Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[danielpalos]

Not that the right don't want them to, but what is it you think they are actually getting? The courts are overwhelmingly left.

A social concept called and styled, Equality.

So you don't know either? I didn't think so. You just liked the way it sounded.

Yes, I do know; it is only the right that has a problem with the Social concept of Equality, possibly, because it is not a Capital concept.

 

[danielpalos]

Wrong. The Court has the legal authority via the authority of the Constitution they are interpreting, and via the authority they have been given to interpret the Constitution.

Yes, and, there is no privilege or immunity for any of the several citizens in the several States, to Appeal to Ignorance of the law under our republican form of Government.

LOL, the courts "have been given" the power to interpret the Constitution. They took it in Marbury v. Madison.

So what? That doesn't mean they can appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[kaz]

Not that the right don't want them to, but what is it you think they are actually getting? The courts are overwhelmingly left.

A social concept called and styled, Equality.

So you don't know either? I didn't think so. You just liked the way it sounded.

Yes, I do know; it is only the right that has a problem with the Social concept of Equality, possibly, because it is not a Capital concept.

Yet you can't name anything...

 

[kaz]

Wrong. The Court has the legal authority via the authority of the Constitution they are interpreting, and via the authority they have been given to interpret the Constitution.

Yes, and, there is no privilege or immunity for any of the several citizens in the several States, to Appeal to Ignorance of the law under our republican form of Government.

LOL, the courts "have been given" the power to interpret the Constitution. They took it in Marbury v. Madison.

So what? That doesn't mean they can appeal to ignorance of the law.

Who is appealing to "ignorance of the law?" The left appeals to ignorance, but that's a different thing...

 

[bodecea]

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

They use the same argument. And it is grossly offensive. They are in no ways similar. It is a failed argument.

How is it different? Explain that to us.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I'm sure glad we have government to tell us what marriage is. Makes me sleep well at night that we don't have to make these choices for ourselves. Don't you think so, Geaux and Michael? Is there any point where either of you start to wonder why we need government to tell us that at all?

And have you noticed how government uses this to manipulate us?

Right, Kaz.. Tell us again how you support DOMA because you don't think it's the federal government deciding what marriage is. You are not the libertarian you pretend to be.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

With a solid 55% of the population supporting gay marriage, the 'common sense' definition may be different than you think it is.

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Oh, is that the excuse the Left uses to subvert the will of the people?

In fact, every time I hear that idiocy, "we are not a democracy, we're a republic" I want to scream because the person saying it thinks their educated when in fact they're a buffoon. We're actually both. We have a system of government that makes government an expression of the will of the people both at the local and the national level. That's what government "by the people" means. We are also a republic because democracy without restraints can quickly become mob rule. If we were just the former, then government becomes an all powerful entity which rules over the people disarmed in their ability to influence it. If we were just the latter, then we turn into two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper. So the one doesn't exclude the other.

Most people want to settle for sounding intelligent, as do you. I'd rather BE intelligent.

 

[The Rabbi]

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

They use the same argument. And it is grossly offensive. They are in no ways similar. It is a failed argument.

How is it different? Explain that to us.

In 1960 blacks were barred from any number of acitivies available to whites. In their protests blacks were subjected to beatings, dogs, and occasionally killing. The Constitution guarantees certain rights to citizens and blacks were certainly citizens unable to exercise them.
Now, tell me which gays have been killed in their protests for gay marriage. Show me the Bull Connor of the gay movement. They may have broken a fingernail here. Further, show me the gay waterfountains, or the gays denied the right to vote. Or even the gays denied the right to marriage. There are many homosexuals with valid marriage certificates, all of them involving someone of theopposite sex.
For gays to assume the mantle of a civil rights struggle where many blacks literally took their lives in their hands is unbeliveably presumptuous and offensive. It would be as bad as labelling it a "gay holocaust".

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

They use the same argument. And it is grossly offensive. They are in no ways similar. It is a failed argument.

How is it different? Explain that to us.

In 1960 blacks were barred from any number of acitivies available to whites. In their protests blacks were subjected to beatings, dogs, and occasionally killing. The Constitution guarantees certain rights to citizens and blacks were certainly citizens unable to exercise them.
Now, tell me which gays have been killed in their protests for gay marriage. Show me the Bull Connor of the gay movement. They may have broken a fingernail here. Further, show me the gay waterfountains, or the gays denied the right to vote. Or even the gays denied the right to marriage. There are many homosexuals with valid marriage certificates, all of them involving someone of theopposite sex.
For gays to assume the mantle of a civil rights struggle where many blacks literally took their lives in their hands is unbeliveably presumptuous and offensive. It would be as bad as labelling it a "gay holocaust".

