Federal judge strikes down Virginia ban on same-sex marriage

posted at 8:06 am on February 14, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Not exactly a surprise, but merely a continuation of a trend. A federal district court in Virginia struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, the latest in a recent string of defeats for states wishing to define marriage:

A federal judge in Norfolk struck down as unconstitutional Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage Thursday night, saying the country has “arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect.”

U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen issued a sweeping 41-page opinion that mentioned at length Virginia’s past in denying interracial marriage and quoted Abraham Lincoln. She struck the constitutional amendment Virginia voters approved in 2006 that both bans same-sex marriage and forbids recognition of such unions performed elsewhere. …

“Gay and lesbian individuals share the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving, intimate and lasting relationships,” Wright Allen wrote. “Such relationships are created through the exercise of sacred, personal choices — choices, like the choices made by every other citizen, that must be free from unwarranted government interference.”

If you think that’s a strange application of the word sacred, it fits with the sloppy and turgid prose in the rest of the opinion. Gabriel Malor highlighted the opening paragraph, and it should be an immediate contender for the annual Edward Bulwer-Lytton writing contest. All that was missing from this string of clichés was the dark and stormy night:

Not long after that, Gabriel also noticed that the judge references the Constitution’s clear language that “all men are created equal.” The only problem? That language doesn’t come from the Constitution — it’s in the Declaration of Independence. (He also notes that this model of judicial writing got a unanimous confirmation from the US Senate.)

Beyond the bad writing style, though, the judge seems to at least be in the consensus on the federal bench these days. This follows on the heels of another decision in Kentucky with somewhat more limited application, but using the same reasoning of the 14th Amendment and Lawrence v Texas, which I predicted nearly ten years ago would be used to overturn state definitions of marriage. So did Antonin Scalia in Lawrence and Windsor dissents, and whom Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern ridiculed earlier this week for, er, getting it right:

By now, an opinion like this is fairly predictable. It comes as a pleasant surprise, then, to see Heyburn channeling his inner Judge Robert Shelby and sticking his thumb directly in Scalia’s eye. In Scalia’s Windsor dissent, the justice decried overly broad, “deliberately transposable passages” expounding the federal Defense of Marriage Act’s unconstitutionality. “How easy it is,” Scalia snorted, “indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion [as the court in Windsor] with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.” Then he illustrated for the world just how easy it would be to apply Windsor’s logic to state-level gay marriage bans, indignantly substituting a few key words:

DOMA This state law tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise validmarriages relationships are unworthy of federal state recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage relationship. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence

Scalia performs this haughty exercise three times in his dissent, so intent is he to declare to the world I told you so. It’s meant to be a scornful joke—but Heyburn takes it as an invitation to do the same in applying Windsor’s holding to his own state’s law.

Actually, it wasn’t meant to be a “scornful joke,” but a warning of what was to come. And Scalia predicted it very accurately, despite an avalanche of criticism at those times for his hyperbole and supposed scare-mongering.


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 2 3 4 5 9

This is more funnier with every post.

OK, provide proof of what you just posted. And yes, sodomy is abnormal amongst heterosexuals since it does not lead to the perpetuation of the species.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Any study to back up your assertions of what normal sex is?
I need some scientific study.

You don’t get to decide what “normal sex is” in the comfort of your home.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Heck we still have people in 2014 who disapprove of interracial marriage.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:25 AM

Many of them democrats.

bigmacdaddy on February 14, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Do you know straight couples also practice sodomy?

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:48 AM

One has to be mentally deluded to think that the anus is a sex organ.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:53 AM

The lower federal courts know that the Supreme Court is ready to strike down all SSM bans. This issue will be over in two years or so.

