Bob wrote:

Dennis Smeth wrote:

Bob wrote:

Dennis Smeth wrote:

Randy Jabsco wrote:

Hey, I thought you faggots said that people were "accepting" you now.
What's this all about? I thought you faggots said that "ignorance to old
beliefs are making way". Come on faggots, explain this... I don't
understand. If people love faggots so much, why would over two-thirds vote
otherwise?

All 50 states at one time had laws that banned blacks from marrying
whites. Then a black and a white couple walked into the Supreme
Court and with one ruling all the those laws were null.

Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967)

If a white can marry a white, then a black must have the same right
or their equal protection is violated. If a man can marry a woman
that same woman must have the same right as the man or her
equal protection rights have been violated.

Non sequitur

Hey retards are like that.

"Many court watchers believe that within five to 10 years the U.S.
Supreme Court will hold that there is a constitutional right to
homosexual marriage, ...

That is the gay agenda, but calling them "court watchers" is a little
much. More likely the next Bush election, and increasing weight in the
Senate due to a lack of Dem leadership on war and economics, will end
the current retirement hold out by SC judges, and allow conservative
appointments. Either that or someone on the court will die.

There is not one person on earth that is or even could be more
conservative the Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork, if
you don't even know who he is it only proves that bigotry is born
of ignorance, and in your case just outright retardation.

The chosen instrument will be the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After all, if state law
forbids Fred to marry Henry, aren't they denied equal protection
when the law permits Tom and Jane to marry?"
By Judge Robert H. Bork, US Supreme Court nominee

The "Equal Rights Amendment," which would have mandated sexual equality,
failed to be ratified, largely due to females lobbying against equal
responsibilities.

Retard. He is talking about the 14th Amendment. Retard.

Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, at 260-61 (1971)
"Public officials may not avoid a constitutional duty by bowing to
the effects of private prejudice, however widely or deeply held."

Irrelevant. Anyone can marry if they choose an appropriate spouse. If
they choose not to marry that is nobody else's problem

What you want is for other to marry who you choose not who they
choose.

Marriage is an age old social institution to provide for a stable family
to produce and raise the next generation.

That definition is an old age institution of the last 100 years.

Marriage
has always been between and two or more that wanted to get
married.

The church performed same sex marriages up until the
19th century. The Pope polock has neatly covered up that fact.

As long as biology has male
and female reproduction, only male and female couples will be a
"marriage." Deal with it.

I guess bigots like you see infertile couples having children as a
illegitimate marriage and they children bastards.

Hey bigots are like that.

Salisbury v List, 501 FSupp 105, 109 (D. Nev 1980).
"When the right to marry is involved, a regulation significantly
interferes with the exercise of the right when it directly and
substantially interferes with the very decision to marry or not
to marry. That is, the freedom of choice is intruded upon."

Its biology that makes a marriage, not law. Adam and Steve are not
going to produce the next generation.

Yet David marriage Jonathan and Jesus is of the lineage of David,
and Jesus said hermaphrodites could marry if they could do so
for life, which is a same sex marriage.

Manwani v US Dept of Justice, 736 FSupp 1367, 1379 (W.D. NC 1990).
"A governmental burden on the right to marry need not amount to
an absolute prohibition in order to constitute an impermissible
interference with marital association."

Gays can *****-sociate all they like, it won't produce a family so its not
a marriage.

So infertile couples are not married.

Many gays and lesbians do form reproductive marriages. Its their choice.

Your choice.

Brause v Bureau of Vital Statistics, 3AN-95-6562 (SC AK 1998)
"There is no dispute that the right to marry is recognized as
fundamental.

It's about the children. That's the meaning and purpose of marriage.
Deal with it.

So 80 year olds getting married have no business getting married.

Today the court has recognized that the personal
choice of a life partner is fundamental and that such a choice
may include persons of the same sex...the United States Supreme
Court first characterized the right to marry as fundamental
in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942.)

They can rule that Pi = 3 if they like too, but that doesn't make it so.

And you and the Pope with all the BAC boys Bush, Ashcroft and
Cheney, can say that marriage has always been between a
man and a woman, when all facts totally contradict your lies.

Gen 4:
19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one
was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

The same sex polyandrous marriage of David to Michal and Jonathan

NASB:

1 Samuel 18:
21 Saul thought, "I will give her to him that she may become
a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be
against him." Therefore Saul said to David, " For a second time
you may be my son-in-law today."

YLT

21 and Saul saith, `I give her to him, and she is to him
for a snare, and the hand of the Philistines is on him;'
and Saul saith unto David, `By the second thou dost become --
my son-in-law to-day.'

Darby

21 And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a
snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be
upon him. And Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my
son-in-law a second time.

The Marriage contract of David and Jonathan

2 Samuel 21:
7 But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the
son of Saul, because of the LORD'S oath that was between them,
between David and Jonathan the son of Saul.

