If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 26
    More: Interesting, Republican, Tim Huelskamp, same-sex marriages, organizations, Jerrold Nadler, Defense of Marriage Act, Lisa Murkowski  
•       •       •

3990 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jun 2013 at 10:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-27 09:28:12 AM
5 votes:
Ralph Reed, a leading Christian conservative and head of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, denounced the ruling as "an Orwellian act of judicial fiat" and said he will join in the effort for new legislation to replace the Defense of Marriage Act.

I hope the irony of this sentence is not lost on people. I've underlined the key words to make it a little clearer.
2013-06-27 09:32:05 AM
4 votes:
Yeah, that'll work.  They are going to get 38 states and a super-majority in both houses.

They'll just have to convince seven of the nineteen states that have already adopted some sort of marriage equality to accept a constitutional amendment.

Or they'll just keep using it like they use abortion, to fire up their base and never really deliver on their promises.
2013-06-27 11:48:22 AM
2 votes:

Lando Lincoln: dinch: Was listening to the radio this morning where some lady was being interviewed about this. Her basis for being against it (big surprise) is that the bible says marriage is between one man and one woman.

The Bible also says that we shouldn't kill each other, and yet, we have laws allowing us to do just that.

Jesus constantly spoke out about people not being greedy and yet there are many laws in our nation that allow us to be as greedy as we damn well please.

But for some weird reason we have to keep the gays from being married because THAT would really piss God off.


Well, there's a LOT in Leviticus that God should be pissed at us about...

1.       Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)
Not a huge problem nowadays.

2.       Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13)
Again, not a huge deal to most Christian churches.

3.       Eating fat (3:17)
Southern cuisine is in trouble

4.       Eating blood (3:17)
German cuisine is in trouble.

5.       Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you've witnessed (5:1)
Congress is in trouble.

6.       Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you've been told about (5:1)
Congress is REALLY in trouble

7.       Touching an unclean animal (5:2)
Hope you don't like pork...

8.       Carelessly making an oath (5:4)
Again, Congress is REALLY in trouble

9.       Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2)
HOAs are against God...

10.   Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3)
Much of America is DOOMED...

11.   Bringing unauthorized fire before God (10:1)
The candle trade for saints is apparently DOOOOOOM!

12.   Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)
Hipsters, teens, and much of Hollywood is DOOOOOMED!

13.   Tearing your clothes (10:6)
Wrasslin' is the work of the Debbil

14.   Drinking alcohol in holy places (10:9)
Catholics, we're looking right at you....

15.   Eating an animal which doesn't both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7)
Rib joints are the work of the Debbil...

16.   Touching the carcass of any of the above (11:8)
Hope you aren't a fan of football...

17.   Eating - or touching the carcass of - any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12)
Red Lobster is the work of the Debbil...

18.   Eating - or touching the carcass of - eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19)
In fairness, this means that Newage folks are DOOOOOMED!

19.   Eating - or touching the carcass of - flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22)
Cicadas may be out.

20.   Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (11:27)
Roof rabbit may have doomed the entire Greatest Generation...

21.   Eating - or touching the carcass of - the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)
Hope you haven't had gator bites...

22.   Eating - or touching the carcass of - any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42)
Rattlesnake BBQ is RIGHT out...

23.   Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)
Hope you aren't having that Christening too early, you naughty folks...

24.   Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)
See the above, but double time for the girlchil'run...

25.   Having sex with your mother (18:7)
Which is not a bad rule to have, but let's face it, this rule pretty much takes out a good section of 90s day time TV

26.   Having sex with your father's wife (18:8)
Not a bad rule either, but see the above section on reality TV...

27.   Having sex with your sister (18:9)
This one is going to have Kentucky and good sections of the South, and Maine in trouble...

28.   Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)
Not a bad rule at all, and...ewwwww....

29: Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)
See the earlier section on day time TV...

30.   Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13)
Again, see the section on day time TV...