DisneyFan on February 14, 2014 at 9:53 AM

One has to be mentally deluded to think that the anus is a sex organ.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:53 AM

According to sodomy statutes, oral sex also is sodomy. So yes, most straight people are sodomites.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 9:54 AM

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:36 AM

My friend, NotCach has alreadyenlightened you. Please respond.

kingsjester on February 14, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Here ya go…Apparently these terms now have a wikipedia entry…Probably due to the advance of queer studies in moon bat academia…

*shrug*

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 9:40 AM

I still don’t understand.

But then again, I really don’t want to. :-)

bigmacdaddy on February 14, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Do you have any scientific study on what normal sex is?
On what basis did you determine what kind of sex is normal and what kind is not?
Enlighten me please.
liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:36 AM

I don’t care what kind of sex you have or with who (so long as it’s all consenting adults)

But don’t shove it in my face and tell me that I have to recognize your anal sex polygamist relationship as some enlightened state of being than any other people just hooking up.

Skywise on February 14, 2014 at 9:54 AM

It’s pathetic that liberals have led us down this dark and dirty road.

BuckeyeSam on February 14, 2014 at 9:55 AM

Any study to back up your assertions of what normal sex is?
I need some scientific study.

You don’t get to decide what “normal sex is” in the comfort of your home.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:52 AM

I’m not the one who claimed scientists define what is normal sex. And what civil rights are gays being denied. More lesser avoidance, please.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 9:55 AM

So I guess if you aren’t sure of your gender or are bored with global warming there’s a place for you…or something?

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 9:46 AM

Apparently these people are blind or don’t have access to mirrors?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Well that would be a form of the psychiatric condition known as dysphoria…sometimes applied visually as in compulsive cosmetic surgery which isn’t necessarily confined by gender confusion (ex. Joan Rivers)

Interesting what the term means…

dysphoria
dys·pho·ri·a
disˈfôrēə/

noun PSYCHIATRY

1. a state of unease or generalized dissatisfaction with life.

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 9:56 AM

According to sodomy statutes, oral sex also is sodomy. So yes, most straight people are sodomites.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Let’s use some science.

Anus: The function of the anus is to transmit faeces from the rectum to the external environment.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:56 AM

La La I can’t hear you!

liberalnorules on February 14, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Edited for accuracy. :)

22044 on February 14, 2014 at 9:57 AM

If you want to talk marriage, the concept of one man and one woman marriage is very new in terms of human evolution.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:19 AM

Say I’m a geologist who studied paleontology and evolution, plus have a deep interest in anthropology and the development of human culture from pre-history to the present.

Going back to Ancient Greece you can find homosexual forms of activity that were socially sanctioned, but the idea of marriage was restricted to man and woman. It was a stable basis for society, while other couplings (most often cited in military and academic areas) were for a definite purpose that wasn’t marriage.

I am unaware of any major sanctioning of non-male and female marriages in Ancient China, Ancient India, Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Babylon, Carthage, Rome and then up through the Medieval period. Like with Ancient Greece there are exceptions for acceptable activities, but they are not ones seen as marriage.

Speaking on the evolution side, any genetic predisposition to homosexuality burns itself out of the gene pool as it leaves fewer descendents than does heterosexual activity as heterosexual activity leaves posterity. Human evolution is based on this and through the hundreds and thousands of generations of mankind any definite propensity to homosexuality would have a negative descendent trait with it and would not produce as many offspring as heterosexually oriented individuals. Differential survival and having offspring is one of the keys to understanding evolution, and if there is no positive survival factor trait associated with a genetically predisposed activity then it either fades out or has a positive selection bias against it. Those which make no difference at all can survive, but that is because they make no difference at all.

Thus I do not see a genetic basis for homosexuality being widespread or having a positive survival factor to it.

I do see heterosexual behavior having social sanction for couples as the family unit is the understood basis for the Nation and the community.

I am not seeing the basis for the statement on either grounds of genetically based evolution or much looser cultural evolution which is more properly termed cultural traits for a given culture in a given period of time and vary widely over time (the ethos of Sparta and tossing deformed babies to their deaths generally died with Spartan cultural changes and assimilation into larger Greek society). Thus societies of the Ancients will have cultural attitudes that are not reflected in modern society and are based on the circumstances of the people in question for the periods of time in question.

