Rand Paul: Let’s get marriage out of the tax code

posted at 1:21 pm on March 13, 2013 by Allahpundit

This isn’t news because it’s novel for a Paul to be saying such things — his dad once called for getting the government out of marriage on a GOP presidential primary debate stage — but because of Paul’s growing prominence in the GOP. If he could rally a hawkish party to oppose the president’s power to use drones against terrorists in certain circumstances, can he rally a socially conservative party to find an accommodation on gay marriage?

Paul says foreign policy is an instrumental way to expand the GOP, but it’s not the only way. Social issues are another area where he thinks Republicans can make a better argument to independents and centrists without departing from their principles. Gay marriage, for instance, is one issue on which Paul would like to shake up the Republican position. “I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” he says. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.”

I assume that’s part of a broader ambition to make marriage a wholly private function, which is vintage Paul insofar as it’s a clever attempt to sell libertarian wine in conservative bottles. He does the same thing vis-a-vis foreign aid to Israel: Cutting aid will actually lead to more robust Israeli self-defense because Israel will no longer feel obliged to seek American approval when responding to Hamas. I’ve seen other libertarians and paleocons argue for cutting aid to Tel Aviv and, needless to say, the idea that it might make Israel more aggressive towards its enemies was … not a key factor in their reasoning, to put it mildly. Likewise here, most libertarians support making marriage a matter of private contract not because they feel angst about “redefining marriage” — the ones I know are all perfectly fine with, if not enthusiastic about, states legalizing SSM — but because it’s a move towards smaller government, especially on moral issues. Paul, however, is pitching this as a sort of escape hatch for social conservatives who don’t want to see blue states or the Supreme Court lend the imprimatur of American government to gays marrying. He supports traditional marriage; he doesn’t want to see marriage redefined. So … why not eliminate state sanction from marriage entirely? Indeed, why not, says Jen Rubin:

If we were starting a system from scratch, I suspect that would be an easier sell. But getting the federal government out of the marriage business, deferring to the states and allowing individuals to, as he says, enter into contracts with one another, can be the way out of the gay marriage thicket for the GOP, I would argue.

The Supreme Court, depending on its ruling in the same-sex marriage cases, may assist this process by striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, the biggest aggrandizement of federal power on marriage in my lifetime (maybe ever).

Conservatives understand that there is a realm of conduct left to churches, synagogues, families, localities and individuals. The essence of Burkean conservatism is a healthy regard for and respect for those realms and for the customs, habits and beliefs that flow from those free associations. Whatever the methodology, conservatives at the national level need to extract themselves from a losing battle that should not be within the purview of the federal government.

That bit at the end is another reason this is newsworthy: The timing is propitious. Ten years ago, social cons laughed at libertarians for suggesting that marriage go completely private. Ten years later, with several states having legalized gay marriage, poll trends among young voters promising more legalization, and the Supreme Court poised to extend marriage rights to gays as a matter of equal protection, maybe they’ll consider it the lesser of two evils. See, e.g., Frank Fleming’s piece at PJM arguing that marriage is, after all, a religious custom and the state has no business trying to reconfigure religious customs. Better to leave marriage entirely within the private realm so that churches can protect their traditions. The timing’s propitious too in that the GOP’s desperate for ways to build goodwill with younger voters and Paul’s ploy is one likely way of doing it. It’s similar to what Mitch Daniels said about pot a few months ago: The GOP doesn’t need to endorse legalization, all it needs to do is let the power to decide devolve to a more local level of government. In the case of marijuana, Daniels pushed federalism as a solution. In the case of marriage, Paul’s pushing private contract, i.e. self-government at the individual level, as the answer. In both cases, the GOP gets to punt on a hot-button issue in a way that, maybe hopefully, won’t alienate social conservatives. They’re not backing weed and SSM; they’re merely striking a blow for limited government by letting people decide for themselves.

All that said, and as someone who supports legalizing gay marriage, I’ve never understood why social cons would go for this. At the core of the anti-SSM argument, as I understand it, is the belief that man/woman marriage is qualitatively different from gay unions; barring gays from marrying under state law is a way to recognize that difference. It’s not that state sanction operates as some sort of “benediction” for straights, it’s that it a mechanism of differentiation with all other types of unions. If you move to Paul’s paradigm where everything’s a matter of contract, there’s no longer any such mechanism. Every couple with a private agreement is effectively equal; the state will enforce an agreement between gays just as it will an agreement between straights. How does that satisfy the social-con objection to SSM? Likewise, some conservatives support state sanction of marriage because they believe the state has a role in promoting marriage as a social good and domesticating force. I’ve always thought that was a good argument for gay marriage too, but we needn’t argue about that; the point is, if the state gets out the marriage business it’s no longer officially promoting anything. And finally, if you’re worried about gay marriage for fear that it’s another step down the cultural slippery slope towards polygamy, why on earth would you favor a paradigm of private contract? A multi-party contract would place polygamous groups on the same legal footing as couples. If polygamy’s your chief concern, you’re probably much better off sticking with state-sanctioned marriage and taking your chances with the Supreme Court. Exit question: What am I missing here? Any social conservatives want to make the case for why Paul’s right?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

bds1976 on March 14, 2013 at 2:10 AM

So much of what you opine is unsupportable by reality.

You can’t assume any bank loan simply by “being married” with “a certificate” and it doesn’t make you any more credit worthy (in many cases, less credit worthy) than if you aren’t.

Being married increases one’s liabilities, financially and in other areas as to risk.

And if you want to open a bank account with anyone else, all you have to do is include them as a signator (it’s called a joint-account if you do), or, you list another person as someone who can access/control your bank account if you are ever deemed incompetent (death, disability, etc.). All anyone then has to do who you’ve listed before that is present a death certificate or other legal documents that support your statement that the account holder is disposed, can’t handle their own affairs. Courts issue such documents in the case of incompetence and certainly in the case of death.

