Bill O’Reilly and Andrea Tantaros misconstrue 14th Amendment and “equal protection of the laws”.

[Seawytch]

We allow people to own guns. When will owning an atomic bomb be a constitutional right?

So you agree with me that the slippery slope argument is bullshit.

That depends, where is your "starting point"?

I say that gay marriage is the latest attack on the family. The left has pushed for "shacking up", feminism, making divorce easy, and welfare to make it easier yet.

It appears to me that the slippery slope is at its next step, with the leftist plan being to destroy the family unit, so that the government has to take care of us.

It is the leftist way.

Mark

Really? That's your "theory". Gays, by the hundreds of thousands, are lining up to legally marry in order to "destroy the family unit"? That's weak for even a B movie plot.

Of course not. Dont be silly.
They're lining up for the free shit and to feel good about themselves. But that's irrelevant to the purpose of introducing such a thing

Wow...that's why you got married? Good thing I know most people marrying aren't like you or i'd become jaded.

 

[80zephyr]

Why?

And seriously, you don't think children were the primary justification for government marriage? Seriously?

Yeah. People would have stopped having kids if the government had not stepped in. The human race was dying out ...

Nope. It's all about getting government cash and prizes for doing things you would do anyway. Always has been.

Sigh. Why doesn't anyone read anymore?

When Governments Pay People To Have Babies Planet Money NPR

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

We allow people to own guns. When will owning an atomic bomb be a constitutional right?

So you agree with me that the slippery slope argument is bullshit.

That depends, where is your "starting point"?

I say that gay marriage is the latest attack on the family. The left has pushed for "shacking up", feminism, making divorce easy, and welfare to make it easier yet.

It appears to me that the slippery slope is at its next step, with the leftist plan being to destroy the family unit, so that the government has to take care of us.

It is the leftist way.

Mark

How has your family been harmed in any way?

Greatly. My tax dollars go to most of these broken homes via the government.

Every dollar I pay is one less I get to spend on my own family.

Mark

 

[Seawytch]

We allow people to own guns. When will owning an atomic bomb be a constitutional right?

So you agree with me that the slippery slope argument is bullshit.

That depends, where is your "starting point"?

I say that gay marriage is the latest attack on the family. The left has pushed for "shacking up", feminism, making divorce easy, and welfare to make it easier yet.

It appears to me that the slippery slope is at its next step, with the leftist plan being to destroy the family unit, so that the government has to take care of us.

It is the leftist way.

Mark

How has your family been harmed in any way?

Greatly. My tax dollars go to most of these broken homes via the government.

Every dollar I pay is one less I get to spend on my own family.

Mark

That would be divorce "harming" you, not a gay persons civil marriage.

 

[rightwinger]

You don't understand that not everything has to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. In fact, in the Ninth Amendment, the framers made that clear.

Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.

And the US Constitution still takes precidence

The US COnstitution takes precedence over the US Constitution? Sure thing, Sparky.

Sure as hell takes precidence over States Constitution

You lose

Well, not according to the Constitution.

Mark

Yes according to the Supremacy Clause

 

[80zephyr]

We allow people to own guns. When will owning an atomic bomb be a constitutional right?

So you agree with me that the slippery slope argument is bullshit.

That depends, where is your "starting point"?

I say that gay marriage is the latest attack on the family. The left has pushed for "shacking up", feminism, making divorce easy, and welfare to make it easier yet.

It appears to me that the slippery slope is at its next step, with the leftist plan being to destroy the family unit, so that the government has to take care of us.

It is the leftist way.

Mark

Really? That's your "theory". Gays, by the hundreds of thousands, are lining up to legally marry in order to "destroy the family unit"? That's weak for even a B movie plot.

Gays aren't doing it to destroy the family, the left is. Gays are merely the lefts "useful idiots" in this phase of the game.

Mark

 

[The Rabbi]

So you agree with me that the slippery slope argument is bullshit.

That depends, where is your "starting point"?

I say that gay marriage is the latest attack on the family. The left has pushed for "shacking up", feminism, making divorce easy, and welfare to make it easier yet.

It appears to me that the slippery slope is at its next step, with the leftist plan being to destroy the family unit, so that the government has to take care of us.

It is the leftist way.

