Oklahoma/Utah 10th Circuit May Lean To State Choice On Gay Marriage

[JoeB131]

Such victims...such a tragedy.

Wait until the thought police come to tie you to a stake. Piers Morgan comes to mind here. He stuck up for the cult of LGBT but dared to ask a delusional man who was pretending to be a woman, if he was still male.

His heresy cost him his career. And he was one of the faithful. For a cult whose dogma on the surface appears to be "sexual freedom", Anne Heche sure payed the price for feeling free to return to heterosexuality.. Apparently with LGBT ist verboten to use that door but only in one direction..

You ilk are hypocrites. Your religion is evident. Your tactics make the early days of the 3rd Reicht look tame in comparison..

Piers Morgan didn't get fired because he was mean to a tranny.

He was fired because HIS RATINGS SUCKED. He was fired because NO ONE WATCHED HIS SHOW. Also because he was rude and a bad interviewer and a lot of the kind of people who he needed on his show didn't want to go. He was abusing a tranny because he couldn't get stars to stop by and plug their movies.

 

[Silhouette]

Piers Morgan didn't get fired because he was mean to a tranny.

He was fired because HIS RATINGS SUCKED. He was fired because NO ONE WATCHED HIS SHOW. Also because he was rude and a bad interviewer and a lot of the kind of people who he needed on his show didn't want to go. He was abusing a tranny because he couldn't get stars to stop by and plug their movies.

Asking a man if he isn't still male, who had healthy organs amputated and who is currently pretending to be female is not "abusing a tranny". The abuse is shutting down the truthful observation that he is was and always will be male. A DNA swab will clear that up in a jiffy. Does he have a uterus? No. Is his pelvis low-set? No. etc.

And they never will be. He is also certainly incontinent and sexually numb as well. The abuse done to that tranny was done on the operating table, not on Piers Morgan's show.

That's a FACT.

Odd that as you claim forever Piers' ratings "sucked", he seemed to linger on and on as long as he was touting his support for gays. The MILLISECOND he questioned the most farcicle and obtusely grotesque manifestation of "LGBT" cult values, the mutilated "transsexual" [a myth, no such thing exists], INSTANTLY he had to go. That's it. Contract over and done.

The inquisition of the cult of LGBT cannot be smoothed over, denied or brushed aside anymore. It is plain for all to see that this evangelical movement has taken on a life of its own. It's like a steamroller that long ago the operator abandoned and is just sweeping up people in its path and crushing free speech everywhere.

Again, early 3rd Reicht would be very proud indeed. Envious even..

 

[JoeB131]

Asking a man if he isn't still male, who had healthy organs amputated and who is currently pretending to be female is not "abusing a tranny". The abuse is shutting down the truthful observation that he is was and always will be male. A DNA swab will clear that up in a jiffy. Does he have a uterus? No. Is his pelvis low-set? No. etc.

And they never will be. He is also certainly incontinent and sexually numb as well. The abuse done to that tranny was done on the operating table, not on Piers Morgan's show.

That's a FACT.

Odd that as you claim forever Piers' ratings "sucked", he seemed to linger on and on as long as he was touting his support for gays. The MILLISECOND he questioned the most farcicle and obtusely grotesque manifestation of "LGBT" cult values, the mutilated "transsexual" [a myth, no such thing exists], INSTANTLY he had to go. That's it. Contract over and done.

The inquisition of the cult of LGBT cannot be smoothed over, denied or brushed aside anymore. It is plain for all to see that this evangelical movement has taken on a life of its own. It's like a steamroller that long ago the operator abandoned and is just sweeping up people in its path and crushing free speech everywhere.

Again, early 3rd Reicht would be very proud indeed. Envious even..

okay, so I got to ask, did the LGBT Mafia jump into his studio and drag him kicking and screaming off the set? Or did he continue to host his show, even being given a month to keep hosting it after CNN Decided to cancel it?

OR did he just do yet another bad interview where he allowed guests to turn his set into a WWE shouting match?

Critics trashed his handling of Ms. Mock (Mr. Mock? Whatever) because it was unprofessional.

I think that you are misunderstanding the concept of "Free Speech.

Free Speech means I can call my boss a douchebag. It does not mean i'll still have a job the next day.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, (1) you don't get to ask questions until you answer them, and (2) the only cult on this issue is yours.

I'll ask what I please when I please..