Your allegations there are just unsupportable or perhaps you haven’t much exposure to rather mundane, common daily activities.

Lourdes on March 14, 2013 at 4:12 AM

bds1976 on March 14, 2013 at 2:10 AM

There’s a really simple, commonly available banking form that asks any account holder to provide the bank with the name of whoever (individual) you would like to be able to manage your bank account should you ever expire or become unable to manage your affairs (disabled, in a coma, demented, whatever, you don’t have to specify what type).

You just include someone as your desired handler of your account when you open or manage your own bank account. No requirement to be married, no requirement for them to even be a legal relative.

Lourdes on March 14, 2013 at 4:15 AM

The claim that private contracts between two adults is king in all matters is patently false.

Now, I am ALL for lessening this regulatory burden and rewriting much of our contract law and regulations that support the foundation of “marriage” in our society and shifting the true power of consenting adults to contract law rather than regulatory law.

Are you?

bds1976 on March 14, 2013 at 2:10 AM

The claim that private contracts between two adults is king in all matters is patently false.

No one’s “claim” is that “contracts between two adults is king in all matters” so you’ve just made that up, looks to be an attempt at drama.

HOWEVER, contractual relationships would and do, when done, address all the alleged claims and demands and complaints currently being made to try and rationalize “‘gay’ marriage”, many of which you’ve repeated there but avoided the solutions for, which are contracts, in reality.


Now, I am ALL for lessening this regulatory burden and rewriting much of our contract law and regulations that support the foundation of “marriage” in our society and shifting the true power of consenting adults to contract law rather than regulatory law.

Are you?

No. There’s no reason to toss an entire and hugely functional aspect of our civilization, and as it’s existed for centuries, to try and accommodate somewhat evasive if not incompetent demands of a small percentage of our population.

Contracts would work and resolve all these demands being made by those currently assuming we “have to have “‘gay’ marriage” (so you can inherit, so you can gain access to someone’s bank account, so you can visit a sick friend in the hospital, etc.).

Contracts that include wills, trusts and partnerships would address all of that with a few minor exceptions, and hospitals are accommodating of people incapacitated and in need of a helper or confidant or, especially, a trustee.

Lourdes on March 14, 2013 at 4:22 AM

I personally think the Catholic church needs to make a bold move against phony Catholics pushing secular humanist values from positions of power, and publicly rebuking Joe Biden when he visits Rome for his unconditional support for abortion would draw the line in the sand. Perhaps excommunication is in order. Protestants have many voices so the effect of their public rebukes don’t hold as much weight, but the Pope is the voice of Catholicism personified.

Daemonocracy on March 14, 2013 at 2:37 AM

I agree with your sentiments BUT the whole function of Catholicism is to address the individual conscience. As a Catholic, it is your own state that is yours to be mindful of, so to speak. Ex-communication is SELF-ACTUALIZING as to one’s conscience: by your own actions, you are ex-communicated, and engaging afterward in communion and other sacraments is just more and far worse sin.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

The Church does ex-communicate some people, those who are so resolute in their grave sin that they’re refusing to stop “playing at” the sacraments…in which case, I include people such as Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Biden, Sebelius, so many more, in that category.

Bishops of their respective dioceses are there to make those decisions as to who to formally discharge from the Church and who not to…

In Pelosi’s case, for example, she’s already been issued a letter from her Bishop asking her to cease misrepresenting the Church’s theology, position on issues, to that effect, so that’s step one in the process of possible ex-communication.

Note that when she then went to Rome under auspices of “seeing the Pope,” that then-Pope Benedict refused to have photos taken of her and did only so much as greet her and that was it. It was a formal thing, not a reception by the Pope, not a meeting, no sit-down, no conference, etc.

Pelosi tried to make a big deal afterward about her having been “met by the Pope” or having a meeting with him but it was more of her lies — and as a Catholic, she of all people is surely aware of what the Pope’s real statement was there in refusing her any formal acceptance.

The one thing to keep in mind is that the Church’s mission is to save souls. So they maintain sinners of very serious nature for purposes of faith in the healing power of the sacraments. Sometimes that never happens, in which case, there’s formal ex-communication.

Lourdes on March 14, 2013 at 4:32 AM

No one is asking Glorious Leader how much it will “cost” the Federal Government if gay marriage is recognized at the federal level, enabling gay spouses to collect their deceases partners’ Social Security payments. Of course, this will also “reduce revenues” the Federal Government currently collects from gays who receive spousal health care benefits in states that allow gay marriage.

Shouldn’t we expect some real journalist somewhere to crunch some numbers and ask our revenue-loving president these pertinent questions?

Logic on March 14, 2013 at 6:57 AM

Scalia himself admits the procreation argument is dead. In his dissent in Lawrence he says that if moral disapproval of homosexual conduct is not a compelling state interest (and according to the court it is not) then you can’t trod out procreation as a reason to deny marriage rights to homosexuals because we allow sterile and infertile couples to marry. And there are plenty of ways for homosexuals to produce their own biological children. Their spouse might not be the other parent but that’s not anything really new.

The fundamental question in Lawrence was whether a majority of the population can enforce their moral beliefs using the criminal code and the court said no. Here it’s can a majority enforce their moral beliefs via the regulation of marriage licenses. I just don’t see how you can, especially if you can’t even pass the rational basis test.

alchemist19 on March 13, 2013 at 10:21 PM

Hence why the next restriction to be knocked down is incestuous couples…

melle1228 on March 14, 2013 at 9:13 AM

This must be a record thread so here are my final thoughts and hopefully the last word.