I am always open to new information, but such wide-ranging approval of neutrality towards heterosexual marriage is something that I am unaware of and, indeed, see the opposite in play throughout human history.

ajacksonian on February 14, 2014 at 9:57 AM

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:25 AM

What civil right? This is the big legal scam that was pulled on everyone – homosexuals want “the same right to marry as I (as a hetero) have”.

Ah, THEY DO have the same right I have, RIGHT NOW – the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. That’s the right I have, because that’s what marriage is. I don’t have a right to marry the same sex. I never did. So there is no legal inequality.

So gays don’t want that same right (equal protection) – they want a NEW RIGHT, and in turn, logically, I ALSO get that new right. Same-sex marriage, the concept at issue, is NOT GAY MARRIAGE – there is no legal requirement that the officer in marriage records has to see sodomy performed to issue a same sex marriage license.

And in order to get this new right, they have to forcibly, top down, re-define a pre-existing legally recognized social relationship – marriage. Marriage was not created by the state, it is only “licensed” by it, and that is for enforcing terms of marriage, such as divorce, child custody and support, property, etc. A default system to handle social unrest. A shared definition decided by society (kinda like a constitutional amendment). And the state did this because it (used to) see the inherent value in a man-woman marriage for the purposes of CREATING children that were productive members of society (and thus, provided financial support and benefits to married couples, because raising a child is EXPENSIVE, so we encourage two parents to do so so govt. doesn’t have to).

But after 60 years of no fault divorce, single moms as good or better than two parents, no need for marriage for sex or cohabitation, no need for monogamy in relationships, the rise of Suga’ Daddy America paying for peoples’ bad behavior, the “value” of marriage eroded to the point where it is no longer a shared social definition – it’s all subjective, and up to each individual now. “Who are you to tell me who to love!”

So marriage needn’t involve kids, or sex, or love, or fidelity or cohabitation. In other words, it can be a a “glorified roommates” situation. Why should the state support or care about roommates? Why should I/we provide financial protections to a relationship like that, gay or otherwise?

Marriage already has a long history of “legal” limits – no incest, can’t marry under a certain age, can’t marry more than one person, can’t marry people as groups, can’t marry an animal, etc., etc.

Bear in mind, this is for LEGAL recognition. Socially, if you want to marry your dog, you can put a ring on its paw and call it your wife, but your health insurance doesn’t have to put Fido on your policy – because that’s not socially recognized marriage. Society doesn’t have to decide Fido gets your money at death instead or your kid, because Fido isn’t legally recognized under default law as a spouse. if you want Fido to have your money as your “wife”, better draft legal documents to account for it, cause the court ain’t applying domestic/estate law to do it for ya.

So, 1) sexual orientation is NOT a protected class like race or gender, because it is not immutable (and if it was, this would lead to other orientations, like pedo, etc., to have the same protections); 2) gays are not denied equal protection or the right to marriage because they already have the same right I have as legally defined, they just want to use it and 3) they are not considered “disabled”.

So what basis are they using to support their constant “I want it, I want I want it” demands?

If you want marriage redefined, be honest about it and get public support – don’t go to one f**king judge to force it on everyone.

Saltyron on February 14, 2014 at 9:57 AM

The lower federal courts know that the Supreme Court is ready to strike down all SSM bans. This issue will be over in two years or so.
DisneyFan on February 14, 2014 at 9:53 AM

No. No it won’t. This battle is just beginning.

Skywise on February 14, 2014 at 9:59 AM

I’m of the stance the government should be out of “marriage” – civil unions for all, equal protection under the law, etc etc.

Marriage is a civil institution and if not recognized by civil authority is ceases to exist. If it ceases to exist then you have abolished marriage and the family. You get a society that has transient relationships between men and women that we see in the ghetto with all its social pathologies.

