Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
In creating a brand new definition of marriage where children in it will be rendered motherless or fatherless 100% of the time, the Court adding this "right" to the Constitution (which they can't do BTW) announced to the world that the consideration of children in marriage is secondary to adults. So any argument in the future that "this type of marriage may be harmful to children" is moot. It's already been established that when it comes to marriage, children's welfare is secondary to adults whims.Well...I see the libs are already being hypocritical.
They didnt want states to lose the ability to define ALL of marriage....just the gay part.
Well....you tipped the dominoe.
How can states define age of marital consent....if they cant define marriage??
Libs will respond with nonsense. Watch....