where there would be standing to challenge it. Another is, two adults cannot have a contract that also binds children involved (speaking of damaging children as rationale) away from a loving mother or father for life. Gay marriage uniquely does this where no other marriage does. Children had no representation unique to their own interests at Obergefell in the radical contract-revision hearing that sought to apply to all 50 States. Then, they were treated as legal chattel while the court hypocritically fawned poetic over their unique plight and interest in marriage. Also, children of gay couples who found the experience detrimental and wanted their amicus brief considered at Obergefell, were denied such input. Did you get that? Young adults who just came through the experimental marriages had negative things to say about being denied a father or mother and the USSC under the liberal majority DENIED their input wholesale.

So, Alabama, North Dakota, Arkansas, Maine, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma etc. deny gay people a marriage license if that's what your state said doesn't qualify. Do it for the kids. Otherwise, your state may be enabling child abuse by sanctioning and rewarding contracts that harm them for life.

Why should big government care who gets married in the first place?

Or do you think government should be in our bedrooms fixated with what we do with our holes and sticks?

Government makes rules for our society that we live by. I don't particularly care that we have so many single parent families, but the fact is, is that, thru welfare, government created these situations.

The government, thru official mandate, has made it easier to divorce, easier to be unwed and have children, and easier for society to erode the concept of "family".

Gay marriage is simply another nail in society's coffin.

Mark

So government should decide who can and can't get married? What else do you want big government to do? Geesh.

When government in essence pays people to divorce, aren't they in fact doing what you claim you don't want them to do?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Yes it's legal in every state. Why does it bother you so much? Gays and lesbians are going to fuck regardless. How does them getting married effect you?

How does anyone fucking an animal or the dead affect you?

Mark

 

[whitehall]

Judging by the media it seems that Americans are pretty much in acceptance with sodomite unions but the media fails to note the Americans who cite their 1st Amendment Constitutional right to freedom of religion not to sanction or condone sodomite unions came first. The dirty little secret is that radical sodomites aren't satisfied with the tolerance of the greatest Country in the world of their lifestyle but they are encouraged by radicals to challenge the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion. Thankfully the latest Supreme Court appointment will sanction the right of Americans to not be forced to participate in sodomite unions.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Yes, it is really legal in every state. Time to get over it and find a new unhealthy obsession to fixate on.

Booger-eating subsidies are next. That’s logic.
When lefties usurp logic to get their way, everyone else is supposed to simply accept it. When lefties don’t get their way, it’s disparagement and rioting time.

 

[Silhouette]

Judging by the media it seems that Americans are pretty much in acceptance with sodomite unions but the media fails to note the Americans who cite their 1st Amendment Constitutional right to freedom of religion not to sanction or condone sodomite unions came first. The dirty little secret is that radical sodomites aren't satisfied with the tolerance of the greatest Country in the world of their lifestyle but they are encouraged by radicals to challenge the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion. Thankfully the latest Supreme Court appointment will sanction the right of Americans to not be forced to participate in sodomite unions.

The media also said gay marriage had an easy win in CA. Then it was defeated twice.

The facts are fake.

 

[Bezukhov]

Yes it's legal in every state. Why does it bother you so much? Gays and lesbians are going to fuck regardless. How does them getting married effect you?

Some people are under the impression that since Gays can now get married it means that Straight people can not.

 

[Bezukhov]

Big State cares because of the children involved and their unique societies in which the children will be molded into. States care because children want and need both a loving mother and father. To incentivize anything else would be incentivizing child abuse. And you're against child abuse, right? States want to tease people into giving the mother and father to children so that single parents are motivated to keep trying to provide the necessary missing parent. The last thing a state would want to do is incentivize a contract that BANISHES children from either a mother or father for life.

Right! Because Straight parents never abused their children. Not even once. It just never happens.

What's the real reason why your panties are all in a bunch over this subject?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Yes it's legal in every state. Why does it bother you so much? Gays and lesbians are going to fuck regardless. How does them getting married effect you?