Paul is blowing smoke on the tax code. The Bush tax cut reduced but did not eliminate the marriage penalty. Two single individuals still pay less tax than a married couple with the same income. Paul is actually trying to sneak in a tax cut for married couples.

On a more philosophical plain, modern neo-Libertarians are to Progressives what the Russia’s Social Revolutionaries were to the Bolsheviks. Lenin called them left deviationists and promptly eliminated them when he consolidated power. The same thing will happen to Libertarians when the Progressives implement their social, economic and political policies.

As disciples of John Locke, true Libertarians like Hayek and von Mises understood that to have a small government you need private mediating institutions like family, church and social clubs. Our neo-Libertarians no longer follow Locke, and have taken up with Rousseau; and are enamored with the pristine state of nature unrestrained by either private or public institutions. They view the atomization of society as a bulwark against both state and nonstate organizations that would corrupt the state of nature. What differentiates the Progressives from their left-deviationist allied Libertarians is that former understand that atomized individuals become dependent on the state. We see this wherever Progressive social policy is fully implemented.

None of this should come as a surprise. Modern Libertarians are disciples of Ayn Rand who, as you investigate her biography, turns out to be a sociopath.

jerryofva on March 14, 2013 at 9:15 AM

“That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.

I agree with this. (also, this article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/time-to-get-government-out-of-the-marriage-business/?singlepage=true )

Keep the taxes in place for two person contractual unions – but get govt. out of marriage. Two people will sign union contracts for all things legal ie property, kids, taxes, etc. but *marriage* is a separate issue/union between couple and their church/synagogue (or internet minister friend…whatever).

Churches will not be pressured to perform SSM, if they prefer not to. People do not have to get married, if they just want protection under contractual law, and gays and straights are equal under the law – civil unions.

sarainitaly on March 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM

For all of the ulterior political motives possibly at play in Paul’s decision here, he may have just seen the writing on the wall. Conservative evangelicals (a huge number of them young) have been talking increasingly for years of simply opting out of federal recognition of marriage by not applying for a legal marriage certificate. It is becoming the fashionable thing to do among the young traditionalists, whereas the older traditionalists believe the battle against SSM should still be fought at the legal level. The traditionalists who are not going to treat SSM as a non-issue will simply let the feds and SSM couples have what they want and keep their identity and beliefs out of the feds’ hands. The idea, as I understand it, goes like this:

1) The battle against SSM has already been lost. When SSM couples get federal recognition, traditionalists can set themselves apart and still be married in the truest sense of the word by seeking a religious “benediction” alone for their marriage.
2) The law will recognize unregistered married couples as common-law partners anyway, so though it may take a little while to get the same benefits as legally married couples, it won’t take very long to do so.

Paul’s decision plays in nicely to this mindset, given that the action he’s proposing isn’t something that’s possibly going to happen in the future, but is already well underway–and not merely as a political ploy, either, but as a clear and effective contradiction to SSM. SSM couples may equate themselves to traditional couples at the federal level, but they won’t be able to do so on the traditionalist’s own territory, now that that territory has less and less to do with government.

(It is, by the way, a continual miscalculation on the liberal’s part to believe that it is only within the changing definition of government reach that the traditionalist needs to be defeated. If conservatives and traditionalists are defeated there, they simply pull back into the society in which they really live–which is not, as commonly misunderstood, government and secular law.)

Tobias on March 14, 2013 at 11:28 AM

his must be a record thread so here are my final thoughts and hopefully the last word.

Paul is blowing smoke on the tax code. The Bush tax cut reduced but did not eliminate the marriage penalty. Two single individuals still pay less tax than a married couple with the same income. Paul is actually trying to sneak in a tax cut for married couples.

On a more philosophical plain, modern neo-Libertarians are to Progressives what the Russia’s Social Revolutionaries were to the Bolsheviks. Lenin called them left deviationists and promptly eliminated them when he consolidated power. The same thing will happen to Libertarians when the Progressives implement their social, economic and political policies.

As disciples of John Locke, true Libertarians like Hayek and von Mises understood that to have a small government you need private mediating institutions like family, church and social clubs. Our neo-Libertarians no longer follow Locke, and have taken up with Rousseau; and are enamored with the pristine state of nature unrestrained by either private or public institutions. They view the atomization of society as a bulwark against both state and nonstate organizations that would corrupt the state of nature. What differentiates the Progressives from their left-deviationist allied Libertarians is that former understand that atomized individuals become dependent on the state. We see this wherever Progressive social policy is fully implemented.

None of this should come as a surprise. Modern Libertarians are disciples of Ayn Rand who, as you investigate her biography, turns out to be a sociopath. – jerryofva on March 14, 2013 at 9:15 AM

And, you, my friend, are simply are full of bunk.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 11:56 AM

SC: I made be full of bunk but I doubt you have an IQ high enough to know.

jerryofva on March 14, 2013 at 12:14 PM

And, you, my friend, are simply are full of bunk.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Seems to be pretty much spot on. Libertarians seem to only be concerned with degenerate activity promotion and not so much, if any at all, on the aspect of personal responsibility and having the consequences of those actions be held by the individual partaking in them.
The individual desire must be promoted over and above all else regardless of the outcome that results for the rest of society.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 12:17 PM

SC: I made be full of bunk but I doubt you have an IQ high enough to know. -jerryofva on March 14, 2013 at 12:14 PM

The fact that you didn’t spellcheck your retort and my statement stung you into such a silly retort, is enough for me. I don’t claim to have an extraordinary high IQ, just an IQ high enough and knowledge to recognize someone who doesn’t know nearly squat about what the heck he is writing.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Seems to be pretty much spot on. Libertarians seem to only be concerned with degenerate activity promotion and not so much, if any at all, on the aspect of personal responsibility and having the consequences of those actions be held by the individual partaking in them.
The individual desire must be promoted over and above all else regardless of the outcome that results for the rest of society. – astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Of course Jerryofva’s display of bunk would be pretty spot on for you. Your writings are filled with such amazing discourses about deviate homosexuals and their cost to our society. Hitler’s ramblings in Mein Kampf about the clever, evil Jews made as much sense. I just loved it yesterday when you said that homosexuality was a death cult on another thread. You would not make a very good Pope.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Ed, I enjoyed your article on Rand Paul. Keep up the good work on HotAir.