31.   Having sex with your uncle's wife (18:14)
Man, Maury would be screwed if we damn everyone for this...

32.   Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15)
Maury may have sent a brazillion folks to Hell for this...

33.   Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)
Congress may be in trouble here too...

34.   Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (18:17)
Alan Clarke and Maury are soooo screwed on this.

35.   Marrying your wife's sister while your wife still lives (18:18)
Man, day time TV is just rife with sinfulness. Should we let children watch this smut?

36.   Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19)
Redwings. Apparently, always a bad idea...

37.   Having sex with your neighbour's wife (18:20)
Congress, and a fair amount of middle America is sooooo boned...

38.   Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21)
In fairness, I'm all for religious freedom, but this seems like a good, commonsense rule.

39.   Having sex with a man "as one does with a woman" (18:22)
There it is. THIS apparently is THE important one.

40.   Having sex with an animal (18:23)
The Scots apparently have generations of sending kindling to Hell...

41.   Making idols or "metal gods" (19:4)
Catholics, you may be in some trouble here...

42.   Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9)
Yup. We're supposed to leave stuff for the poor and destitute to glean from the fields...

43.   Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10)
Factory farming is the work of the Debbil...

44.   Stealing (19:11)
Congress and much of the legal system is so screwed...

45.   Lying (19:11)
Is there anything Congress CAN do then?

46.   Swearing falsely on God's name (19:12)
Pat Robertson and Congress apparently makes Jehovah wroth...

47.   Defrauding your neighbor (19:13)
Real estate and much of America is boned. You'll note how wroth folks are about this one, while being ghey is just the work of the Debbil...

48.   Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (19:13)
Paychecks are the work of the Debbil...

49.   Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14)
God is hard on douchebags...

50.   Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15)
Congress in both houses are boned...

51.   Spreading slander (19:16)
As are the tabloids...

52.   Doing anything to endanger a neighbour's life (19:16)
Most of America and the "here, hold my beer" crowd is screwed...

53.   Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18)
Congress...you are sooooooooo going ALL of you to Hell...

54.   Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19)
Walmart, Sears, and Target. Agents of Satan...

55.   Cross-breeding animals (19:19)
God IS against GMO husbandry...

56.   Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19)
Put down the basil and the tomatoes. I don't care if they DO complement one another's growth, it's BAD!

57.   Sleeping with another man's slave (19:20)
Seriously. Bad form folks. Bad form.

58.   Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23)
The apple industry is the work of the Debbil...

59.   Practicing divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26)
Miss Cleo is the work of the Debbil, and here we have this sin IN OUR PAPERS!

60.   Trimming your beard (19:27)
Look at all the dirty bastiches who do this. LOOK AT THEM!

61.   Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)
The Marines are the work of the Debbil...

62.   Getting tattoos (19:28)
Tramp stamps and memorial tattoos are the work of the Debbil...

63.   Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29)
Daytime TV is SUCH a sinful place...

64.   Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31)
Miss Cleo. Leading a nation into sin and depravity...

65.   Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)
Welp, this one seems right out today...

66.   Mistreating foreigners - "the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born"  (19:33-34)
Guess that means we can stop those Oathkeepers and Sheriff Joe from being mean to the immigrants then, right?

67.   Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36)
My industry is boned as a whole, as is pretty much most of the oil industry as well...

68.   Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9)
Maury and the rest could have made a few bucks by televising the stonings though...

69.   Marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13)
Odd, that you don't see more folks incensed by this...

70.   Entering a place where there's a dead body as a priest (21:11)
Which pretty much means that all our chaplains are boned.

71.   Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28)
And in fairness, it's rude too. Eating mama and her babies is just greedy...

72.   Working on the Sabbath (23:3)
Sadly, this means no liquor stores open on Saturday or Sunday...

73.   Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14)
Man, we are going to need a LOT of stones. Just in the State legislatures, and let's not even get onto Congress...

74.   Inflicting an injury; killing someone else's animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22)
This WOULD end cockfighting and dogfighting quick though...