Some people are under the impression that since Gays can now get married it means that Straight people can not.

Never saw any such reasoning. Quite the opposite. Legal homo marriage would open the door to anything.

 

[Bezukhov]

Yes it's legal in every state. Why does it bother you so much? Gays and lesbians are going to fuck regardless. How does them getting married effect you?

Some people are under the impression that since Gays can now get married it means that Straight people can not.

Never saw any such reasoning. Quite the opposite. Legal homo marriage would open the door to anything.

Sorry! Should have used the /Sarcasm tag.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Obergefell is fatally-flawed on about four different levels.

All it would take for standing is for a state to deny gays a marriage license based on their own writing of marriage laws; citing Windsor 2013. Then Windsor would be pitted against Obergefell and Obergefell would lose. Since Obergefell did not seek to overturn Windsor, and the two cases' opinions are diametrically opposed on the issue of states having the final say on marriage definition, the conflict would be referred to the US Constitution to resolve either for the state or for the gay couple (polygamists?) seeking marriage there. If the new USSC finds that there is no language that overturns Windsor's **56-assertions that marriage definition is exclusively up to the states, Obergefell is defunct and the state would win the case.

** Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Not sure on who would have standing to have Obergefell thrown out for violating Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009 (USSC) on the grounds that Ginsburg openly flaunted her bias to the press just weeks before the Hearing in 2015....where she was asked to, but refused to recuse herself...

Then there's the issue of who would have standing to challenge its conflicting Constitutionality citing the 14th Amendment as its justification where polygamy and other types of marriages derived from lifestyles "other than" one man/one woman still (arbitrarily and unfairly re: 14th Amendment) cannot marry. Think: polygamy & incest. If you cite a damage to children for their adults not being able to marry as the justification for Obergefell, you cannot arbitrarily choose which children will remain 'damaged' by their adults STILL NOT able to marry. Either all children must be "saved from the damage" or else marriage is approved based on some other rationale.

Obergefell is the swiss cheese of USSC decisions, so full of holes that Scalia simply couldn't take living in the same universe as that decision.

So take your pick. But there are some cases where there would be standing to challenge it. Another is, two adults cannot have a contract that also binds children involved (speaking of damaging children as rationale) away from a loving mother or father for life. Gay marriage uniquely does this where no other marriage does. Children had no representation unique to their own interests at Obergefell in the radical contract-revision hearing that sought to apply to all 50 States. Then, they were treated as legal chattel while the court hypocritically fawned poetic over their unique plight and interest in marriage. Also, children of gay couples who found the experience detrimental and wanted their amicus brief considered at Obergefell, were denied such input. Did you get that? Young adults who just came through the experimental marriages had negative things to say about being denied a father or mother and the USSC under the liberal majority DENIED their input wholesale.

So, Alabama, North Dakota, Arkansas, Maine, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma etc. deny gay people a marriage license if that's what your state said doesn't qualify. Do it for the kids. Otherwise, your state may be enabling child abuse by sanctioning and rewarding contracts that harm them for life.

Dudes can marry dudes, and chicks can marry chicks. It’s done, deal with it. Find a fight you can win like banning aborti....Er wait...that one is settled too. Never mind, just know gender is irrelevant where marriage is concerned

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obergefell is fatally-flawed on about four different levels.

All it would take for standing is for a state to deny gays a marriage license based on their own writing of marriage laws; citing Windsor 2013. Then Windsor would be pitted against Obergefell and Obergefell would lose. Since Obergefell did not seek to overturn Windsor, and the two cases' opinions are diametrically opposed on the issue of states having the final say on marriage definition, the conflict would be referred to the US Constitution to resolve either for the state or for the gay couple (polygamists?) seeking marriage there. If the new USSC finds that there is no language that overturns Windsor's **56-assertions that marriage definition is exclusively up to the states, Obergefell is defunct and the state would win the case.

** Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Not sure on who would have standing to have Obergefell thrown out for violating Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009 (USSC) on the grounds that Ginsburg openly flaunted her bias to the press just weeks before the Hearing in 2015....where she was asked to, but refused to recuse herself...

Then there's the issue of who would have standing to challenge its conflicting Constitutionality citing the 14th Amendment as its justification where polygamy and other types of marriages derived from lifestyles "other than" one man/one woman still (arbitrarily and unfairly re: 14th Amendment) cannot marry. Think: polygamy & incest. If you cite a damage to children for their adults not being able to marry as the justification for Obergefell, you cannot arbitrarily choose which children will remain 'damaged' by their adults STILL NOT able to marry. Either all children must be "saved from the damage" or else marriage is approved based on some other rationale.

Obergefell is the swiss cheese of USSC decisions, so full of holes that Scalia simply couldn't take living in the same universe as that decision.

So take your pick. But there are some cases where there would be standing to challenge it. Another is, two adults cannot have a contract that also binds children involved (speaking of damaging children as rationale) away from a loving mother or father for life. Gay marriage uniquely does this where no other marriage does. Children had no representation unique to their own interests at Obergefell in the radical contract-revision hearing that sought to apply to all 50 States. Then, they were treated as legal chattel while the court hypocritically fawned poetic over their unique plight and interest in marriage. Also, children of gay couples who found the experience detrimental and wanted their amicus brief considered at Obergefell, were denied such input. Did you get that? Young adults who just came through the experimental marriages had negative things to say about being denied a father or mother and the USSC under the liberal majority DENIED their input wholesale.

So, Alabama, North Dakota, Arkansas, Maine, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma etc. deny gay people a marriage license if that's what your state said doesn't qualify. Do it for the kids. Otherwise, your state may be enabling child abuse by sanctioning and rewarding contracts that harm them for life.

And this is why we need a Constitution and its case law: to protect citizens from this sort of rightwing ignorance, fear, bigotry, and hate.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Obergefell is fatally-flawed on about four different levels.

All it would take for standing is for a state to deny gays a marriage license based on their own writing of marriage laws; citing Windsor 2013. Then Windsor would be pitted against Obergefell and Obergefell would lose. Since Obergefell did not seek to overturn Windsor, and the two cases' opinions are diametrically opposed on the issue of states having the final say on marriage definition, the conflict would be referred to the US Constitution to resolve either for the state or for the gay couple (polygamists?) seeking marriage there. If the new USSC finds that there is no language that overturns Windsor's **56-assertions that marriage definition is exclusively up to the states, Obergefell is defunct and the state would win the case.

** Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Not sure on who would have standing to have Obergefell thrown out for violating Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009 (USSC) on the grounds that Ginsburg openly flaunted her bias to the press just weeks before the Hearing in 2015....where she was asked to, but refused to recuse herself...

Then there's the issue of who would have standing to challenge its conflicting Constitutionality citing the 14th Amendment as its justification where polygamy and other types of marriages derived from lifestyles "other than" one man/one woman still (arbitrarily and unfairly re: 14th Amendment) cannot marry. Think: polygamy & incest. If you cite a damage to children for their adults not being able to marry as the justification for Obergefell, you cannot arbitrarily choose which children will remain 'damaged' by their adults STILL NOT able to marry. Either all children must be "saved from the damage" or else marriage is approved based on some other rationale.

Obergefell is the swiss cheese of USSC decisions, so full of holes that Scalia simply couldn't take living in the same universe as that decision.

So take your pick. But there are some cases where there would be standing to challenge it. Another is, two adults cannot have a contract that also binds children involved (speaking of damaging children as rationale) away from a loving mother or father for life. Gay marriage uniquely does this where no other marriage does. Children had no representation unique to their own interests at Obergefell in the radical contract-revision hearing that sought to apply to all 50 States. Then, they were treated as legal chattel while the court hypocritically fawned poetic over their unique plight and interest in marriage. Also, children of gay couples who found the experience detrimental and wanted their amicus brief considered at Obergefell, were denied such input. Did you get that? Young adults who just came through the experimental marriages had negative things to say about being denied a father or mother and the USSC under the liberal majority DENIED their input wholesale.