We get why Progressives want society to look like the ghetto but nobody really talks about why faux Libertarians support this social state. Marriage is probably this biggest constraint on personal autonomy that people face. You decisions must account for another person and you must also commit your time and resources to raising the next generation. Why would you want to do that when you could be out drinking and getting laid without the legal responsibility to pay for any offspring?

Faux Libertarians just love Ayn Rand’s theory of objectivism. The Russians has another name for objectivism. It’s called Nihilism.

jerryofva on February 14, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Do you know straight couples also practice sodomy?

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:48 AM

One has to be mentally deluded to think that the anus is a sex organ.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:53 AM

According to sodomy statutes, oral sex also is sodomy. So yes, most straight people are sodomites.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Oh, you missed it. He forgot who he was posting as.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:01 AM

why are heterosexual married couples given federal/state benefits but gay couples are not afforded the same benefits?

How is that fair?

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Because gay couples (same sex couples) do not fit the definition of marriage. So they want to REDEFINE IT.

If marriage was “two people” and they were denied a license, then they have a point. But marriage was NEVER “two people” it is, legally in the US for 200 + years, “one man and one woman”. Homosexuals don’t fit that definition. Neither do my brother and I if we wanted to be married. So gays aren’t denied the same right I have – they want a NEW right.

Saltyron on February 14, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Do you know straight couples also practice sodomy?

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:48 AM

One has to be mentally deluded to think that the anus is a sex organ.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:53 AM

According to sodomy statutes, oral sex also is sodomy. So yes, most straight people are sodomites.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 9:54 AM

More clear.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Oh, you missed it. He forgot who he was posting as.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:01 AM

that’s because we are 2 different people

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:02 AM

It’s pathetic that liberals have led us down this dark and dirty road.
BuckeyeSam on February 14, 2014 at 9:55 AM

I see what you did there!

Skywise on February 14, 2014 at 10:03 AM

DOMA This state law tells those couples group marriages, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages relationships are unworthy of federal state recognition. This places same-sex couples group marriages in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage relationship. The differentiation demeans the couple group marriage, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence…

Viator on February 14, 2014 at 10:03 AM

What I would ask this judge is in what way does 3 people or 2 siblings not “share the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving, intimate and lasting relationships”?

Rocks on February 14, 2014 at 9:41 AM

BINGO. You, my friend, “get it”. And you’ll also understand the problems this creates.

Saltyron on February 14, 2014 at 10:03 AM

Any study to back up your assertions of what normal sex is?
I need some scientific study.

You don’t get to decide what “normal sex is” in the comfort of your home.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Okay, follow me on this…

If heterosexual sex is not the norm, then we literally die off as a species. We cease to exist.

Therefore, I’d say the evidence is pretty clear that heterosexual sex is “normal” sex.

Shump on February 14, 2014 at 10:04 AM

ajacksonian on February 14, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Exceptionally well written.

kingsjester on February 14, 2014 at 10:04 AM

Do you know straight couples also practice sodomy?

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:48 AM

One has to be mentally deluded to think that the anus is a sex organ.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:53 AM

One has to be mentally deluded to think that the anus is a sex organ.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:53 AM

According to sodomy statutes, oral sex also is sodomy. So yes, most straight people are sodomites.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 9:54 AM

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:06 AM

Here ya go…Apparently these terms now have a wikipedia entry…Probably due to the advance of queer studies in moon bat academia…

*shrug*

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 9:40 AM

I still don’t understand.

But then again, I really don’t want to. :-)

bigmacdaddy on February 14, 2014 at 9:54 AM

It’s a bit like the tour of Bedlam…

I just occasionally follow the breakdown in the culture…

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 10:08 AM

I honestly don’t think conservatives know that much about the laws of this nation…

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:52 AM

Well, let’s look at some examples.

