Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

[mdk]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

'Extra rights' meaning of course- treating them the same before the law.

Something Conservatives despise.

Meaning giving them special exemption from laws based on sexual predilection. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is the usurpation of states rights to make laws. Whether a state had homosexual marriage or not should have been up to each state not five old people in a robe. But like I said the progressives bought the homosexual male vote for a short period of time. Because homosexual or not they are still men and feminism thus progressivism see them are war mongering rapists.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Special exemption/extra rights my foot. You're free to enter in a gay marriage if you so wish. Whether you want to or not is an entirely different fox hunt.

No, states don't get to violate the 14th Amendment anymore than they get to violate the 2nd Amendment. When they do so citizens have every right to seek redress in the courts. Either way, gay marriage is the law of the land.

 

[Syriusly]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

'Extra rights' meaning of course- treating them the same before the law.

Something Conservatives despise.

Meaning giving them special exemption from laws based on sexual predilection.

Again- meaning of course by 'special exemption' you mean 'treating them exactly equally with everyone else'

 

[Syriusly]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

'Extra rights' meaning of course- treating them the same before the law.

Something Conservatives despise.

The real issue is the usurpation of states rights to make laws.

The Supreme Court has overturned state marriage laws 4 times- starting with Love v. Virginia- where the Supreme Court told states that they could not tell mixed race couples that they were forbidden to marry- to Obergefell- where the Supreme Court told states that htye could not tell gay couples that they were forbidden to marry. You are complaining 50 years after the fact.

Tell me how you feel about the Supreme Court ursurping State's rights to to make laws restricting gun ownership?

 

[TheOldSchool]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You're right, this topic is old and over

Thier votes won't last long.... why? Because progressivism is rooted in elitism and feminism. Both of which is diametrically opposite to the liberty needed for homosexuals to live peacefully and safely in a society. You see the marrige idiocy is just a cheap parlor trick.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lol listen to yourself you maniac

 

[thanatos144]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You're right, this topic is old and over

Thier votes won't last long.... why? Because progressivism is rooted in elitism and feminism. Both of which is diametrically opposite to the liberty needed for homosexuals to live peacefully and safely in a society. You see the marrige idiocy is just a cheap parlor trick.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lol listen to yourself you maniac

I wish that was true. But having a penis is worse then being a homosexual and in the minds of people like you that equals rapists.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Syriusly]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You're right, this topic is old and over

Thier votes won't last long.... why? Because progressivism is rooted in elitism and feminism. Both of which is diametrically opposite to the liberty needed for homosexuals to live peacefully and safely in a society. You see the marrige idiocy is just a cheap parlor trick.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lol listen to yourself you maniac

I wish that was true. But having a penis is worse then being a homosexual and in the minds of people like you that equals rapists.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

From your posts, you apparently think what is true are your fantasies.

 

[bodecea]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

What ARE those extra rights of which you speak?

 

[TheOldSchool]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You're right, this topic is old and over

Thier votes won't last long.... why? Because progressivism is rooted in elitism and feminism. Both of which is diametrically opposite to the liberty needed for homosexuals to live peacefully and safely in a society. You see the marrige idiocy is just a cheap parlor trick.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lol listen to yourself you maniac

I wish that was true. But having a penis is worse then being a homosexual and in the minds of people like you that equals rapists.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Well it seems I'm talking to a crazy person. Consider therapy. Bye.

 

[bodecea]

Is there maybe five minutes out of the day the OP isn't obsessing over gay folks?

I doubt it.

She puts out her net and sees what tricks she can catch.

 

[thanatos144]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

What ARE those extra rights of which you speak?

I already explained chewy

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[mdk]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You're right, this topic is old and over

Thier votes won't last long.... why? Because progressivism is rooted in elitism and feminism. Both of which is diametrically opposite to the liberty needed for homosexuals to live peacefully and safely in a society. You see the marrige idiocy is just a cheap parlor trick.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lol listen to yourself you maniac

I wish that was true. But having a penis is worse then being a homosexual and in the minds of people like you that equals rapists.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You poor put out thing.

Get a grip.

 

[bodecea]

You're right, this topic is old and over

Thier votes won't last long.... why? Because progressivism is rooted in elitism and feminism. Both of which is diametrically opposite to the liberty needed for homosexuals to live peacefully and safely in a society. You see the marrige idiocy is just a cheap parlor trick.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lol listen to yourself you maniac

I wish that was true. But having a penis is worse then being a homosexual and in the minds of people like you that equals rapists.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Fascinating.....I think Freud had a name for crazies like you.

I think idiots who quote a drunk with mommy issues are absurd.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

So...you don't think we should quote you.........interesting.

 

[Silhouette]

Who is "we" bodecea? And are you all ganging up on people here on USMB when they oppose anything LGBT? Is this the same "we" who shoved their agenda all the way into marriage with children's needs of a mother and father bound and gagged...all under the umbrella of "help us, we're being beaten back!"

