while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
But the gay marriage movement makes the government an integral part of their marriage by stating that they need to get permission to be married, just to get a name on a death certificate, as in one case. You mean he couldn't just go to his congressman and get help with that? That would be more personal and fulfilling.
Just for fun, you should try actually making sense one of these days. Or, you know, knowing what you're talking about. Or how government works.
while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
I posted an analysis and you call that whining and tedious? and I did not lose, America did
You posted a whine because you lost.
while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
I say that the constitution is for checks and balances and separation of powers there was none in that case.
OK. So you're just wrong a completely different way.
The petitioners in this case were not hurt by leaving things alone.
Still wrong....
Since it is split liberal v conservative, the ruling can not be taken seriously
And still wrong.
scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
Gay marriage is here to stay, however that don't mean people have to endorse it.
I don't endorse stupid Christians being stupid, but I certainly recognize their right be such.
while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
A simple yes, or no without snarky comebacks would be great, if you can do it.
Of course I can do whatever I want. I'm smart, sexy, make good money at my job and have awesome kids.
Whybin the wold anyone would expect me to answer a pedestrian pointless question born of misunderstanding is being me caring, however.
To wit, the type of answer you get is very dependant upon the quality of your question.
Oh, and one side DID win the argument. My side. The proper and correct side.
while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
Mentioning that you are vaguely aware that women have sexy parts in pages of pages of posts about gay men only serves to illustrate how much more time you spend thinking about gay men and what they're up to, cheesypoof.
while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
Apparently you care!
And now we know that you don't know what "apparently" or "care" means.
Here's a question, why do self-proclaimed straight white Bible misunderstanding men care more about what gays men's penises are up to than gay men do?