Psa 133:
1 A Song of degrees of David. Behold, how good and how pleasant
it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

Bob wrote:

Dennis Smeth wrote:

Bob wrote:

Dennis Smeth wrote:

Randy Jabsco wrote:

Hey, I thought you faggots said that people were "accepting" you

What's this all about? I thought you faggots said that "ignorance

beliefs are making way". Come on faggots, explain this... I don't
understand. If people love faggots so much, why would over

otherwise?

All 50 states at one time had laws that banned blacks from marrying
whites. Then a black and a white couple walked into the Supreme
Court and with one ruling all the those laws were null.

Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967)

If a white can marry a white, then a black must have the same right
or their equal protection is violated. If a man can marry a woman
that same woman must have the same right as the man or her
equal protection rights have been violated.

Non sequitur

Hey retards are like that.

"Many court watchers believe that within five to 10 years the U.S.
Supreme Court will hold that there is a constitutional right to
homosexual marriage, ...

That is the gay agenda, but calling them "court watchers" is a little
much. More likely the next Bush election, and increasing weight in the
Senate due to a lack of Dem leadership on war and economics, will end
the current retirement hold out by SC judges, and allow conservative
appointments. Either that or someone on the court will die.

There is not one person on earth that is or even could be more
conservative the Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork, if
you don't even know who he is it only proves that bigotry is born
of ignorance, and in your case just outright retardation.

The chosen instrument will be the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After all, if state law
forbids Fred to marry Henry, aren't they denied equal protection
when the law permits Tom and Jane to marry?"
By Judge Robert H. Bork, US Supreme Court nominee

The "Equal Rights Amendment," which would have mandated sexual equality,
failed to be ratified, largely due to females lobbying against equal
responsibilities.

Retard. He is talking about the 14th Amendment. Retard.

Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, at 260-61 (1971)
"Public officials may not avoid a constitutional duty by bowing to
the effects of private prejudice, however widely or deeply held."

Irrelevant. Anyone can marry if they choose an appropriate spouse.

they choose not to marry that is nobody else's problem

What you want is for other to marry who you choose not who they
choose.

Marriage is an age old social institution to provide for a stable family
to produce and raise the next generation.

That definition is an old age institution of the last 100 years. Marriage
has always been between and two or more that wanted to get
married. The church performed same sex marriages up until the
19th century. The Pope polock has neatly covered up that fact.

As long as biology has male
and female reproduction, only male and female couples will be a
"marriage." Deal with it.

I guess bigots like you see infertile couples having children as a
illegitimate marriage and they children bastards.

Hey bigots are like that.

Salisbury v List, 501 FSupp 105, 109 (D. Nev 1980).
"When the right to marry is involved, a regulation significantly
interferes with the exercise of the right when it directly and
substantially interferes with the very decision to marry or not
to marry. That is, the freedom of choice is intruded upon."

Its biology that makes a marriage, not law. Adam and Steve are not
going to produce the next generation.

Yet David marriage Jonathan and Jesus is of the lineage of David,
and Jesus said hermaphrodites could marry if they could do so
for life, which is a same sex marriage.

Manwani v US Dept of Justice, 736 FSupp 1367, 1379 (W.D. NC 1990).
"A governmental burden on the right to marry need not amount to
an absolute prohibition in order to constitute an impermissible
interference with marital association."

Gays can *****-sociate all they like, it won't produce a family so its not
a marriage.

So infertile couples are not married.

Many gays and lesbians do form reproductive marriages. Its their

Your choice.

Brause v Bureau of Vital Statistics, 3AN-95-6562 (SC AK 1998)
"There is no dispute that the right to marry is recognized as
fundamental.

It's about the children. That's the meaning and purpose of marriage.
Deal with it.

So 80 year olds getting married have no business getting married.

Today the court has recognized that the personal
choice of a life partner is fundamental and that such a choice
may include persons of the same sex...the United States Supreme
Court first characterized the right to marry as fundamental
in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942.)

They can rule that Pi = 3 if they like too, but that doesn't make it so.

And you and the Pope with all the BAC boys Bush, Ashcroft and
Cheney, can say that marriage has always been between a
man and a woman, when all facts totally contradict your lies.

Gen 4:
19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one
was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.


The same sex polyandrous marriage of David to Michal and Jonathan

NASB:

1 Samuel 18:
21 Saul thought, "I will give her to him that she may become
a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be
against him." Therefore Saul said to David, " For a second time
you may be my son-in-law today."

YLT

21 and Saul saith, `I give her to him, and she is to him
for a snare, and the hand of the Philistines is on him;'
and Saul saith unto David, `By the second thou dost become --
my son-in-law to-day.'

Darby

21 And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a
snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be
upon him. And Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my
son-in-law a second time.



The Marriage contract of David and Jonathan

2 Samuel 21:
7 But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the
son of Saul, because of the LORD'S oath that was between them,
between David and Jonathan the son of Saul.

Psa 133:
1 A Song of degrees of David. Behold, how good and how pleasant
it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!