In 2000, liberal Democrat Algore tried to use highly unusual “interpretations” of Florida Election Laws, in an attempt to steal that State’s Presidential election. The majority of Al’s “interpretations” were thrown out of court by…Democrat Judges.

Then, the (all-Democrat) Florida Supreme Court deemed that it could “reinterpret” and thus re-write Florida Election Laws after the election had already taken place. They were laughed out of the Supreme Court of the United States; SCOTUS ruled against Gore by a combined total of 20-6 (3 separate rulings).

More recently, in 2012 your Cult Leader “interpreted” the Constitution in a way that led him to make 4 recess appointments. So far, 3 separate Courts have ruled that action Unconstitutional, and it will be finally decided by SCOTUS. If they rule against O’bama, they are ruling in effect that he committed an Impeachable Offense by violating his Oath of Office.

Discuss.

Del Dolemonte on February 14, 2014 at 10:08 AM

I think the legal reasoning why marriage is for only one man and one woman is not discriminatory because gays are not unfairly cheated and can enter into a one man, one woman marriage for the purpose of procreation.

Gay so called marriage is not the same, there is no equality, even if some gay people think if they get extra money to imitate heterosexual partners they might have equality (unnatural fertility solutions like surrogacy or free artificial insemination if there is no father present in a couple,)those imitations are false. Gays can never be a heterosexual couple.

Outside of that, I think we need separate family laws to govern gays, their families and also single parenthood, to make them all equally responsible for children in their care. The solutions have to be as close to nature as possible, and require contracts signed by those involved, I suppose with some kind of contempt or penalty for not making arrangements.

Fleuries on February 14, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Because gay couples (same sex couples) do not fit the definition of marriage. So they want to REDEFINE IT.

If marriage was “two people” and they were denied a license, then they have a point. But marriage was NEVER “two people” it is, legally in the US for 200 + years, “one man and one woman”. Homosexuals don’t fit that definition. Neither do my brother and I if we wanted to be married. So gays aren’t denied the same right I have – they want a NEW right.

Saltyron on February 14, 2014 at 10:02 AM

So that would mean, marriage in this country has been redefined then?

Because if we are to go strictly to what “traditional marriage” is thousands or possibly millions of years ago, you will find out it is NOT…one man and one woman.

So here is a question for you……….

If we as a country can change marriage to be one man and woman, what’s stopping us from making more changes?

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:09 AM

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:01 AM

that’s because we are 2 different people

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:02 AM

But you answer his questions for him in a tight thread exchange. Hmmm.

I think you forgot who you were posting as perfesser.

As long as he’s back though, I wonder if he’ll answer the question about whether or not Kaitlyn Hunt committed sexual molestation on a 14 yo. You see, libfree has alluded to condoning that behavior.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:09 AM

I’m going to just go on record as saying libfreeordie does support an adult having sex with a 14 yo. What’s the big deal? It’s what’s next.

Do a bit of research. Go to any article on-line about Kaitlyn Hunt and read the comments at the bottom of the article. The gay community supported her rights over the rights of that child’s parent, overwhelmingly. It’s what’s next.

Mark it.

Where are the “Conservatives” from that community going on record about her behavior even here?

AWOL

It’s what’s next. Amid all the “Paranoid Homophobe” epithets hurled at your concerns for this. It’s what’s next.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:11 AM

ajacksonian on February 14, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Exceptionally well written.

kingsjester on February 14, 2014 at 10:04 AM

Ditto. Er, I mean, I concur.

Saltyron on February 14, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Saltyron on February 14, 2014 at 10:12 AM

LOL!

kingsjester on February 14, 2014 at 10:12 AM

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Well stated

You will be made to care

22044 on February 14, 2014 at 10:12 AM

jerryofva on February 14, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Marriage “as a civil institution run by civil authority” no longer exists. As currently implemented it serves no legal benefit to anyone except women with children who can then claim financial support. Because it is essentially a government mandated institution. Those who shirk their personal responsibilities have MORE benefits (the men) than those who abide by the civil laws which have become warped and unenforceable.