I do think it's sagacious how Rush Limbaugh points out that from the baby boomer generation on, we've had to invent our own dramas for lack of any real, true hardship. We've become like teenagers who have everything they need, but make life and death out of perceived injustices imposed by their parents...such as having rules and enforcing them. It's sickening to have this childish surliness against the backdrop of true human suffering all over the globe; children who die from various diseases before they turn 5, political prisoners in work camps in North Korea, villages being destroyed and thousands of people being killed in Africa for their ethnic distinction. I'm sure that our self obsessed exaggeration of the trivial must offend the Almighty.

Homosexuals in this country haven't been subject to any real discrimination, injury, or hardship. They whine because people don't want to deal with their personal lifestyles in the workplace, and in every facet of life. The belligerent fag militia has pushed their lifestyle in our faces at every turn, and when we get mad about it, they recoil and scream about how persecuted they are. Drama queens all of them, and not in the cool, clique kind of way.

 

[The Rabbi]

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

They use the same argument. And it is grossly offensive. They are in no ways similar. It is a failed argument.

How is it different? Explain that to us.

In 1960 blacks were barred from any number of acitivies available to whites. In their protests blacks were subjected to beatings, dogs, and occasionally killing. The Constitution guarantees certain rights to citizens and blacks were certainly citizens unable to exercise them.
Now, tell me which gays have been killed in their protests for gay marriage. Show me the Bull Connor of the gay movement. They may have broken a fingernail here. Further, show me the gay waterfountains, or the gays denied the right to vote. Or even the gays denied the right to marriage. There are many homosexuals with valid marriage certificates, all of them involving someone of theopposite sex.
For gays to assume the mantle of a civil rights struggle where many blacks literally took their lives in their hands is unbeliveably presumptuous and offensive. It would be as bad as labelling it a "gay holocaust".

I do think it's sagacious how Rush Limbaugh points out that from the baby boomer generation on, we've had to invent our own dramas for lack of any real, true hardship. We've become like teenagers who have everything they need, but make life and death out of perceived injustices imposed by their parents...such as having rules and enforcing them. It's sickening to have this childish surliness against the backdrop of true human suffering all over the globe; children who die from various diseases before they turn 5, political prisoners in work camps in North Korea, villages being destroyed and thousands of people being killed in Africa for their ethnic distinction. I'm sure that our self obsessed exaggeration of the trivial must offend the Almighty.

Homosexuals in this country haven't been subject to any real discrimination, injury, or hardship. They whine because people don't want to deal with their personal lifestyles in the workplace, and in every facet of life. The belligerent fag militia has pushed their lifestyle in our faces at every turn, and when we get mad about it, they recoil and scream about how persecuted they are. Drama queens all of them, and not in the cool, clique kind of way.

Entirely true.
There have obviously been homosexuals for generations. But in the past, people get their private lives private. Older men might have roomates or housemates. That didnt mean they were gay or engaging in gay sex. People didnt ask and it wasnt anyone's business. But gays for some reason need society's approval for their actions and they want to smoosh it in everyone's faces that they take it up the ass. and if you object to having it smooshed in your face then it must be because you're a homophobe.

 

[Syriusly]

kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:

1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.

2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.


He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,

because everyone still has the same rights.

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. /QUOTE]

And in some 30 odd states, and in multiple countries marriage is also between a man and a man or a woman and woman.

But I don't care.... Far as Im concerned, marry a chicken

-Geaux

Yeah for someone who doesn't care- you sure do post a lot about what you don't care about.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

 

[Syriusly]

What does the slippery slope argument have to do with this.. Not saying it too isn't valid, but this is an issue about children's civil rights...

Well that would be a good thing for same gender couples then

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Why are you against the civil rights of children of same gender couples?

 

[Syriusly]

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

Yes, it is discrimination.

Marriage is a contract of commitment between two equal, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts; to deny them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That some might perceive marriage as between only a man and woman is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as neither history nor tradition justify discriminating against a given class of persons.

And the same arguments can and will be made for incest, polygamy, who knows what.

When the USSC is hearing a case for polgomy or incest, lets discuss it.