I'll be sure to tell the burned-at-the-stake victims Phil Robertson, Anne Heche, Kirk Cameron, Piers Morgan, the Mozilla guy and the Chick fil-A guy that the LGBT cult isn't on an inquisition. It will be news to them.. And news to all those politicians previously opposed strongly to gay marriage who "suddenly, magically, overnight" had a "complete change of heart".

Observers know the symptoms of blackmail. Your herd is starting to turn from sheep to goats. Too bad because goats watch every move you make with a keen eye and are impossibly hard to herd. They scatter different ways and one of them always slips by you, headbutts the gate open and the whole lot of them get out.

So many careers to burn, so little time! You'd better get busy. Isnt' there any political figure you could be blackmailing right about now?

Such victims...such a tragedy.

Yeah, Sil gets upset when her nonsense is directly confronted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ridiculous. This is like watching a guy standing on a soap box squealing, "THE END IS COMING!" and ranting about aliens coming to rescue him riding Haley's Comet.

Actually, if you note the title of the thread it is not one of "doom and gloom" from my perspective at least. Have you pondered fully what will be the case if states are left to decide on gay marriage?

Ponder it. And while you're pondering, consider that outfits opposed to male/male female/female pairs trying to role-play "husband and wife" "father and mother" in "marriages" also possess advertising money. They can buy ad time just prior to elections. Perhaps an ad on Harvey Milk's sexual career? Tie-ins to the LGBT support of his sexual career. Close your eyes. You can envision it right? How many votes do you think that will get you in any given state in support of gay anything?

The end may be coming I think. Just not in the way you're thinking about.

Yes, you are like the "end of the world" soapbox ranter.

And as always, it gets boring and unproven.

Step along.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, you are like the "end of the world" soapbox ranter.

And as always, it gets boring and unproven.

Step along.

Is "the end of the world" soapbox ranter me or the LGBT crowd if and when states are affirmed again [in addition to Windsor] as being the choosers via consensus on gay marriage?

Check the title of the thread. You may want to talk to that subject now and then..

 

[Jarlaxle]

Ridiculous. This is like watching a guy standing on a soap box squealing, "THE END IS COMING!" and ranting about aliens coming to rescue him riding Haley's Comet.

Actually, if you note the title of the thread it is not one of "doom and gloom" from my perspective at least. Have you pondered fully what will be the case if states are left to decide on gay marriage?

Ponder it. And while you're pondering, consider that outfits opposed to male/male female/female pairs trying to role-play "husband and wife" "father and mother" in "marriages" also possess advertising money. They can buy ad time just prior to elections. Perhaps an ad on Harvey Milk's sexual career? Tie-ins to the LGBT support of his sexual career. Close your eyes. You can envision it right? How many votes do you think that will get you in any given state in support of gay anything?

The end may be coming I think. Just not in the way you're thinking about.

Sad? "Doom and gloom"? Hardly. Silly, I am laughing at you! Watching you come absolutely unglued is amusing.

I truly care little for gay marriage one way or the other...just don't see the big deal. Were it on the ballot, I'd vote for it...but I don't really care.

 

[Silhouette]

Sad? "Doom and gloom"? Hardly. Silly, I am laughing at you! Watching you come absolutely unglued is amusing.

I truly care little for gay marriage one way or the other...just don't see the big deal. Were it on the ballot, I'd vote for it...but I don't really care.

But it looks like gay marriage is going to be/has been always decided by state consensus. That is hardly a set of conditions that would cause me to "come absolutely unglued". I can tell you who will come "absolutely unglued" if states' consensus is allowed to decide: those opposed to prop 8 in California and those foolish enough to believe that their Governor and state AG are more powerful than the Upholding of the US Supreme Court last Summer in Windsor.

Windsor said that each state may decide for itself via the broadest consensus possible on gay marriage. And, they affirmed that this was true retroactive to the founding of the country, all in a way "the Framers of the Constituition intended". For those not in the know, that is code for "a constitutional finding on who gets to decide gay marriage and how far back that applies".

Upon the moment that the decision is reinterated that states consensus gets to decide, Prop 8 and any other consensus vote nationwide that affirms marriage as legally only between a man and a woman becomes re-effective and binding retroactive to the 1700s. So it's square one for the LGBT crowd and legally, all those "marriages" performed against state law and in defiance of Windsor are not valid. People were warned that this was so by various statements and challenges made to the ambiguity of the Prop 8 rendering next to Windsor last year. If you thought you would illegally "marry" your way into making gay marriage legal, the "ungluing" is a matter reserved for you.