To wit, the men in the ghetto are playing it smart.

It makes absolutely no sense in this age for government to act as the high school matriarch blessing who is officially dating whom.
Families are dead except for those who understand what they really are and no amount of CIVIL legislation will bring that back.

Skywise on February 14, 2014 at 10:13 AM

A federal judge in Norfolk struck down as unconstitutional Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage Thursday night, saying the country has “arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect.”

U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen issued a sweeping 41-page opinion that mentioned at length Virginia’s past in denying interracial marriage and quoted Abraham Lincoln. She struck the constitutional amendment Virginia voters approved in 2006 that both bans same-sex marriage and forbids recognition of such unions performed elsewhere.

“Gay and lesbian individuals share the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving, intimate and lasting relationships,” Wright Allen wrote. “Such relationships are created through the exercise of sacred, personal choices — choices, like the choices made by every other citizen, that must be free from unwarranted government interference.”

Robert Barnes, washintonpost.com

.
The analogy of comparing “anti-same-sex-marriage” sentiment to “anti-inter-racial-marriage” sentiment is invalid, as the human genus is not ‘sub-divided’ into different “races”, no matter what we look and sound like.

Homo-sexuality is, and always will be abnormal, no matter what “moment in history” we’re at.
The fact that homo-sexuality is abnormal is, and always will be as ‘self-evident’ as the inalienable rights, mentioned in the Declaration Of Independence.

This “black-robed bench-sitter” is unworthy of any capacity of civil authority and governance that’s been given her.

listens2glenn on February 14, 2014 at 10:13 AM

I guess liberalrules is the new donkeypunching bag.

You don’t get to decide what “normal sex is” in the comfort of your home.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Well, let’s see. Ah. Let’s start with the progs best friend on most other issues, science, since it’s the baseline for the analysis of facts and not opinion.

In biology, what’s the point of sex? Procreation. That means the normal result from sex, is pregnancy and a child.

Now, if I can paraphrase Dan Savage “I can drop a load in my hubby’s anus every time, he’s not going to shat out a kid”.

So, if Dan knows the end results in his actions are never going to lead to the normal results from sex, than what he’s doing is sexually abnormal.

According to sodomy statutes, oral sex also is sodomy. So yes, most straight people are sodomites.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 9:54 AM

And what report came out last week?

The rise in oral cancer deaths among straight men over the past decades has skyrocketed.

Why? HPV. A genital virus. How? Because of the rise in oral sex.

See, in science, when a foriegn virus enters an exposed area with no resistance, it can mutate. That mutation is called cancer. Say it with me, can-cer.

I don’t have to tell LibFree and the gay community about the mutative nature HPV. They’re on a first-name basis.

budfox on February 14, 2014 at 10:14 AM

Because if we are to go strictly to what “traditional marriage” is thousands or possibly millions of years ago...

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:09 AM

I think I am getting more stupider just reading your posts.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 10:15 AM

It’s a bit like the tour of Bedlam…

I just occasionally follow the breakdown in the culture…

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 10:08 AM

I have enough other reasons to be depressed. :-P

bigmacdaddy on February 14, 2014 at 10:15 AM

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:06 AM

You’re an idiot. It is possible for two different people to agree on an issue. Christ on a cracker, you’re literally the most massively dumb person to post on this board.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 10:15 AM

“As the bride approaches the ceremonial altar holding on to the arm of her father, the groom nervously takes a peek at the scene surrounding him. Not far away are the gifts, which shortly will be exchanged. Family members stand proudly around in a festive atmosphere. Is this taking place in upstate New York, a tropical garden in Miami, or a quaint old church in old Montreal? Perhaps, but it could well have happened somewhere in ancient Mesopotamia (3,000BC – 500BC).