Sincerely,

SC.Charlie

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 12:51 PM

So I can’t agree that this is the point of my argument.

NorthernCross on March 14, 2013 at 12:55 AM

I know that this is pretty old, but I find this comment quite amusing. Clearly you have no idea what your point is, nor does anyone else here. You should come up with one before arguing, instead of throwing red herrings out there and expecting everyone to infer your argument and point (neither of which even exist).

Let me draft a few posts for you to save you some time:

I didn’t say that!

That’s not my point!

I’m not arguing that!

I’m EMPIRICAL!!!!!11!!!!

besser tot als rot on March 14, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Hitler’s ramblings in Mein Kampf about the clever, evil Jews made as much sense.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 12:48 PM

I guess this thread has reached a length sufficient to fulfill Godwin’s Law.

besser tot als rot on March 14, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Of course Jerryofva’s display of bunk would be pretty spot on for you. Your writings are filled with such amazing discourses about deviate homosexuals and their cost to our society. Hitler’s ramblings in Mein Kampf about the clever, evil Jews made as much sense. I just loved it yesterday when you said that homosexuality was a death cult on another thread. You would not make a very good Pope.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 12:48 PM

After admonishing the guy above about spelling errors… Funny.

Homosexual lifestyle is a part of the death cult. As the only thing it leads to is death. Premature death for those who get the diseases and the complete death of the individual as no offspring are sent into the future.

I see we have gone full Godwin. Good for you! Good for you! But where Hitler blamed the Jews for all for societies ills, I blame all of societies ills for enabling the sick, disgusting, perverted, death culture loving gays. I think it is a reverse of what Hitler did.

SC Charlie, you lost the argument.

Lets see how SC.Charlie argues.

Person: The sun appears yellow.
SC Charlie: LIAR
Person: While the sun is white, when it goes through the atmosphere the color is altered so it appears yellow to us.
SC Charlie: you are full of crap!
Person: points charlie to the information detailing how it hapens.
SC Charlie: Jesus F’n Christ, now we know you are full of crap, you misspelled happens!

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Hitler’s ramblings in Mein Kampf about the clever, evil Jews made as much sense.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Also, just a note: I always find it amusing when people use Greg Gutfeld’s “You sir are worse than Hitler” argument in earnest. Not as bad as – no, no – worse. Hah! Thanks for the laughs.

besser tot als rot on March 14, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Also, just a note: I always find it amusing when people use Greg Gutfeld’s “You sir are worse than Hitler” argument in earnest. Not as bad as – no, no – worse. Hah! Thanks for the laughs. – besser tot als rot on March 14, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Homosexual lifestyle is a part of the death cult. As the only thing it leads to is death. Premature death for those who get the diseases and the complete death of the individual as no offspring are sent into the future.

I see we have gone full Godwin. Good for you! Good for you! But where Hitler blamed the Jews for all for societies ills, I blame all of societies ills for enabling the sick, disgusting, perverted, death culture loving gays. I think it is a reverse of what Hitler did. – astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 1:02 PM

I rest my case against astonerii.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 1:27 PM

I rest my case against astonerii.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 1:27 PM

What case? you never had a case.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 1:30 PM

What case? you never had a case. – astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 1:30 PM

The use of the phrase “Death Cult” is beyond the pale of discourse about homosexuals. And, your ridiculous condemnation of even married heterosexuals from engaging in acts of sodomy are laughable.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 1:42 PM

I rest my case against astonerii.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Well fortunately there is no jury and, better yet, I’m not on the non-existent jury because I don’t understand your case. Moreover, I’d submit that the case for being “worse than Hitler,” or at least “less sensible” than Mein Kampf is quite a high burden.

As for what he said:

Premature death for those who get the diseases

That is statistically true.

and the complete death of the individual as no offspring are sent into the future.

That is genetically/biologically true.

I don’t think that I’d call it a “cult,” but I don’t see how that changes much.

besser tot als rot on March 14, 2013 at 1:43 PM

I don’t think that I’d call it a “cult,” but I don’t see how that changes much. – besser tot als rot on March 14, 2013 at 1:43 PM

cult
/kəlt/
Noun
1 – A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
2 – A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

I repeat do you think that it is beyond he pale of discourse on this board to call homosexuals members of a “Death Cult”?

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 1:57 PM

I repeat do you think that it is beyond he pale of discourse on this board to call homosexuals members of a “Death Cult”?

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 1:57 PM

You know what SC. Charlie, you are absolutely right, and I used an abbreviated term where the full term was warranted. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was not speaking in a way where my intent was getting out and thus, I will rephrase what I meant.

CULTURE OF DEATH. Homosexuals are practitioners of the culture of death.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 2:07 PM

I don’t think that I’d call it a “cult,” but I don’t see how that changes much. – besser tot als rot on March 14, 2013 at 1:43 PM

If you and others can’t see how the use of the phrase “Death Cult” changes much, I don’t know what to say……………… except to say that I feel sorry for you, in that you can’t see how it changes much.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 2:12 PM

You know what SC. Charlie, you are absolutely right, and I used an abbreviated term where the full term was warranted. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was not speaking in a way where my intent was getting out and thus, I will rephrase what I meant.