You cannot make baby seals legal to kill by killing as many of them as you can to overwhelm the justice system into giving you your way at the end of it all...or polluting a body of fresh water so much so that you get to put your sludge plant next to it because "the water is already polluted now".. Don't work that way.

 

[Silhouette]

Okay, let's look at your list.

Phil Robertson- sadly, still around,s till saying crazy shit like God caused 9/11 because he didn't like the gay.

Anne Heche- Wait. Wasn't she Ellen's girlfriend? Her career went south because she made a series of really bad movies.

Kirk Cameron- I think he destroyed his credibility when he became spokessman for creationist nutbags.

Piers MOrgan- his ratings sucked. It wasn't just the gays who weren't watching him.

Brendon Eich lost his job because people were abadoning his product.

Dan Cathy didn't because all the hateful bubba rednecks decided to start stuffing their faces with his artery clogging chicken. This could possibly work out.

All of them were subject to the LGBT cult inquisition. That's what they all have in common.

Phil Robertson almost lost his show and fame [defamation-lawsuit anyone?] for merely saying what he believes, that homosexuals are an abomination before God. The bible he follows says they are. Those are both his first amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religious convictions.

Anne Heche made gays so furious by "defecting" over to the hetero camp that they made her name synonymous with "traitor" in their lingo. To "Anne Heche" or "Heche" means to be a scoundrel, a LGBT heretic. It is not a compliment. So much for sexual freedom.

Kirk Cameron merely stated he was against gay marriage because it was against his christian convictions. Ditto the 1st amendment issues and grounds for his having a good lawsuit against anyone who tried to defame him as a result.

Piers Morgan was actually a dogged defender of the cult of gay but drew the line at "transsexuals" [there is no such thing] claiming they'd always been the gender they aren't. Because of this line of questioning, on a show that is famous for probing questions, he was whipped out of CNN, the little nesting place of Anderson Cooper's ilk.

Brendon Eich. Again this was a case of 1st amendment rights. He had EVERY RIGHT to donate to a campaign of his convictions. Defaming him and ruining his career for his constitutional rights? I hope he is shopping for a team of attorneys right now. Some heads had better roll over this one. This one and its timing is particularly onerous because the Cult knows that soon states will have their consensus rights as to set parameters for marriage reaffirmed, which means that Prop 8 is affirmed again as law. They need a new ballot measure and they want a burned victim in California to hold out to any would-be campaign donors who might be tempted to give to the traditional marriage advertisements. Mafioso message to would be donors? "This could be YOU!" It is suppression of democracy at its fundamental level: the right to support causes one believes in to be put to a popular vote. They belong in irons for this one.

Dan Cathy again merely stated he did not support gay marriage because of his religious convictions. The trend again: suppression of constitutional rights. You'd think the ACLU would be on fire right now. But they're curiously silent. Probably don't want to wind up getting blackmailed too. But there are scores of hungry lawyers out there should Cathy feel any pinch of the attempts by gay orginizations to quell his constitutional rights.

I guess these people are whimps or cowards. However, if any gay organization or group or persons tried to defame me and ruin my career or life over my stating that I don't believe in gay marriage...I'd sue their asses clear into next century. If they are extorted or blackmailed or ruined from making money the way they love and are used to, they can recoup those losses in the courtrooms.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Sad? "Doom and gloom"? Hardly. Silly, I am laughing at you! Watching you come absolutely unglued is amusing.

I truly care little for gay marriage one way or the other...just don't see the big deal. Were it on the ballot, I'd vote for it...but I don't really care.

But it looks like gay marriage is going to be/has been always decided by state consensus. That is hardly a set of conditions that would cause me to "come absolutely unglued". I can tell you who will come "absolutely unglued" if states' consensus is allowed to decide: those opposed to prop 8 in California and those foolish enough to believe that their Governor and state AG are more powerful than the Upholding of the US Supreme Court last Summer in Windsor.

Windsor said that each state may decide for itself via the broadest consensus possible on gay marriage. And, they affirmed that this was true retroactive to the founding of the country, all in a way "the Framers of the Constituition intended". For those not in the know, that is code for "a constitutional finding on who gets to decide gay marriage and how far back that applies".