In western society some aspects of modern family relationships and composition can be traced to ancient Mesopotamia and Babylonia. Ideas such as the wedding, marriage, and divorce began developing then. Through innumerable legal documents from the Sumerian to the Seleucid period, we see the individual as father, son, brother, or husband. The root of these relationships started with a proposal, followed by the marriage contract, and ending with the wedding.”

http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=58

That’s about the last 5,000 years of human history.

Viator on February 14, 2014 at 10:16 AM

Progressives and the Court talk out both sides of their azzez. DOMA was struck down supposedly because the federal government shouldn’t be directing the states on marriage, but here we go with a FEDERAL judge doing just that.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 10:17 AM

What is the point of laws and the legislature if judges can just shut them down whenever they want? They’re not even made to have valid reasoning in their opinions, as evidenced in this case. They don’t have to show how it lines up to the constitution, because most decisions like this don’t. They just impose their personal ideology on the rest of us.

It’s totalitarianism in a nice black robe.

bossmanham on February 14, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Because if we are to go strictly to what “traditional marriage” is thousands or possibly millions of years ago, you will find out it is NOT…one man and one woman.

What in the f**k are you even talking about? Millions of years ago? Do you mean dinosaurs getting married? Herbivores and carnivores being denied marriage? Jesus Christ. Do yourself a favor and crack a science textbook before you make a bigger ass of yourself.

If we as a country can change marriage to be one man and woman, what’s stopping us from making more changes?

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:09 AM

You lack support for your claims. But regardless, you prove my point – “more changes”. So we change the genders, and numbers and the age and species, etc. (Rick Santorum, call your office) So, again, why does society have to support it at all? Why do I have to even acknowledge your little relationship? Why put any financial support to it?

SUBJECTIVE marriage means “no shared definition” because it’s SUBJECTIVE. So no shared support.

Saltyron on February 14, 2014 at 10:17 AM

You’re an idiot. It is possible for two different people to agree on an issue. Christ on a cracker, you’re literally the most massively dumb person to post on this board.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Ahem…

Here’s a simple question for you. Which of the founding fathers did not subscribe to the communitarian ethos Calhoun deploys to rationalize slavery? *sets sundial*

libfreeordie on August 21, 2013 at 9:30 AM

None. They weren’t nascent Commies like John C. Calhoun, and full blown Commies like you. Don’t you think you need to provide some proof for such a ridiculous smear there Mr. Calhoun? You’re a history perfesser, right?

NotCoach on August 21, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Oh dear God….hold on, give me 10 minutes.

libfreeordie on August 21, 2013 at 9:45 AM

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Judge Allen- Kutztown State and North Carolina Central Law (that’s not exactly a UNC-Chapel Hill or Duke-level law school, to say the least).

Appointed by Obama.

Incompetence begets incompetence.

Anti-Statist on February 14, 2014 at 10:19 AM

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:06 AM

You’re an idiot. It is possible for two different people to agree on an issue. Christ on a cracker, you’re literally the most massively dumb person to post on this board.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 10:15 AM

And you’re just mad because you’re too stupid to pull it off. You forgot one of your comments as DeathToMediaHacks (again) and answered forgetting who you were posting as in the same thread.

You are literally … an idiot.

As long as you’re back though, what is your answer? Did Kaitlyn Hunt commit child molestation on a 14 yo?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:19 AM

This Judge in Virginia couldn’t even tell the difference between the Declaration and the Constitution, but yeah he should be the go to opinion…

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Now this is gonna get interesting…in terms of intraparty politics…

The Clash of Special Interest Advocacy Groups…

“Scientists have discovered two DNA stretches linked to homosexuality in men. The confirmation of a “gay gene” is expected to support the argument that homosexuality is biological and not by environmental influences….”

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/538819/20140214/gay-gene-homosexuality-dna-genes-men.htm#.Uv4zJHm4nHg

If confirmed I expect there will be a new item on the selective abortion list…

Eugenics…It’s what’s for Breakfast

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 10:20 AM

So here is a question for you……….