75.   Selling land permanently (25:23)
Odd, you don't see more protests and signs around real estate agencies...

76.   Selling an Israelite as a slave (foreigners are fine) (25:42)
So, I guess we should be OK with slaves again?
2013-06-27 11:28:18 AM
2 votes:

Serious Black: In Britain, same-sex couples split up half as often as opposite-sex couples.


No one ever makes the rash decision to get gay married after they knock up their gay SO.   No one ever gets pressured by their family and/or church to get gay married.  No one ever gets an arranged gay marriage.

Throw out all those bad reasons for getting hitched, and we heteros could enjoy the much-more sanctified institution of marriage that the gays do!
2013-06-27 11:21:03 AM
2 votes:

jjorsett: Let me get THIS straight: you want people to accept defeat before they even try, because YOU deem it a doomed effort, all in the name of saving money? By the way, I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. I'm perfectly okay with gay marriage. I'm also perfectly okay with people working within the system to attempt changing something they don't like, even if their opponents wish to God they'd just shut up and go away.


Oh look, a Libertarian defending the rights of a group of people trying to restrict the rights of another group of people.

Color me shocked. But I guess it's okay because they're "working within the system", which, apparently, makes it "perfectly okay".

Dude, this is why people around here don't have any respect for your philosophy. For some reason, Libertarian notions of "freedom" always seem to cut against those who yearn for it the most.
2013-06-27 03:23:11 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Lastly, it is exceedingly unlikely it will ever happen, so allowing someone to try is perfectly acceptable. If they are wrong, and cannot convince nearly everyone, it will fail anyway. If it were to somehow succeed, it would be an unequivocal expression of democracy in action. Libertarians also like the rules to be the rules.


I find it puzzling that you guys keep focusing on rule of law when no one is suggesting a violation of that. But if the libertarian philosophy is to be meaningful, it can't just be, "Hey, whatever majorities vote for is cool with us!"

Libertarians always try to drum up support by insisting that they support the expansion of civil liberties as a principle. It's why we constantly hear about libertarians arguing for the legalization of drugs, prostitution, and firearms and and why they consistently condemn efforts -- including perfectly democratic efforts -- to restrict any of those things.

Do you seriously expect me to believe that if the topic were a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment that we wouldn't have droves upon droves of libertarians insisting that such an effort was tantamount to tyranny by the majority? Do you expect me to further believe that would would be any libertarians around going out of their way to remind everyone that Congress has a legal right to raise such an Amendment?

Of course not, and we all know it.

The subject of gay rights is a  perfect opportunity for libertarians to make a case for the rights of individuals to marry and even I, a critic of libertarianism, think that I could construct an argument that would be consistent with libertarian beliefs, but it just seems hard to find those libertarian voices when they are so desperately needed.

Instead, we get digressions into Constitutional procedures and statements suggesting that it's more important to respect the rights of a majority to restrict the civil rights of a minority as long as it's done democraticallythan it is to say that such restrictions are fundamentally wrong and should be opposed on principle.

As is often the case, libertarianism in practice just doesn't seem to measure up to how good it looks on paper.
2013-06-27 02:12:51 PM
1 votes:

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Oh please. Nobody but nobody is suggesting that they don't have the legal right to propose an amendment, so let's stop pretending that this is what you're defending. What people are saying is that they are in the moral wrong to do so. That it's wrong, stupid and, in fact, evil to try to repress the rights of others, which is what this proposed amendment is about, and that the just course of action would be to defeat any such amendment proposed (again, through the legislative process).  Stop trying to suggest that we're anarchists.

But here we have a libertarian jumping in the thread to remind us all about Robert's Rules of Order.  The ironic thing is that you libertarians are  supposed to beall about trying to check government power when it's being used to restrict freedoms, and here's a perfect example of that in action. If you guys really took that notion seriously, you should be joining us in decrying the republicans for doing this and should be doing everything you can to shame them into doing the right thing.