Upon the moment that the decision is reinterated that states consensus gets to decide, Prop 8 and any other consensus vote nationwide that affirms marriage as legally only between a man and a woman becomes re-effective and binding retroactive to the 1700s. So it's square one for the LGBT crowd and legally, all those "marriages" performed against state law and in defiance of Windsor are not valid. People were warned that this was so by various statements and challenges made to the ambiguity of the Prop 8 rendering next to Windsor last year. If you thought you would illegally "marry" your way into making gay marriage legal, the "ungluing" is a matter reserved for you.

You cannot make baby seals legal to kill by killing as many of them as you can to overwhelm the justice system into giving you your way at the end of it all...or polluting a body of fresh water so much so that you get to put your sludge plant next to it because "the water is already polluted now".. Don't work that way.

Was that filibabble intended to say something, or was it just the text version of what pigeons do on a parked car?

 

[Silhouette]

Do you have a rebuttal or is ad hominem your only option to the good points I made?

 

[Jarlaxle]

The moment one state legalizes gay marriage, it is de facto permitted in all states. It really is that simple...no amount of wailing, teeth-gnashing, and postwhoring will change it. Thirty years from mow, people will wonder what the big deal was.

 

[Silhouette]

The moment one state legalizes gay marriage, it is de facto permitted in all states. It really is that simple...no amount of wailing, teeth-gnashing, and postwhoring will change it. Thirty years from mow, people will wonder what the big deal was.

You're hoping people won't notice that you're substituting "permitted" for "recognized". If 13 year olds legally marry in New Hampshire, their marriage is recognized, but not permitted in other states. Nice try Jar Jar. Speaking of post-whoring. You should know...

Meanwhile this is problematic:

THREE married lesbians, who say they are the only ‘throuple’ in the world, are expecting their first child together.
Doll and Brynn Young, from Massachusetts in the US, were dating for 2.5 years when they decided to spice up their relationship with an additional partner.

They met Kitten, 27, through a threesome’s website and the trio got along so well they all married each other last year.

Massachusetts was the first US state to legalise same-sex marriage, although it doesn’t allow polygamy. While their marriage isn’t officially recognised, the ‘throuple’ say their relationship is the real deal.
Married lesbian ?throuple? Doll, Kitten and Brynn Young from Massachusetts are having a baby | News.com.au

When this group uses the legal "consenting adults in love" argument for Massachusetts to gain legality for their "arrangement", other states will not have to "permit" their residents this same bastardization of marriage.

In fact , gays, 13 year olds, lesbian "thruples", other polygamy are all the reasons the US Supreme Court is likely to reaffirm what they already Upheld in Windsor last Summer: that each sovereign state gets to have a broad consensus weigh in on these new re-definitions of marriage for themselves. If for no other reason to keep the slippery slope from happening like it already is, and to hold those states accountable to the others by the example they set. Would you want to move to a state where polygamy and gay triads were "married" parading this at schools as "a normal parental relationship" where your kids would be exposed to that lesson-by-example?

I wouldn't..

 

[Seawytch]

The moment one state legalizes gay marriage, it is de facto permitted in all states. It really is that simple...no amount of wailing, teeth-gnashing, and postwhoring will change it. Thirty years from mow, people will wonder what the big deal was.

That's the way it should be, not the way it IS. The rest of DOMA must go.

 

[Silhouette]

The moment one state legalizes gay marriage, it is de facto permitted in all states. It really is that simple...no amount of wailing, teeth-gnashing, and postwhoring will change it. Thirty years from mow, people will wonder what the big deal was.

That's the way it should be, not the way it IS. The rest of DOMA must go.

So you're saying that you believe 13 year olds and triads of lesbians should be able to be married in all 50 states because one state allows or is about to allow it there?

You're high on crack Wytchy girl. Dream on..

 

[JFK_USA]

States don't have a right to discriminate against anyone based on sexual lifestyle unless there is a crime being involved. Being gay isn't a crime and gay marriage is not illegal, so gay marriage is allowed and no state can adopt a law banning it based on religion. Since there is no scientific justification for outlawing gay marriage, the only laws banning gay marriage have to be based on religious dogma.

States cannot adopt legislation that discriminates against citizens based on what is not a crime. The religious Republican right might not like that, but no one gives a shit what right-wing Republicans like because you're a bunch of god-damned traitors who drew guns against your country to defend a racist criminal.

Youre completely incorrect in your thinking. No one is being discriminated against.

I guess gay people aren't actually people.