CULTURE OF DEATH. Homosexuals are practitioners of the culture of death. – astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 2:07 PM

You always try to outdo yourself. When are you going to go after married couples who practice sodomy, refuse to reproduce or can’t reproduce? Are they too members of your Culture of Death?

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 2:22 PM

You always try to outdo yourself. When are you going to go after married couples who practice sodomy, refuse to reproduce or can’t reproduce? Are they too members of your Culture of Death?

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 2:22 PM

They have the opportunity to create life, even if on accident. Two gays, not so much.

By the way, I thought we were going to stay out of the bedroom here. What the hell is a gay loser like you doing getting into other people’s bedroom about? Marriage is not a thing of the bedroom, it is the PUBLIC aspect of the relationship.

You do not pay much attention to me other than to simply scan for words to attack…

Try this on for size. I do not care what the f^ck you do. I only care when what you do effects me. Get rid of the following aspects of our government and your actions will stop effecting me. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare of all types. Get the government out of my pocket for funding your degenerate behavior and you can do what ever you want, and when you come to me BEGGING TO PICK UP YOUR SLACK, I will at least have the power to say no, or give you a lecture before I release the funds to you. Got it loser?

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Dear SC:

Instead of asserting that my post is bunk, please show your work. Otherwise, you will receive a failing grade.

V/r

jerryofva

jerryofva on March 14, 2013 at 2:44 PM

They have the opportunity to create life, even if on accident. Two gays, not so much.

By the way, I thought we were going to stay out of the bedroom here. What the hell is a gay loser like you doing getting into other people’s bedroom about? Marriage is not a thing of the bedroom, it is the PUBLIC aspect of the relationship.

You do not pay much attention to me other than to simply scan for words to attack…

Try this on for size. I do not care what the f^ck you do. I only care when what you do effects me. Get rid of the following aspects of our government and your actions will stop effecting me. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare of all types. Get the government out of my pocket for funding your degenerate behavior and you can do what ever you want, and when you come to me BEGGING TO PICK UP YOUR SLACK, I will at least have the power to say no, or give you a lecture before I release the funds to you. Got it loser? – astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Ouch, now I am a loser.

You do not pay much attention to me other than to simply scan for words to attack…astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 2:32 PM

You deserve to be attacked when you say homosexuals are member of a “Death Cult” or members of a “Culture of Death”. And, your dislike of gays is only masked by your horror that somehow the “gay disease” might adversely effect your pocketbook.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 2:50 PM

You deserve to be attacked when you say homosexuals are member of a “Death Cult” or members of a “Culture of Death”. And, your dislike of gays is only masked by your horror that somehow the “gay disease” might adversely effect your pocketbook.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 2:50 PM

They are members of a death culture. Their culture is to spread disease and die off with no offspring. CULTURE THAT LEADS TO DEATH. Death Culture.

Yes, you are a loser.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 2:53 PM

They are members of a death culture. Their culture is to spread disease and die off with no offspring. CULTURE THAT LEADS TO DEATH. Death Culture.

Yes, you are a loser. – astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 2:53 PM

My Lord, AIDS is not just a gay disease or did you not know this fact. Yes, I will die without having had a child. Which is one of my greatest regrets. But, I did not choose to be gay. I am loved by my four siblings ……………. and nine nephews and nieces which I have helped to raise. And, I am not infected with HIV nor will I ever be infected by it.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM

My Lord, AIDS is not just a gay disease or did you not know this fact. Yes, I will die without having had a child. Which is one of my greatest regrets. But, I did not choose to be gay. I am loved by my four siblings ……………. and nine nephews and nieces which I have helped to raise. And, I am not infected with HIV nor will I ever be infected by it.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM

When they are the primary carrier and only 2% of the population, then, yes, in fact it is a gay disease. But it is not the only one they transmit and spread. Lesbians have a lower rate of disease transfer than heterosexuals…

In the end though, (was that a pun?), the lifestyle is the end of the line… You pound some fudge, if your lucky you get old, and you die off. You leave nothing to the future of the world. Hence, culture of death. If gays were the only people in any area, their resultant legacy would be nothing and others could come in and take over just a few decades in.

Of course, they would never be able to live in a soceity made of just gays. They would not have little helper slaves to change their depends and roll them over so they did not get bed sores. Those people come from heterosexuals who practice the culture of life.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Of course, they would never be able to live in a society made of just gays. They would not have little helper slaves to change their depends and roll them over so they did not get bed sores. Those people come from heterosexuals who practice the culture of life.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 3:16 PM

I almost totally destroyed my entire argument by making a spelling error! Good thing I caught it.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Of course, they would never be able to live in a society made of just gays. They would not have little helper slaves to change their depends and roll them over so they did not get bed sores. Those people come from heterosexuals who practice the culture of life. – astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 3:16 PM

You’ve you just proven that you are a disgusting jerk, in fact you win the blue ribbon prize. In the United States AIDS is primarily a disease among gays, world-wide it is not. Here is a link:
http://www.thebody.com/content/art6580.html

Read down to where they state that the following: Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 3:53 PM

You’ve you just proven that you are a disgusting jerk, in fact you win the blue ribbon prize. In the United States AIDS is primarily a disease among gays, world-wide it is not. Here is a link:
http://www.thebody.com/content/art6580.html

Read down to where they state that the following: Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 3:53 PM

I do not live in those societies. So I could care less. Here in America, the rest of the population shows enough restraint to slow and prevent the spread of the disease. The gays? Not at all. As a culture of death, when a gay guy gets infected, he spends the rest of his days looking for more victims to inject the disease into.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 4:03 PM