So, Alabama, North Dakota, Arkansas, Maine, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma etc. deny gay people a marriage license if that's what your state said doesn't qualify. Do it for the kids. Otherwise, your state may be enabling child abuse by sanctioning and rewarding contracts that harm them for life.

Dudes can marry dudes, and chicks can marry chicks. It’s done, deal with it. Find a fight you can win like banning aborti....Er wait...that one is settled too. Never mind, just know gender is irrelevant where marriage is concerned

No, it’s deeper than that. It isn’t merely about homos marrying. It’s about the legal standard granted, the subsidies everyone is forced to provide and the equal opportunity of adoption, thereby intentionally denying a child the opportunity to be raised by the necessary mother/father situation empirically proven to be necessary.

 

[Silhouette]

And this is why we need a Constitution and its case law: to protect citizens from this sort of rightwing ignorance, fear, bigotry, and hate.

Yes. Exactly. Only the Constitution says that if one repugnant lifestyle is granted a legal standard to preside over children “as married”, then all repugnant lifestyles get the same rights & privileges. Were you aware that Obergefell legalized polygamy? Now you are.

There is case law pertaining to marriage & whether it’s the states or the fed who get to define it. That case law is Windsor 2013. Might want to read it when you get a chance. Link in the OP.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Booger-eating subsidies are next. That’s logic.

Uh.....No. That is definitely not logic.

 

[Toronado3800]

Obergefell is fatally-flawed on about four different levels.

All it would take for standing is for a state to deny gays a marriage license based on their own writing of marriage laws; citing Windsor 2013. Then Windsor would be pitted against Obergefell and Obergefell would lose. Since Obergefell did not seek to overturn Windsor, and the two cases' opinions are diametrically opposed on the issue of states having the final say on marriage definition, the conflict would be referred to the US Constitution to resolve either for the state or for the gay couple (polygamists?) seeking marriage there. If the new USSC finds that there is no language that overturns Windsor's **56-assertions that marriage definition is exclusively up to the states, Obergefell is defunct and the state would win the case.

** Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Not sure on who would have standing to have Obergefell thrown out for violating Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009 (USSC) on the grounds that Ginsburg openly flaunted her bias to the press just weeks before the Hearing in 2015....where she was asked to, but refused to recuse herself...

Then there's the issue of who would have standing to challenge its conflicting Constitutionality citing the 14th Amendment as its justification where polygamy and other types of marriages derived from lifestyles "other than" one man/one woman still (arbitrarily and unfairly re: 14th Amendment) cannot marry. Think: polygamy & incest. If you cite a damage to children for their adults not being able to marry as the justification for Obergefell, you cannot arbitrarily choose which children will remain 'damaged' by their adults STILL NOT able to marry. Either all children must be "saved from the damage" or else marriage is approved based on some other rationale.

Obergefell is the swiss cheese of USSC decisions, so full of holes that Scalia simply couldn't take living in the same universe as that decision.

So take your pick. But there are some cases where there would be standing to challenge it. Another is, two adults cannot have a contract that also binds children involved (speaking of damaging children as rationale) away from a loving mother or father for life. Gay marriage uniquely does this where no other marriage does. Children had no representation unique to their own interests at Obergefell in the radical contract-revision hearing that sought to apply to all 50 States. Then, they were treated as legal chattel while the court hypocritically fawned poetic over their unique plight and interest in marriage. Also, children of gay couples who found the experience detrimental and wanted their amicus brief considered at Obergefell, were denied such input. Did you get that? Young adults who just came through the experimental marriages had negative things to say about being denied a father or mother and the USSC under the liberal majority DENIED their input wholesale.