Mark

Really? That's your "theory". Gays, by the hundreds of thousands, are lining up to legally marry in order to "destroy the family unit"? That's weak for even a B movie plot.

Of course not. Dont be silly.
They're lining up for the free shit and to feel good about themselves. But that's irrelevant to the purpose of introducing such a thing

Wow...that's why you got married? Good thing I know most people marrying aren't like you or i'd become jaded.

You have some serious reading issues. But we knew that already.

 

[80zephyr]

As a conservative, you must realize that divorced couples rely on the state to get the money they need to survive. The statistics are absolutely clear, divorced parents and single family parents rely a great deal on the government to survive.

So, EVERY divorce affects you. EVERY single mother affects you.

And sadly, statistics also show that the kids that come from these homes do worse in school, tend to be poor themselves when they reach adulthood, and go thru the criminal justice system at a much greater rate.

When the government pays, everyone is affected.

Mark

How stupid do you have to be to say all divorced couples have to rely on the state to survive. You're an idiot.

Lol. OK, not every couple. Most.

Mark

Saying most is almost as stupid as saying all. Quit listening to rush. His crazy ideas are making you sound like an idiot.

I don't listen to Rush. I read. And since I already know that most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, I understand that any disruption in that family will cost the government money.

For the first time in history, 51% of all public school kids qualify to get free/reduced cost lunches at school.

Now, you don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to understand that most families simply cannot exist after divorce without government help.

Mark

Then why aren't y'all trying to make it harder to divorce rather than trying to keep tax paying gay couples from marrying?

That would be what I would back. And I would still be against gay marriage. Gays marrying are not a biological family.

Mark

 

[Seawytch]

We allow people to own guns. When will owning an atomic bomb be a constitutional right?

So you agree with me that the slippery slope argument is bullshit.

That depends, where is your "starting point"?

I say that gay marriage is the latest attack on the family. The left has pushed for "shacking up", feminism, making divorce easy, and welfare to make it easier yet.

It appears to me that the slippery slope is at its next step, with the leftist plan being to destroy the family unit, so that the government has to take care of us.

It is the leftist way.

Mark

Really? That's your "theory". Gays, by the hundreds of thousands, are lining up to legally marry in order to "destroy the family unit"? That's weak for even a B movie plot.

Gays aren't doing it to destroy the family, the left is. Gays are merely the lefts "useful idiots" in this phase of the game.

Mark

Oh, of course...I should have guessed that.

 

[The Rabbi]

How stupid do you have to be to say all divorced couples have to rely on the state to survive. You're an idiot.

Lol. OK, not every couple. Most.

Mark

Saying most is almost as stupid as saying all. Quit listening to rush. His crazy ideas are making you sound like an idiot.

I don't listen to Rush. I read. And since I already know that most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, I understand that any disruption in that family will cost the government money.

For the first time in history, 51% of all public school kids qualify to get free/reduced cost lunches at school.

Now, you don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to understand that most families simply cannot exist after divorce without government help.

Mark

Then why aren't y'all trying to make it harder to divorce rather than trying to keep tax paying gay couples from marrying?

That would be what I would back. And I would still be against gay marriage. Gays marrying are not a biological family.

Mark

It will make a mockertry of the whole institution.
How about: man has business partner but no family. He wants to leave his share to his partner. But estate taxes would destroy it. So man marries business partner, even though none of them is gay. Man dies and passes estate via marital exemption.
Two business partners are indicted in shady business. Instead of testifying against each other they get married, taking advantage of spousal exclusions.
The applications are myriad.
And once you've got two men like that, family members are a cinch.

 

[Seawytch]

How stupid do you have to be to say all divorced couples have to rely on the state to survive. You're an idiot.

Lol. OK, not every couple. Most.

Mark

Saying most is almost as stupid as saying all. Quit listening to rush. His crazy ideas are making you sound like an idiot.

I don't listen to Rush. I read. And since I already know that most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, I understand that any disruption in that family will cost the government money.

For the first time in history, 51% of all public school kids qualify to get free/reduced cost lunches at school.

Now, you don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to understand that most families simply cannot exist after divorce without government help.

Mark

Then why aren't y'all trying to make it harder to divorce rather than trying to keep tax paying gay couples from marrying?