My Lord, AIDS is not just a gay disease or did you not know this fact. Yes, I will die without having had a child. Which is one of my greatest regrets. But, I did not choose to be gay. I am loved by my four siblings ……………. and nine nephews and nieces which I have helped to raise. And, I am not infected with HIV nor will I ever be infected by it.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Whether he’s a less-clever-than-he-thinks-he-is troll or he actually is dumb enough to believe what he’s saying, you’re still wasting your time with someone who’s arguing in bad faith. It’s better to roll your eyes, shake your head, move on and have faith that anyone still reading will see him for what he’s doing.

alchemist19 on March 14, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Whether he’s a less-clever-than-he-thinks-he-is troll or he actually is dumb enough to believe what he’s saying, you’re still wasting your time with someone who’s arguing in bad faith. It’s better to roll your eyes, shake your head, move on and have faith that anyone still reading will see him for what he’s doing. – alchemist19 on March 14, 2013 at 5:19 PM

I think that I have exposed his true nature for everyone on this thread to see. That was my goal. There is nothing to further to discuss with him. I have never heard him to make a positive comment about any issue. And, the only issue that sets him on fire is HOMOSEXUALS.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 5:28 PM

I think that I have exposed his true nature for everyone on this thread to see. That was my goal. There is nothing to further to discuss with him. I have never heard him to make a positive comment about any issue. And, the only issue that sets him on fire is HOMOSEXUALS.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 5:28 PM

So, you admit that your only goal here is to troll? That is such a noble cause you have.

You have never once heard me make a single positive comment on any issue? Dear dear, that there is self imposed willful turning of ones head in order to remain and ignorant piece of trash.

It seems that what multitudes of others on this thread say is very much true. The issue with gay marriage is not allowing gays to marry, or that they want visitation rights, or to have their taxes adjusted the same as Married people do. It is just simply meant to use the power of government to FORCE people to respect disreputable nature of gays.

When you take gay males in America, they constitute 2% of the population, they have 68% of the cases of AIDS. That is their CULTURE. That is how they live and WANT TO LIVE. No amount of negative consequences is enough to make them give up their degenerate behavior.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 5:38 PM

astonerii, you have been exposed. Learn to live in the limelight with your phrase “Culture of Death” or “Cult of Death”. Enjoy it.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 5:50 PM

astonerii, you have been exposed. Learn to live in the limelight with your phrase “Culture of Death” or “Cult of Death”. Enjoy it.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 5:50 PM

What do you want to call it? Culture of Life? Grow up ancient gay dude…

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Gay teens are coming down with the HIV virus in large numbers. Of course, those HIV cases do not originate in their group. Gay teens (were they gay before the men seduced them?) are frequently victims of older gay men who used their age to seduce them and infect them. Maybe not on purpose, some apparently are not Culture of Life enough to go out and get tested, fearful of the results.

Gay teens apparently could care less either way, abstaining from condom usage. Another aspect of the CULTURE of LIFE. HIV is life you know. spreading it is a good thing for the world you see, SC. Charlie proclaims it to be so!

Oh, you got HIV? No problem dude, we can use a condom… Damn, those things break at the worst possible times, eh? Oh well, More life for the HIV Virus, CULTURE OF LIFE!

I can imagine the arguments the older men use with the boys… It is ok, it does not mean you are gay if you are the person doing the inserting… That is the arguments one of my cousins uses anyways…

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Curiosity killed the cat…
Not surprised this thread is still going with
astonerii foaming at the mouth about gayzzzzzzz.

Charlie-hard to pity him but we should. Angry all the time.
Cult of death…lol..ahh sometimes I just have to laugh.
Always entertaining..in a grotesque sorta way. I suspect he and his type would like us all to die-a cancer on society and civilization.
They agree with the Westboro church..just not the protests at funerals ect..but God hates Fa$s ya know- and if something is evil and God hates it..I am sure they eliminate us if they could. They just don’t have the balls to type it.

I see we have gone full Godwin. Good for you! Good for you! But where Hitler blamed the Jews for all for societies ills, I blame all of societies ills for enabling the sick, disgusting, perverted, death culture loving gays. I think it is a reverse of what Hitler did. – astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Uh huh. Jews were not the only humans to face torture and death-homo’s, elderly,the sick,deformed, or anyone he deemed the culprit for societies ill’s and his grand utopia got the gas. Those who enabled what he saw as societies ills,as well. You have said a lot of crap for some time here but this really wins you a trophy.

I do find it amusing that it is gay men that get the brunt of the
post spasms. It is sodomy I guess.

I wouldn’t waste my time SC-unless you enjoy toying with him.
Ghey topics are like the blog blue pill
for him-he can go for days.

Be well SC!

bazil9 on March 14, 2013 at 7:55 PM

bazil9 on March 14, 2013 at 7:55 PM

Evil never does like to be brought out into the light. I can see why you can charlie are so offended.

Of course, you see no difference between saying
the Jews are causing the problems in society, so we should kill them. Hitler.
Society is has decayed so much that it no longer has the discipline to defend itself from degenerates.

Why? Because you want society to decay and allow you empowerment for your selfish culture of death ways.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Why? Because you want society to decay and allow you empowerment for your selfish culture of death ways.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Yes! You got me!
lol..not offended Fred. Your no one special.

bazil9 on March 14, 2013 at 8:24 PM

lol..not offended Fred. Your no one special.

bazil9 on March 14, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Yet look how you respond to anything that describes the gay lifestyle accurately.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Yet look how you respond to anything that describes the gay lifestyle accurately.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Whatever ya say Fred.
Just enjoying your opinions.

bazil9 on March 14, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Hence why the next restriction to be knocked down is incestuous couples…

melle1228 on March 14, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Come on, melle, you’re smarter than that.