In the meantime, the USSC is hearing a case for gay marriage on the basis that gay marriage bans violate rights.

The odds of the courts ruling in favor of gay marriage are quite high. The odds of the courts ruling in favor of States without gay marriage being forced to recognize the validity of States with gay marriage is pretty much 100%. Either way, gay marriage will be recognized by all 50 States by June.

Which is another fine example and addition to the host of other immoral and destructive societal changes impacting America. The list is broad indeed

-Geaux

Wow Geaux- I can see how you would be upset about the 'host of other immoral and destructive societal changes impacting America'

I mean women can vote now.
And so can African Americans
And women can legally use contraceptives.
And men can't legally beat their wives anymore.
And cities can't segregate their public schools by race.
And homosexuals can't be arrested for having private consensual sex.

I can see why all of those changes are so upsetting to you.

 

[Syriusly]

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

I'm sure glad we have government to tell us what marriage is. Makes me sleep well at night that we don't have to make these choices for ourselves. Don't you think so, Geaux and Michael? Is there any point where either of you start to wonder why we need government to tell us that at all?

And have you noticed how government uses this to manipulate us?

- Directly, they are using marriage to divide citizens by redistributing money and deciding who gets it.

- Indirectly, they are trawling for getting votes by saying vote for me, I agree with you what marriage is.

What if we ended the sham, had government treat all citizens the same, then we the people can decide what marriage is? I don't give a shit if gays "marry" or not, I just want government to not be the one to decide that.

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed.

 

[Syriusly]

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

With a solid 55% of the population supporting gay marriage, the 'common sense' definition may be different than you think it is.

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are not a democracy- where do you get that bizarre idea?

We are a constitutional republic.

There is no direct vote- no 'Democracy' at a federal level- there is representative Democracy- where our elected representatives vote- sometimes based upon what the majority wants- sometimes not- and all of it is subject to the U.S. Constitution.

Seems you don't give a shit about the Constitution, you just want your way.

 

[Syriusly]

kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:

1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.

2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.


He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,

because everyone still has the same rights.

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

Yes, it is discrimination.

Marriage is a contract of commitment between two equal, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts; to deny them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That some might perceive marriage as between only a man and woman is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as neither history nor tradition justify discriminating against a given class of persons.

And one may perceive it being not fair that gays aren't able to marry same sex partners. Unfortunately for the left, making life fair is nowhere in the Constitution. The courts are to apply the law. The 14th says the law must be applied to everyone equally. Being gay does not who you can marry. Straights cannot marry same sex partners either. Gays can marry opposite sex partners. If Steve is straight or gay, Steve can marry exactly the same people. The law is applied consistently between straights and gays. Therefore, it's a job for the legislature. So go get em, Tiger. Do it the right way and stop advocating the courts commit crimes against the people.

So far the courts disagree with you.

And even though you hate the Constitution, you are stuck with courts deciding whether laws are constitutional or not.

So far most courts have determined that denying same gender couples the same access to marriage that my wife and I enjoy is not equal treatment under the law.

Now it goes to the Supreme Court.

I may or may not agree with the Supreme Court's ultimate decision- but regardless, I will consider it the legal decision.

 

[Syriusly]

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

Nonsense.

In Romer and Lawrence the Supreme Court held that homosexuals are entitled to Constitutional protections, and are entitled to the rights of due process and equal protection of the law.

Yes, they are. And they have that. Gays have exactly the same protections and rights as straights. What you want is the courts to give them a right straights don't have, the right to marry the same sex. There is a place to get that legitimately, the legislature...

The legislature is one place to seek protection- courts are another place.

Both are legitimate avenues under our Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:

1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.

2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.


He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,

because everyone still has the same rights.

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

Nonsense.

In Romer and Lawrence the Supreme Court held that homosexuals are entitled to Constitutional protections, and are entitled to the rights of due process and equal protection of the law.

What due process and equal protection are they not receiving? Be specific here.

I will let one of the court's decisions answer you:

In sum, I conclude that Wisconsin’s marriage amendment and the other laws at issue
are subject to heightened scrutiny under both the due process clause and the equal
protection clause.

First, because I have concluded that the marriage ban significantly
interferes with plaintiffs’ right to marry under the due process clause, defendants must show
that the ban furthers “sufficiently important state interests” that are “closely tailored to
effectuate only those interests.” Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 388.