But no, that's not what motivated you to post. You, a member of a supposedly anti-authoritarian philosophy, decided that what was going to get you worked up enough to share your thoughts was your fear that we weren't being respectful of Congress's authority to try and squelch the rights of others.

And this is precisely the sort of attitude that we encounter again and again from libertarians. They are quick to defend the interests of the powerful, all in the name of "freedom", but whenever it comes to defending those who lack power, the very same folks seem to consistently come down on the side of those holding it.  And that is why so very few people in this group respect libertarians. We know your schtick and we aren't impressed by your notions of what respecting freedom actually means.


Dayum. Most eloquent analysis of the faux-Lbertarians on Fark I've ever seen.
2013-06-27 11:45:52 AM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: Love the ire of liberals. How insulting it must be for you when your political enemies try to actually change the constitution the way it was meant to be changed. It really shows how wrong the liberal way of changing it is.


We're not mad. We're amused watching you guys beat your head against the wall.

But keep going. You're really inspiring young voters to never vote for people in your party.
2013-06-27 11:28:25 AM
1 votes:

jjorsett: coeyagi: "I am a liberatrian and not a conservative."  Well, at least we know there is such a thing as libertarian humor.

That statement is inherently self-contradictory. If I'm really a conservative then how could it be libertarian humor? And if I'm a libertarian, what's so funny about stating that I'm not a conservative?


The sad thing is, I am fairly Conservative--albeit in a more classical sense, as opposed to the radicalized fashion that has taken over the party and redubbed its brand of radicalism "Conservative"--and I'm not afraid to admit it. My issue has been, and still is, the radical elements that have taken the party by storm, often under the guise of calling their own brand of radicalism "Libertarian" because NeoCons seem to have a lock on the economic radical base, and the Religious Right has their own "Family Values" plank--that pretty much seems to disapprove of how anyone else's family is comprised or run.

I AM a Conservative, who has a particular dislike for the radicalism that has infested the party. Radical notions on economics--and sadly, this has infected the party since folks realized that Voodoo Economics' faults could be shifted to Democrats for not letting them GO DEEPER! with a plan that has the hallmarks of the worst of the boom/bust cycles and tossing away regulation that has kept us from the sweep of Robber Barons reviving themselves from a cold, dark sleep--and radical notions of foreign and domestic policy that really hate on anyone who questions exactly who shooting up, jailing, and selling off property without much process protects anyone. It used to mean a careful and considered position, weighing factors and looking for the greatest good, for the longest period, for the most folks. That brand of Conservative thought has passed, and we have instead radicals who want dig their heels in and call what were fairly radical notions even in the days of Jim Crow, and call them "Conservative" because it really sucks to be called out on being a radical.

We are losing good Conservative voices, and losing them to a rebranding of "Conservative" thought that is nothing more than noxious radicalism and jingoistic notions, and making the term Conservative as much poison to a party as Liberal was branded. I don't mind being called Conservative, but I do mind that radicals who pose as Conservatives have very much tarnished the party and the process.
2013-06-27 11:25:27 AM
1 votes:

jjorsett: coeyagi: "I am a liberatrian and not a conservative."  Well, at least we know there is such a thing as libertarian humor.

That statement is inherently self-contradictory. If I'm really a conservative then how could it be libertarian humor? And if I'm a libertarian, what's so funny about stating that I'm not a conservative?


Oh jj, have you ever heard the phrase "not mutually exclusive"?
2013-06-27 11:09:40 AM
1 votes:

verbaltoxin: Serious Black: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: The Republican party can easily win this battle. They simply need to refuse to authorize a debt ceiling increase until a federal marriage amendment is enacted. In so doing, they will force the nation to accept such an amendment or suffer a completely ruined economy. True, such a position would put the nation's financial stability at risk, but Republicans in general have demonstrated their willingness to entirely destroy the nation if they are not able to treat others as second-class citizens.