That would be what I would back. And I would still be against gay marriage. Gays marrying are not a biological family.

Mark

Wow...whatcha gonna do with all those kids needing adoptin' in your freaky "biological only" world?

 

[80zephyr]

Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.

And the US Constitution still takes precidence

The US COnstitution takes precedence over the US Constitution? Sure thing, Sparky.

Sure as hell takes precidence over States Constitution

You lose

Well, not according to the Constitution.

Mark

Yes according to the Supremacy Clause

The supremacy clause can only be invoked when federal law is applicable. In this case, it isn't.

Or at least shouldn't be.

Mark

 

[Seawytch]

Lol. OK, not every couple. Most.

Mark

Saying most is almost as stupid as saying all. Quit listening to rush. His crazy ideas are making you sound like an idiot.

I don't listen to Rush. I read. And since I already know that most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, I understand that any disruption in that family will cost the government money.

For the first time in history, 51% of all public school kids qualify to get free/reduced cost lunches at school.

Now, you don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to understand that most families simply cannot exist after divorce without government help.

Mark

Then why aren't y'all trying to make it harder to divorce rather than trying to keep tax paying gay couples from marrying?

That would be what I would back. And I would still be against gay marriage. Gays marrying are not a biological family.

Mark

It will make a mockertry of the whole institution.
How about: man has business partner but no family. He wants to leave his share to his partner. But estate taxes would destroy it. So man marries business partner, even though none of them is gay. Man dies and passes estate via marital exemption.
Two business partners are indicted in shady business. Instead of testifying against each other they get married, taking advantage of spousal exclusions.
The applications are myriad.
And once you've got two men like that, family members are a cinch.

So men and women can't be businesses partners?

Oh right. Anti gay bigots are often racist or misogynist too.

 

[80zephyr]

Lol. OK, not every couple. Most.

Mark

Saying most is almost as stupid as saying all. Quit listening to rush. His crazy ideas are making you sound like an idiot.

I don't listen to Rush. I read. And since I already know that most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, I understand that any disruption in that family will cost the government money.

For the first time in history, 51% of all public school kids qualify to get free/reduced cost lunches at school.

Now, you don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to understand that most families simply cannot exist after divorce without government help.

Mark

Then why aren't y'all trying to make it harder to divorce rather than trying to keep tax paying gay couples from marrying?

That would be what I would back. And I would still be against gay marriage. Gays marrying are not a biological family.

Mark

It will make a mockertry of the whole institution.
How about: man has business partner but no family. He wants to leave his share to his partner. But estate taxes would destroy it. So man marries business partner, even though none of them is gay. Man dies and passes estate via marital exemption.
Two business partners are indicted in shady business. Instead of testifying against each other they get married, taking advantage of spousal exclusions.
The applications are myriad.
And once you've got two men like that, family members are a cinch.

So, you are in favor of using gay marriage to subvert existing law?

Do you really want to pass a law so that people can cheat their way out of paying a tax or testifying?

Mark

 

[The Rabbi]

Lol. OK, not every couple. Most.

Mark

Saying most is almost as stupid as saying all. Quit listening to rush. His crazy ideas are making you sound like an idiot.

I don't listen to Rush. I read. And since I already know that most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, I understand that any disruption in that family will cost the government money.

For the first time in history, 51% of all public school kids qualify to get free/reduced cost lunches at school.

Now, you don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to understand that most families simply cannot exist after divorce without government help.

Mark

Then why aren't y'all trying to make it harder to divorce rather than trying to keep tax paying gay couples from marrying?

That would be what I would back. And I would still be against gay marriage. Gays marrying are not a biological family.

Mark

Wow...whatcha gonna do with all those kids needing adoptin' in your freaky "biological only" world?

According to your side you abort them, even minutes before they're born.

 

[The Rabbi]

Saying most is almost as stupid as saying all. Quit listening to rush. His crazy ideas are making you sound like an idiot.

I don't listen to Rush. I read. And since I already know that most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, I understand that any disruption in that family will cost the government money.

For the first time in history, 51% of all public school kids qualify to get free/reduced cost lunches at school.

Now, you don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to understand that most families simply cannot exist after divorce without government help.

Mark

Then why aren't y'all trying to make it harder to divorce rather than trying to keep tax paying gay couples from marrying?