There are reasons beyond moral objections for incest to be illegal. I certainly hope anyone here can come up with objections for prohibiting incest beyond “I just think it’s wrong.”! With gay marriage though I haven’t been able to come up with any, and I haven’t seen any presented.

alchemist19 on March 14, 2013 at 9:38 PM

More from astonerii on HotAir:

HotAir Headline: As families change, Korea’s elderly turn to suicide

astonerii’s reply: If only American elderly would do us all the favor and follow suit! The shame they SHOULD have for the country they are leaving behind to their children should be enough to make it happen. But as evidenced by their lives, they are way too selfish to even consider that any of this is their fault…

astonerii on February 24, 2013 at 5:29 PM

To read the entire exchange here is a link to the entire thread on HotAir: http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2013/02/24/as-families-change-koreas-elderly-turn-to-suicide/

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 9:48 PM

I think that I have exposed his true nature for everyone on this thread to see. That was my goal. There is nothing to further to discuss with him. I have never heard him to make a positive comment about any issue. And, the only issue that sets him on fire is HOMOSEXUALS.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Are you saying he’s flaming?

alchemist19 on March 14, 2013 at 9:50 PM

Could this be our astonerii, I think so.

http://www.profile.xfire.com/profile/astonerii/

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 9:55 PM

Just do a Google on astonerii ………………… very interesting.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 9:58 PM

Just do a Google on astonerii ………………… very interesting.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 9:58 PM

Funny how a progressive mind works. When they cannot win on merit, their first instinct is to target. Kind of like those who donated money to the California initiative to preserve marriage were targeted.

Thanks Charlie, I knew you had it in you.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 10:07 PM

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Wow. Thanks for pointing out another monkey in a cage SC.

astonerii: You are one of those rare posters we look for on a blog such as this. The kind we know, if we post or say just the right thing, turn into the raging monkey in his cage; flinging poo at all passers-by.

exsanguine on March 14, 2013 at 10:20 PM

Gee, astonerii if you leave such an obvious trail someone is going to check. And, do you deny that you stated that the elderly in the United States should comment suicide? You show up very well on Bing too. Why are you showing up on these search engines?

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 10:27 PM

Funny how a progressive mind works. When they cannot win on merit, their first instinct is to target. Kind of like those who donated money to the California initiative to preserve marriage were targeted.

Thanks Charlie, I knew you had it in you. – astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 10:07 PM

Anyone is welcome to do a search on Google or any other search engine on SC.Charlie. They are also welcome to use anything that I say to discredit myself and the opinions that I hold.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 10:31 PM

So you really believe all elderly Americans should commit suicide?

a capella on February 24, 2013 at 5:44 PM

No, it would be better if they became good stewards they are supposed to be and start voting for purely conservative constitutional government. But since we know that will never happen, having them kill themselves off and not keep stealing the next generation’s wealth would be ok and fine by me.

astonerii on February 24, 2013 at 5:56 PM

bazil9 on March 14, 2013 at 10:34 PM

Wow-SC
Thx for that link.
Guys even sicker then I thought.

I am close to thinking he is a lib troll.
He embarrasses this place…purposeful?
Perhaps. Or just sick and twisted.

Where you live Astron?

bazil9 on March 14, 2013 at 10:37 PM

bazil9 on March 14, 2013 at 10:37 PM

Considering your support of depositing sperm and the HIV virus into male rectums as a way of life and then arguing it is not a culture of death, I would not be throwing SICK as a term much.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 10:59 PM

bazil9 on March 14, 2013 at 10:34 PM

As an apparent libertarian you should applaud the fact that I think people should be able to do with their body anything they want.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 11:00 PM

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 10:31 PM

I know, and we can also search donation lists for names as well. But, then again, we know why you put that out there, don’t we charlie?

Hey, the pro gay mafia is just doing their due diligence when they get people fired from their jobs. Because they are totally all about live and let live.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 11:03 PM

I assume that’s part of a broader ambition to make marriage a wholly private function, which is vintage Paul insofar as it’s a clever attempt to sell libertarian wine in conservative bottles.

Why is that a bad thing? Marriage is stupid.

I don’t mean the concept of marriage, I mean the terminology.

What is Marriage?

1) Marriage is a private/religious/spiritual joining of two people in matrimony by a religious/spiritual/social doctrine.

2) Marriage is a legal agreement between two people overseen by government laws, rules, and regulations.

Which of those is true? Currently Both.

Is it necessary that those be the same thing? I can’t see why. They’re nothing alike. Why must one word always cover both definitions?

gekkobear on March 15, 2013 at 12:27 AM

No one is asking Glorious Leader how much it will “cost” the Federal Government if gay marriage is recognized at the federal level, enabling gay spouses to collect their deceases partners’ Social Security payments.

Yeah, and how much did it cost us when we allowed people of different races to marry one another? It’s outrageous!

inklake on March 15, 2013 at 8:36 AM

Yeah, and how much did it cost us when we allowed people of different races to marry one another? It’s outrageous!

inklake on March 15, 2013 at 8:36 AM

Not much, they produce offspring which pay for social security and skin color is determined and known to be determined by genes and something that cannot be changed under any circumstance outside of extreme unnatural means.

astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Kate Middleton and Prince William expecting a baby
POSTED AT 11:34 AM ON DECEMBER 3, 2012 BY MARY KATHARINE HAM

It ain’t his. That guy does not have enough testosterone in his body to create a sperm cell. – astonerii on December 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM

How many children do you have astonerii?

SC.Charlie on March 15, 2013 at 10:39 AM

HotAir Headline: As families change, Korea’s elderly turn to suicide

astonerii’s reply: If only American elderly would do us all the favor and follow suit! The shame they SHOULD have for the country they are leaving behind to their children should be enough to make it happen. But as evidenced by their lives, they are way too selfish to even consider that any of this is their fault…

astonerii on February 24, 2013 at 5:29 PM

To read the entire exchange here is a link to the entire thread on HotAir: http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2013/02/24/as-families-change-koreas-elderly-turn-to-suicide/

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2013 at 9:48 PM

The solution to the Social Security problem could easily be solved by following the advise that you generously shared with us all back on February 24th.