I believe that such a strategy could work well for them. Any resulting damage could be blamed upon President Obama. Perhaps Representative Issa could lead an investigation to support such blame.

Yep, that's how we ended up with the Balanced Budget Amendment the Republicans demanded as a condition for raising the debt ceiling.

Yeah, but they only asked for a VOTE on a BBA to raise the debt ceiling. If they demand the FMA get ratified before raising the debt ceiling, that will GUARANTEE the Democrats capitulate.

Are you reading your own typing? No way the Democrats allow a Constitutional amendment get RATIFIED to pass a debt ceiling bill.


i1.kym-cdn.com
2013-06-27 11:07:52 AM
1 votes:

jjorsett: coeyagi: jjorsett: coeyagi: jjorsett: Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

Short of bloody revolution, how else would one do it?

The point is, they shouldn't.  The f*cking public doesn't want it, and they will continue in greater numbers not to want it ("it" being a consitutional amendment on marriage inequality) in the future.

They're allowed to try. I'm pretty sure they won't succeed, but if that's how they want to spend their time and energy, that's their right. And if you're correct abut the public's attitude, anybody on board with the attempt will pay a political price, so you ought to encourage them.

Wait, you are saying we should waste public money and resources for a losing battle?

So, lemme get this straight, from the conservative standpoint, wasting money is bad unless it's to fight a losing battle based on YOUR morals and values?  Glad that we're not calling that cognitive dissonance and instead a very narrow and ridiculous exception to your own rules.

Let me get THIS straight: you want people to accept defeat before they even try, because YOU deem it a doomed effort, all in the name of saving money? By the way, I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. I'm perfectly okay with gay marriage. I'm also perfectly okay with people working within the system to attempt changing something they don't like, even if their opponents wish to God they'd just shut up and go away.


"I am a liberatrian and not a conservative."  Well, at least we know there is such a thing as libertarian humor.
2013-06-27 11:05:12 AM
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: The Republican party can easily win this battle. They simply need to refuse to authorize a debt ceiling increase until a federal marriage amendment is enacted. In so doing, they will force the nation to accept such an amendment or suffer a completely ruined economy. True, such a position would put the nation's financial stability at risk, but Republicans in general have demonstrated their willingness to entirely destroy the nation if they are not able to treat others as second-class citizens.

I believe that such a strategy could work well for them. Any resulting damage could be blamed upon President Obama. Perhaps Representative Issa could lead an investigation to support such blame.

Yep, that's how we ended up with the Balanced Budget Amendment the Republicans demanded as a condition for raising the debt ceiling.


Yeah, but they only asked for a VOTE on a BBA to raise the debt ceiling. If they demand the FMA get ratified before raising the debt ceiling, that will GUARANTEE the Democrats capitulate.
2013-06-27 11:04:07 AM
1 votes:

that bosnian sniper: ...and to think people were arguing with me in the SCOTUS thread about the Republicans not using this as a wedge issue in the 2014 elections.


Maybe they're not? Bachmann is leaving Congress in 2014, and Huelskamps from the derpiest state yet derping.
2013-06-27 11:01:43 AM
1 votes:

MisterRonbo: social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad,"


How do you scientifically show that someone deserves something?
2013-06-27 11:01:13 AM
1 votes:
FTA: Decades of social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad," he said, adding later, "I think children will be hurt."

 I noticed he didn't put a citation on that.  I will put one done for the counter argument.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/05/2106751/same-sex-parenting- st udy/

In effect, it says "F*CK YOU, YOU LYING TEA BAG PIECES OF AMPHIBIAN SH*T."
2013-06-27 10:57:29 AM
1 votes:

jjorsett: coeyagi: jjorsett: Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

Short of bloody revolution, how else would one do it?

The point is, they shouldn't.  The f*cking public doesn't want it, and they will continue in greater numbers not to want it ("it" being a consitutional amendment on marriage inequality) in the future.