With respect to the equal protection clause, the marriage ban is subject to intermediate scrutiny because the ban
discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. In addition, the nature and severity of the
deprivation is a relevant factor that must be considered. However, regardless whether I
apply strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny or some “more searching” form of rational basis
review under the equal protection clause, I conclude that the marriage amendment and
related statutes cannot survive constitutional review.

It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

They use the same argument. And it is grossly offensive. They are in no ways similar. It is a failed argument.

How is it different? Explain that to us.

In 1960 blacks were barred from any number of acitivies available to whites. In their protests blacks were subjected to beatings, dogs, and occasionally killing. The Constitution guarantees certain rights to citizens and blacks were certainly citizens unable to exercise them.
Now, tell me which gays have been killed in their protests for gay marriage. Show me the Bull Connor of the gay movement. They may have broken a fingernail here. Further, show me the gay waterfountains, or the gays denied the right to vote. Or even the gays denied the right to marriage. There are many homosexuals with valid marriage certificates, all of them involving someone of theopposite sex.
For gays to assume the mantle of a civil rights struggle where many blacks literally took their lives in their hands is unbeliveably presumptuous and offensive. It would be as bad as labelling it a "gay holocaust".

Homosexuals in this country haven't been subject to any real discrimination, injury, or hardship..

Did you actually write that with a straight face? Are you lying or do you believe this crap?

Up until 2011, military personnel could be discharged for being gay- that is real discrimination- that is real hardship
Up until 2013- Louisiana was still arresting homosexuals for agreeing to have consensual sex with a policeman- that is real discrimination- that is a real injury.
Up until Windsor/DOMA- homosexuals who were legally married were denied equal rights under Federal law- Edith Windsor was legally married to her partner of 30 plus years- and when her spouse died- she was subject to income taxes that a heterosexual couple would not have been subject to- that is real discrimination- real injury.

Want to go back a little further- the State Department firing homosexuals for being homosexuals, states banning homosexuals from teaching in public schools, and then there were the police raids on clubs 'frequented by homosexuals'-where police would raid the place, arrest any men who looked 'queer', parade them in public, call their employers to notify them, and then release them without any charges.

If I- a heterosexual- were treated in any of those ways simply because I was a heterosexual- I would certainly call that discrimination.

Why don't you?

 

[Syriusly]

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

They use the same argument. And it is grossly offensive. They are in no ways similar. It is a failed argument.

How is it different? Explain that to us.

In 1960 blacks were barred from any number of acitivies available to whites. In their protests blacks were subjected to beatings, dogs, and occasionally killing. The Constitution guarantees certain rights to citizens and blacks were certainly citizens unable to exercise them.
Now, tell me which gays have been killed in their protests for gay marriage. Show me the Bull Connor of the gay movement. They may have broken a fingernail here. Further, show me the gay waterfountains, or the gays denied the right to vote. Or even the gays denied the right to marriage. There are many homosexuals with valid marriage certificates, all of them involving someone of theopposite sex.
For gays to assume the mantle of a civil rights struggle where many blacks literally took their lives in their hands is unbeliveably presumptuous and offensive. It would be as bad as labelling it a "gay holocaust".

I do think it's sagacious how Rush Limbaugh points out that from the baby boomer generation on, we've had to invent our own dramas for lack of any real, true hardship. We've become like teenagers who have everything they need, but make life and death out of perceived injustices imposed by their parents...such as having rules and enforcing them. It's sickening to have this childish surliness against the backdrop of true human suffering all over the globe; children who die from various diseases before they turn 5, political prisoners in work camps in North Korea, villages being destroyed and thousands of people being killed in Africa for their ethnic distinction. I'm sure that our self obsessed exaggeration of the trivial must offend the Almighty.

Homosexuals in this country haven't been subject to any real discrimination, injury, or hardship. They whine because people don't want to deal with their personal lifestyles in the workplace, and in every facet of life. The belligerent fag militia has pushed their lifestyle in our faces at every turn, and when we get mad about it, they recoil and scream about how persecuted they are. Drama queens all of them, and not in the cool, clique kind of way.

But gays for some reason need society's approval for their actions and they want to smoosh it in everyone's faces that they take it up the ass. and if you object to having it smooshed in your face then it must be because you're a homophobe.

You clearly are different than me.

When I go to a wedding, I don't consider that 'smooshing' it in everyone's face that the bride is going to take it up the vagina/mouth/ass- personally, when I go to a wedding I don't think about what kind of sex the couple is going to have at all.

Why do you?