That would be what I would back. And I would still be against gay marriage. Gays marrying are not a biological family.

Mark

It will make a mockertry of the whole institution.
How about: man has business partner but no family. He wants to leave his share to his partner. But estate taxes would destroy it. So man marries business partner, even though none of them is gay. Man dies and passes estate via marital exemption.
Two business partners are indicted in shady business. Instead of testifying against each other they get married, taking advantage of spousal exclusions.
The applications are myriad.
And once you've got two men like that, family members are a cinch.

So, you are in favor of using gay marriage to subvert existing law?

Do you really want to pass a law so that people can cheat their way out of paying a tax or testifying?

Mark

In case you missed it, I am opposed to gay marriage.

 

[The Rabbi]

Saying most is almost as stupid as saying all. Quit listening to rush. His crazy ideas are making you sound like an idiot.

I don't listen to Rush. I read. And since I already know that most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, I understand that any disruption in that family will cost the government money.

For the first time in history, 51% of all public school kids qualify to get free/reduced cost lunches at school.

Now, you don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to understand that most families simply cannot exist after divorce without government help.

Mark

Then why aren't y'all trying to make it harder to divorce rather than trying to keep tax paying gay couples from marrying?

That would be what I would back. And I would still be against gay marriage. Gays marrying are not a biological family.

Mark

It will make a mockertry of the whole institution.
How about: man has business partner but no family. He wants to leave his share to his partner. But estate taxes would destroy it. So man marries business partner, even though none of them is gay. Man dies and passes estate via marital exemption.
Two business partners are indicted in shady business. Instead of testifying against each other they get married, taking advantage of spousal exclusions.
The applications are myriad.
And once you've got two men like that, family members are a cinch.

So men and women can't be businesses partners?

Oh right. Anti gay bigots are often racist or misogynist too.

What? That wasnt logical. You must be melting down.

 

[80zephyr]

Lol. OK, not every couple. Most.

Mark

Saying most is almost as stupid as saying all. Quit listening to rush. His crazy ideas are making you sound like an idiot.

I don't listen to Rush. I read. And since I already know that most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, I understand that any disruption in that family will cost the government money.

For the first time in history, 51% of all public school kids qualify to get free/reduced cost lunches at school.

Now, you don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to understand that most families simply cannot exist after divorce without government help.

Mark

Then why aren't y'all trying to make it harder to divorce rather than trying to keep tax paying gay couples from marrying?

That would be what I would back. And I would still be against gay marriage. Gays marrying are not a biological family.

Mark

Wow...whatcha gonna do with all those kids needing adoptin' in your freaky "biological only" world?

Are...are the gays gonna adopt them in such numbers as to make a difference? IOW's, is the "cure" worse than the sickness?

Mark

 

[bodecea]

So you agree with me that the slippery slope argument is bullshit.

That depends, where is your "starting point"?

I say that gay marriage is the latest attack on the family. The left has pushed for "shacking up", feminism, making divorce easy, and welfare to make it easier yet.

It appears to me that the slippery slope is at its next step, with the leftist plan being to destroy the family unit, so that the government has to take care of us.

It is the leftist way.

Mark

Really? That's your "theory". Gays, by the hundreds of thousands, are lining up to legally marry in order to "destroy the family unit"? That's weak for even a B movie plot.

Gays aren't doing it to destroy the family, the left is. Gays are merely the lefts "useful idiots" in this phase of the game.

Mark

Oh, of course...I should have guessed that.

*chuckle*

 

[80zephyr]

So you agree with me that the slippery slope argument is bullshit.

That depends, where is your "starting point"?

I say that gay marriage is the latest attack on the family. The left has pushed for "shacking up", feminism, making divorce easy, and welfare to make it easier yet.

It appears to me that the slippery slope is at its next step, with the leftist plan being to destroy the family unit, so that the government has to take care of us.

It is the leftist way.

Mark

How has your family been harmed in any way?

Greatly. My tax dollars go to most of these broken homes via the government.

Every dollar I pay is one less I get to spend on my own family.

Mark

That would be divorce "harming" you, not a gay persons civil marriage.

Gay marriage harms the institution of marriage, thus causing further deterioration of marriage.

Their "contribution" to destroying marriage would be non monogamy.

Mark