SC.Charlie on March 15, 2013 at 10:52 AM

If anyone would like to read about astoneii views go to his HotAir blog. All you have to do is click on astonerii and you can go to it. His latest rambling is titled, “We are not a free nation. It has not been the case for over 75 years. So no, I do not have to accept your degenerate behaviors as legal!”

SC.Charlie on March 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Not much, they produce offspring which pay for social security and skin color is determined and known to be determined by genes and something that cannot be changed under any circumstance outside of extreme unnatural means. – astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Have they found a way to make homosexuals heterosexuals “under any circumstances outside of extreme unnatural means?”

SC.Charlie on March 15, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Where has astonerii gone?

SC.Charlie on March 15, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Yeah, and how much did it cost us when we allowed people of different races to marry one another? It’s outrageous!

inklake on March 15, 2013 at 8:36 AM

Oh, how about “Not a single cent”, drooling libtard?

MelonCollie on March 15, 2013 at 11:42 AM

the ones I know are all perfectly fine with, if not enthusiastic about, states legalizing SSM — but because it’s a move towards smaller government,

Curious. How on earth is a move to multiply the governments’ involvement in marriage a move to smaller government? I see it only as a libertarian / pro-gay issue. The truer libertarian position is definitely Paul’s “get out of marriage” position.

Jaibones on March 15, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Considering your support of depositing sperm and the HIV virus into male rectums as a way of life and then arguing it is not a culture of death, I would not be throwing SICK as a term much.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 10:59 PM

bazil9 on March 14, 2013 at 10:34 PM

As an apparent libertarian you should applaud the fact that I think people should be able to do with their body anything they want.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 11:00 PM

Still going strong I see. How do your wife and kids feel about you sitting at a pc all day talking about sodomy? Do you work or brush your teeth?
Your very poor at debating and your style seems to be innuendo and assumptions.
HIV is killing them off faster..thought you approve?
Then again..it is society’s fault for embracing gays and the wrath of God for the decay we wallow in..right Fred?

You are the one that stated the elderly should off themselves for monetary purposes-yet you don’t reply to that but say I should approve because I am a Libertarian. Nice diversion tactic.

As for HIV…I do not promote it but thanks for just making up
whatever you want-guess it helps your argument. /

Your kinda sad Fred. Good luck on living in the culture of death and decay. This lesbo is here to stay and just knowing it makes you miserable- kinda puts a smile on my face. I didn’t know I had such power.
Maybe Obama can put you on the death panels coming under OB care. That should make you happy. You can end the lives of all these people that are a drain on your wallet and happiness!
*kisses*
Have great weekend!

bazil9 on March 15, 2013 at 2:39 PM

What is Marriage?

1) Marriage is a private/religious/spiritual joining of two people in matrimony by a religious/spiritual/social doctrine.

2) Marriage is a legal agreement between two people overseen by government laws, rules, and regulations.

Which of those is true? Currently Both.

Is it necessary that those be the same thing? I can’t see why. They’re nothing alike. Why must one word always cover both definitions?

gekkobear on March 15, 2013 at 12:27 AM

Faulty premise. 1) is the definition of marriage, but 2) is the definition of a marriage license. You wouldn’t redefine “dog” just to change the licensing requirements for a dog license. Hope that clarifies.

CapnObvious on March 15, 2013 at 3:25 PM

bazil9 on March 15, 2013 at 2:39 PM

I asked them, they say they are fine with it. Even said I could tell you so. See, they are Christian like I am and understand the value of a culture of life and the damage a culture of death causes. Thanks for your concern.

astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 8:27 PM

This person gets it EXACTLY:

CanofSand on March 13, 2013 at 1:46 PM

q2600 on March 16, 2013 at 1:02 PM

In the end though, (was that a pun?), the lifestyle is the end of the line… You pound some fudge, if your lucky you get old, and you die off. You leave nothing to the future of the world. Hence, culture of death. If gays were the only people in any area, their resultant legacy would be nothing and others could come in and take over just a few decades in.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 3:16 PM

So basically you are saying that unless you procreate you have nothing of value to leave to posterity?

Gee, I wonder what Jesus would have to say about that.

NoLeftTurn on March 17, 2013 at 9:01 PM

The answer is to develop civil partnership, open to anyone. You want a partnership with you Mother so you don’t have to pay the estate tax. Great. Your sister? great. Your gay friend? great. Make it open and equal to all. Define a partnership. Then marriage can be marriage. And marriage between heterosexuals, by definition, not by exception, would apply to those who want to procreate heterosexually according to nature.

Gay marriage is false, because gays do not procreate by nature, and have no rights to demand phony ways of pretending to do so. Their children have other mothers and fathers. They can marry legally and have children with a heterosexual and are not discriminated against.
Gay procreation is a man made fantasy. I am in favor of gay singles adopting. If there partner lives there…they can be Auntie or Uncle or Step mom or Step dad like divorced families do.

Fleuries on March 18, 2013 at 8:36 AM

Fleuries on March 18, 2013 at 8:36 AM

I do not agree. No reason to allow more people incentive to remain non productive and benefit due to it.

astonerii on March 18, 2013 at 10:32 AM

So basically you are saying that unless you procreate you have nothing of value to leave to posterity?

Gee, I wonder what Jesus would have to say about that.

NoLeftTurn on March 17, 2013 at 9:01 PM

He would say that as a Christian I should not enable people to live lives of sin using my wealth creation as their enabler. Since it is my wealth creation that pays for the welfare degenerates and the early out sloths over age of 62, government is forcing me to enable their sinful lives. Creating a new program to incent gays to continue living a life of sin also falls into this as well.

astonerii on March 18, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5