You're a cult. An insidious and massively hypocritical cult. NY v Ferber sets the deep psychological need of both a mother and father for girls and boys above your civil rights. "We" (on our side) have case law and a case can be built upon it. The only way it can't win is if the USSC rolls back NY v Ferber and child porn can be "a first amendment right to free speech"..

 

[mdk]

Who is "we" bodecea? And are you all ganging up on people here on USMB when they oppose anything LGBT? Is this the same "we" who shoved their agenda all the way into marriage with children's needs of a mother and father bound and gagged...all under the umbrella of "help us, we're being beaten back!"

You're a cult. An insidious and massively hypocritical cult. NY v Ferber sets the deep psychological need of both a mother and father for girls and boys above your civil rights. "We" (on our side) have case law and a case can be built upon it. The only way it can't win is if the USSC rolls back NY v Ferber and child porn can be "a first amendment right to free speech"..

How dare those gay people resist your attempts to take away their rights. The nerve...the cheek even!

 

[Silhouette]

Who is "we" bodecea? And are you all ganging up on people here on USMB when they oppose anything LGBT? Is this the same "we" who shoved their agenda all the way into marriage with children's needs of a mother and father bound and gagged...all under the umbrella of "help us, we're being beaten back!"

You're a cult. An insidious and massively hypocritical cult. NY v Ferber sets the deep psychological need of both a mother and father for girls and boys above your civil rights. "We" (on our side) have case law and a case can be built upon it. The only way it can't win is if the USSC rolls back NY v Ferber and child porn can be "a first amendment right to free speech"..

How dare those gay people resist your attempts to take away their rights. The nerve...the cheek even!

They can have civil unions all day long, but not marriage. Marriage was created to provide kids with both a mother and father. Gays can't qualify. Call it something else because marriage is and always has = "providing a mother/father matrix for children anticipated to arrive".

 

[mdk]

Who is "we" bodecea? And are you all ganging up on people here on USMB when they oppose anything LGBT? Is this the same "we" who shoved their agenda all the way into marriage with children's needs of a mother and father bound and gagged...all under the umbrella of "help us, we're being beaten back!"

You're a cult. An insidious and massively hypocritical cult. NY v Ferber sets the deep psychological need of both a mother and father for girls and boys above your civil rights. "We" (on our side) have case law and a case can be built upon it. The only way it can't win is if the USSC rolls back NY v Ferber and child porn can be "a first amendment right to free speech"..

How dare those gay people resist your attempts to take away their rights. The nerve...the cheek even!

They can have civil unions all day long, but not marriage. Marriage was created to provide kids with both a mother and father. Gays can't qualify.

That ship sailed when the hardliners decided that even civil unions were too close to marriage for their liking and banned those as well.

Gays can and presently do qualify. Get over it. Or don't.

 

[Silhouette]

That ship sailed when the hardliners decided that even civil unions were too close to marriage for their liking and banned those as well.

Gays can and presently do qualify. Get over it. Or don't.

Each state will be able to determine, for the sake of kids involved implicitly, whether or not it wants to incentivize the union of two or more adults that would be a detriment to children by stripping them of their traditional and longstanding rights to a mother and a father in marriage. Hopefully they will read up on child psychology studies surrounding the lack of a mother or a father for life and that lack's impact, before they make that decision.

 

[Syriusly]

Lol listen to yourself you maniac

I wish that was true. But having a penis is worse then being a homosexual and in the minds of people like you that equals rapists.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Fascinating.....I think Freud had a name for crazies like you.

I think idiots who quote a drunk with mommy issues are absurd.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

So...you don't think we should quote you.........interesting.

Are you ever going to get over the fact that you were born with out a penis?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Will you ?

 

[Syriusly]

That ship sailed when the hardliners decided that even civil unions were too close to marriage for their liking and banned those as well.

Gays can and presently do qualify. Get over it. Or don't.

Each state will be able to determine,.

States can incentivize marriage or not- without discrimination.

 

[Syriusly]

Who is "we" bodecea? And are you all ganging up on people here on USMB when they oppose anything LGBT? Is this the same "we" who shoved their agenda all the way into marriage with children's needs of a mother and father bound and gagged...all under the umbrella of "help us, we're being beaten back!"

You're a cult. An insidious and massively hypocritical cult. NY v Ferber sets the deep psychological need of both a mother and father for girls and boys above your civil rights. "We" (on our side) have case law and a case can be built upon it. The only way it can't win is if the USSC rolls back NY v Ferber and child porn can be "a first amendment right to free speech"..

How dare those gay people resist your attempts to take away their rights. The nerve...the cheek even!

They can have civil unions all day long, but not marriage. Marriage was created to provide kids with both a mother and father. Gays can't qualify. Call it something else because marriage is and always has = "providing a mother/father matrix for children anticipated to arrive".

Yet- in all 50 states, gay couples are marrying- and their children now have married parents- despite your desire to harm those children.