So, Alabama, North Dakota, Arkansas, Maine, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma etc. deny gay people a marriage license if that's what your state said doesn't qualify. Do it for the kids. Otherwise, your state may be enabling child abuse by sanctioning and rewarding contracts that harm them for life.

Why should big government care who gets married in the first place?

Or do you think government should be in our bedrooms fixated with what we do with our holes and sticks?

Government makes rules for our society that we live by. I don't particularly care that we have so many single parent families, but the fact is, is that, thru welfare, government created these situations.

The government, thru official mandate, has made it easier to divorce, easier to be unwed and have children, and easier for society to erode the concept of "family".

Gay marriage is simply another nail in society's coffin.

Mark

So government should decide who can and can't get married? What else do you want big government to do? Geesh.

When government in essence pays people to divorce, aren't they in fact doing what you claim you don't want them to do?

Mark

Government pays people to divorce? Lead me further down this stream of thought please.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Obergefell is fatally-flawed on about four different levels.

All it would take for standing is for a state to deny gays a marriage license based on their own writing of marriage laws; citing Windsor 2013. Then Windsor would be pitted against Obergefell and Obergefell would lose. Since Obergefell did not seek to overturn Windsor, and the two cases' opinions are diametrically opposed on the issue of states having the final say on marriage definition, the conflict would be referred to the US Constitution to resolve either for the state or for the gay couple (polygamists?) seeking marriage there. If the new USSC finds that there is no language that overturns Windsor's **56-assertions that marriage definition is exclusively up to the states, Obergefell is defunct and the state would win the case.

** Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Not sure on who would have standing to have Obergefell thrown out for violating Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009 (USSC) on the grounds that Ginsburg openly flaunted her bias to the press just weeks before the Hearing in 2015....where she was asked to, but refused to recuse herself...

Then there's the issue of who would have standing to challenge its conflicting Constitutionality citing the 14th Amendment as its justification where polygamy and other types of marriages derived from lifestyles "other than" one man/one woman still (arbitrarily and unfairly re: 14th Amendment) cannot marry. Think: polygamy & incest. If you cite a damage to children for their adults not being able to marry as the justification for Obergefell, you cannot arbitrarily choose which children will remain 'damaged' by their adults STILL NOT able to marry. Either all children must be "saved from the damage" or else marriage is approved based on some other rationale.

Obergefell is the swiss cheese of USSC decisions, so full of holes that Scalia simply couldn't take living in the same universe as that decision.

So take your pick. But there are some cases where there would be standing to challenge it. Another is, two adults cannot have a contract that also binds children involved (speaking of damaging children as rationale) away from a loving mother or father for life. Gay marriage uniquely does this where no other marriage does. Children had no representation unique to their own interests at Obergefell in the radical contract-revision hearing that sought to apply to all 50 States. Then, they were treated as legal chattel while the court hypocritically fawned poetic over their unique plight and interest in marriage. Also, children of gay couples who found the experience detrimental and wanted their amicus brief considered at Obergefell, were denied such input. Did you get that? Young adults who just came through the experimental marriages had negative things to say about being denied a father or mother and the USSC under the liberal majority DENIED their input wholesale.

So, Alabama, North Dakota, Arkansas, Maine, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma etc. deny gay people a marriage license if that's what your state said doesn't qualify. Do it for the kids. Otherwise, your state may be enabling child abuse by sanctioning and rewarding contracts that harm them for life.

Dudes can marry dudes, and chicks can marry chicks. It’s done, deal with it. Find a fight you can win like banning aborti....Er wait...that one is settled too. Never mind, just know gender is irrelevant where marriage is concerned

No, it’s deeper than that. It isn’t merely about homos marrying. It’s about the legal standard granted, the subsidies everyone is forced to provide and the equal opportunity of adoption, thereby intentionally denying a child the opportunity to be raised by the necessary mother/father situation empirically proven to be necessary.

.....the subsides everyone is forced to provide...? What the hell subsides are you providing because of gay marriage?