They're allowed to try. I'm pretty sure they won't succeed, but if that's how they want to spend their time and energy, that's their right. And if you're correct abut the public's attitude, anybody on board with the attempt will pay a political price, so you ought to encourage them.


Wait, you are saying we should waste public money and resources for a losing battle?

So, lemme get this straight, from the conservative standpoint, wasting money is bad unless it's to fight a losing battle based on YOUR morals and values?  Glad that we're not calling that cognitive dissonance and instead a very narrow and ridiculous exception to your own rules.
2013-06-27 10:45:02 AM
1 votes:
The definition of what constitutes a traditional marriage has changed several times in recent history. People used to be arranged into marriages by their parents without their consent; some of these arranged marriages involved couples who only met at the wedding. Married women used to be legally barred from owning property and were financially dependent on their husbands. Men used to be able to rape their wives. Marriages used to be impossible to sever, even in cases where one spouse (predominantly the husband) was abusive towards the other.

If you really support traditional marriage, I think you should be supportive of all those traditions that we have tossed by the wayside.
2013-06-27 10:40:45 AM
1 votes:
I hope they make a big point of campaigning on this issue, that they make it a core plank in their party platform, put it into as many speeches as possible, take out adverts, go on TV interviews and talk about their views at great length, put forward as many bills in as many state and national legislatures as they possibly can and challenge every pro-gay marriage law in every state all the way to the Supreme Court.
2013-06-27 10:38:23 AM
1 votes:
i1269.photobucket.com
2013-06-27 10:36:00 AM
1 votes:
It's funny how anything Obama or the Democrats do that they don't like is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! - but then when it suits the Republicans, the Constitution magically becomes a living document to be updated according to their beliefs prejudices.
2013-06-27 10:35:52 AM
1 votes:
I love how committed Republicans are at obliviously marching into their own demise.
2013-06-27 10:33:34 AM
1 votes:
Huelskamp and other tea party-backed lawmakers spoke at a monthly meeting with reporters they call "Conversations With Conservatives," which allows the reporters to quiz some of the most ardent conservatives on issues facing Congress.

Wait a second here, I though the TEA Party was only concerned with fiscal conservatism and was made up of people from all parts of the political spectrum.
2013-06-27 10:20:36 AM
1 votes:
How many times are we going to hear "just think of the children!" while this tantrum plays out over time?  These religious conservatives, seeking to amend the constitution to codify THEIR religion as OUR religion have realized that they can't condemn the gays as sodomites, monsters, demons, pedophiles, and the like because, well those sales pitches fall flat when you're not preaching to the choir.

But they can appeal to emotion: "Think of poor Jimmy, with no daddy to teach him how to throw a fastball.  All he's got is two mommies, and they do that UNDERHAND GARBAGE!  We must AMEND THE CONSTITUTION!"

Seriously, folks: what have you lost in this fight?  Your marriage and benefits are unchanged.  All that is happening is, over time, people are less and less interested in hearing you railing on about "the gay agenda" and the "sodomites ruining America."  How about you just write sermons on different topics... you know, New Testament stuff?
2013-06-27 10:17:30 AM
1 votes:
In opening remarks, Huelskamp said he was primarily concerned about how the rulings could affect American children.

Won't someone think of the children!

I wholeheartedly believe that it is his and his brethren's discomfort with explaining gay people to their own children that is the source of their opposition, not necessarily the children that live in these types of families.  He's not concerned with "American children."  He's concerned that he doesn't have the tools to explain things to his own children that he thinks are totally icky and against the Bible.

Decades of social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad," he said, adding later, "I think children will be hurt."

I look forward to his anti-divorce Constitutional amendment proposition.
2013-06-27 09:32:24 AM
1 votes:
Introducing the Omnibus No Homo, No Healthcare, No Abortion, No voting, No nothin' we don't like Bill.

I'm sure it will go over just as well as all their other efforts.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report