 

[JFK_USA]

The moment one state legalizes gay marriage, it is de facto permitted in all states. It really is that simple...no amount of wailing, teeth-gnashing, and postwhoring will change it. Thirty years from mow, people will wonder what the big deal was.

You're hoping people won't notice that you're substituting "permitted" for "recognized". If 13 year olds legally marry in New Hampshire, their marriage is recognized, but not permitted in other states. Nice try Jar Jar. Speaking of post-whoring. You should know...

Meanwhile this is problematic:

THREE married lesbians, who say they are the only ‘throuple’ in the world, are expecting their first child together.
Doll and Brynn Young, from Massachusetts in the US, were dating for 2.5 years when they decided to spice up their relationship with an additional partner.

They met Kitten, 27, through a threesome’s website and the trio got along so well they all married each other last year.

Massachusetts was the first US state to legalise same-sex marriage, although it doesn’t allow polygamy. While their marriage isn’t officially recognised, the ‘throuple’ say their relationship is the real deal.
Married lesbian ?throuple? Doll, Kitten and Brynn Young from Massachusetts are having a baby | News.com.au

When this group uses the legal "consenting adults in love" argument for Massachusetts to gain legality for their "arrangement", other states will not have to "permit" their residents this same bastardization of marriage.

In fact , gays, 13 year olds, lesbian "thruples", other polygamy are all the reasons the US Supreme Court is likely to reaffirm what they already Upheld in Windsor last Summer: that each sovereign state gets to have a broad consensus weigh in on these new re-definitions of marriage for themselves. If for no other reason to keep the slippery slope from happening like it already is, and to hold those states accountable to the others by the example they set. Would you want to move to a state where polygamy and gay triads were "married" parading this at schools as "a normal parental relationship" where your kids would be exposed to that lesson-by-example?

I wouldn't..

You can't predict the future and people shouldn't be denied equal treatment under the law because of some fictitious future you predict.

Gay people are real. My kid will be exposed to them and I will be a PARENT and a decent human being and tell my kid that a man can love a man and a woman can love a woman and that's okay and they should all be treated equally and with respect. Again because I am a decent human being.

BTW, 13 year olds can't marry because of something called "consenting adults."

 

[JoeB131]

The moment one state legalizes gay marriage, it is de facto permitted in all states. It really is that simple...no amount of wailing, teeth-gnashing, and postwhoring will change it. Thirty years from mow, people will wonder what the big deal was.

That's the way it should be, not the way it IS. The rest of DOMA must go.

So you're saying that you believe 13 year olds and triads of lesbians should be able to be married in all 50 states because one state allows or is about to allow it there?

You're high on crack Wytchy girl. Dream on..

Um, it's not a matter of what she believes. It's a matter of what the law is.

Texas allows 14 year olds to get married with their parent's permission. All of the other 49 states recognize these marriages as valid under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause".

If Texas wanted to drop that to 13, all 49 other states would STILL have to recongize those marriages as valid.

And if a state allows triads of lesbians to get married, the other 49 have to recognize that to.

Although a "Triad of Lesbians" actually sounds like a pretty good film idea.

 

[Seawytch]

That's the way it should be, not the way it IS. The rest of DOMA must go.

So you're saying that you believe 13 year olds and triads of lesbians should be able to be married in all 50 states because one state allows or is about to allow it there?

You're high on crack Wytchy girl. Dream on..

Um, it's not a matter of what she believes. It's a matter of what the law is.

Texas allows 14 year olds to get married with their parent's permission. All of the other 49 states recognize these marriages as valid under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause".

If Texas wanted to drop that to 13, all 49 other states would STILL have to recongize those marriages as valid.

And if a state allows triads of lesbians to get married, the other 49 have to recognize that to.

Although a "Triad of Lesbians" actually sounds like a pretty good film idea.

Thanks Joe. I've got the uniquely "special" Silhouette on ignore for her repeated insistence on equating gays with pedophiles...like she was intimating again it would seem.

And, for the record, I want the age of consent for civil marriage to be 18, across the board, no parental consent allowed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you are like the "end of the world" soapbox ranter.

And as always, it gets boring and unproven.

Step along.

Is "the end of the world" soapbox ranter me or the LGBT crowd if and when states are affirmed again [in addition to Windsor] as being the choosers via consensus on gay marriage?

Check the title of the thread. You may want to talk to that subject now and then..

I know that you hope that your wish will be upheld (and it may be in the 10th), but, I believe, that Sotomayor has built a 6-3 majority for her at the very least and maybe 7-2.