 

[Silhouette]

Don’t make up positions for me, retard. Why do you always leave the part of Windor’s ruling where states get to still define marriage but still have to meet certain constitutional guarantees? You keep demanding everyone has to submit to your wild legal ramblings, but we don’t.

I don't. You'll notice I frequently mention how Obergefell legalized polygamy in 2015....

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Booger-eating subsidies are next. That’s logic.

Uh.....No. That is definitely not logic.

It is perfect logic. Think harder.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Obergefell is fatally-flawed on about four different levels.

All it would take for standing is for a state to deny gays a marriage license based on their own writing of marriage laws; citing Windsor 2013. Then Windsor would be pitted against Obergefell and Obergefell would lose. Since Obergefell did not seek to overturn Windsor, and the two cases' opinions are diametrically opposed on the issue of states having the final say on marriage definition, the conflict would be referred to the US Constitution to resolve either for the state or for the gay couple (polygamists?) seeking marriage there. If the new USSC finds that there is no language that overturns Windsor's **56-assertions that marriage definition is exclusively up to the states, Obergefell is defunct and the state would win the case.

** Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Not sure on who would have standing to have Obergefell thrown out for violating Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009 (USSC) on the grounds that Ginsburg openly flaunted her bias to the press just weeks before the Hearing in 2015....where she was asked to, but refused to recuse herself...

Then there's the issue of who would have standing to challenge its conflicting Constitutionality citing the 14th Amendment as its justification where polygamy and other types of marriages derived from lifestyles "other than" one man/one woman still (arbitrarily and unfairly re: 14th Amendment) cannot marry. Think: polygamy & incest. If you cite a damage to children for their adults not being able to marry as the justification for Obergefell, you cannot arbitrarily choose which children will remain 'damaged' by their adults STILL NOT able to marry. Either all children must be "saved from the damage" or else marriage is approved based on some other rationale.

Obergefell is the swiss cheese of USSC decisions, so full of holes that Scalia simply couldn't take living in the same universe as that decision.

So take your pick. But there are some cases where there would be standing to challenge it. Another is, two adults cannot have a contract that also binds children involved (speaking of damaging children as rationale) away from a loving mother or father for life. Gay marriage uniquely does this where no other marriage does. Children had no representation unique to their own interests at Obergefell in the radical contract-revision hearing that sought to apply to all 50 States. Then, they were treated as legal chattel while the court hypocritically fawned poetic over their unique plight and interest in marriage. Also, children of gay couples who found the experience detrimental and wanted their amicus brief considered at Obergefell, were denied such input. Did you get that? Young adults who just came through the experimental marriages had negative things to say about being denied a father or mother and the USSC under the liberal majority DENIED their input wholesale.

So, Alabama, North Dakota, Arkansas, Maine, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma etc. deny gay people a marriage license if that's what your state said doesn't qualify. Do it for the kids. Otherwise, your state may be enabling child abuse by sanctioning and rewarding contracts that harm them for life.

Dudes can marry dudes, and chicks can marry chicks. It’s done, deal with it. Find a fight you can win like banning aborti....Er wait...that one is settled too. Never mind, just know gender is irrelevant where marriage is concerned

No, it’s deeper than that. It isn’t merely about homos marrying. It’s about the legal standard granted, the subsidies everyone is forced to provide and the equal opportunity of adoption, thereby intentionally denying a child the opportunity to be raised by the necessary mother/father situation empirically proven to be necessary.

.....the subsides everyone is forced to provide...? What the hell subsides are you providing because of gay marriage?

Tax breaks afforded married couples. The rest of us cover that break.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Booger-eating subsidies are next. That’s logic.

Uh.....No. That is definitely not logic.

It is perfect logic. Think harder.

Look, I've read the entire book, and it said nothing about booer-eating subsidies. Maybe you should read it. It's only a buck.

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Barnes-Library-Essential-Reading/dp/0760770409&tag=ff0d01-20