If we as a country can change marriage to be one man and woman, what’s stopping us from making more changes?

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Nothing. The problem here is that judges, not US, are changing the definition. Absent judges forcing this upon US it’s doubtful even 1 state would have redefined marriage.

Rocks on February 14, 2014 at 10:20 AM

I think I am getting more stupider just reading your posts.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Go read up on human evolution and come back.

The world is not 6000 years old I’m afraid.

Sorry to be the purveyor of “bad” news

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:21 AM

What is the point of laws and the legislature if judges can just shut them down whenever they want? They’re not even made to have valid reasoning in their opinions, as evidenced in this case. They don’t have to show how it lines up to the constitution, because most decisions like this don’t. They just impose their personal ideology on the rest of us.

It’s totalitarianism in a nice black robe.

bossmanham on February 14, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Fish rots from the head down.

Barry got the go-ahead signal from Roberts on 0Care.

Barry passed it on to Holder.

Holder passed it down to the judicial system.

Roberts needs to be recalled.

Holder needs to be jailed.

Forget Obama. His never-end smoking put him on the clock.

budfox on February 14, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Progressives and the Court talk out both sides of their azzez. DOMA was struck down supposedly because the federal government shouldn’t be directing the states on marriage, but here we go with a FEDERAL judge doing just that.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Yep!

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Was Arenda L. Wright Allen appointed by Obama because she’s a liberal Black woman?

For some reason, I do not think it was because of her knowledge of the Constitution.

WannabeAnglican on February 14, 2014 at 10:22 AM

It’s pathetic that liberals have led us down this dark and dirty road.

BuckeyeSam on February 14, 2014 at 9:55 AM

.
It’s beyond pathetic that the Christian believers from the WWII generation allowed all of this to get started, from 1968 till now.

listens2glenn on February 14, 2014 at 10:23 AM

If confirmed I expect there will be a new item on the selective abortion list…

Eugenics…It’s what’s for Breakfast

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Yep. Lets not forget that over 95% of those children positively diagnosed as having Downs in the womb are aborted. Here comes the gay gene test and the wave of supposedly gay babies killed before birth as a result.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Go read up on human evolution and come back.

The world is not 6000 years old I’m afraid.

Sorry to be the purveyor of “bad” news

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:21 AM

I love how the most ignorant in society are the most sanctimonious. More awesomer with every post.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Saltyron on February 14, 2014 at 10:17 AM

I specifically used the word possibly millions of years ago for a reason.

If I was absolute. I wouldn’t have used possibility

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Go read up on human evolution and come back.

The world is not 6000 years old I’m afraid.

Sorry to be the purveyor of “bad” news

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:21 AM

You go read up on evolution. You were the dope that quoted this:
Because if we are to go strictly to what “traditional marriage” is thousands or possibly millions of years ago, you will find out it is NOT…one man and one woman.

Idiot, modern humans have only been around for 50k-100k years. YOU are no one to be telling someone to go study.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 10:25 AM

I specifically used the word possibly millions of years ago for a reason.

If I was absolute. I wouldn’t have used possibility

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Is your lack of proper punctuation or grammar a more clearer way of stating your point?

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 10:26 AM

I specifically used the word possibly millions of years ago for a reason.

If I was absolute. I wouldn’t have used possibility

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Your “possibility” is as likely as the earth being 6000 years old. Your “possibility’ is as much a sign of faith as a creationist is.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Aren’t you the one that claimed your brain has finished evolving millions of years ago?

blink on February 14, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Yep, which makes him a chimp with tools.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 10:28 AM

You can’t answer the question. Why? One, you be a coward. Two, you know it would confine you to a set age. And God knows in your blurring of societal norms, there can be nothing set. What you advocate by silence is just sick though. You’re condoning sex with a child barely out of puberty.

But does it even stop there for you libfreeordeathtomediahacks?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Aren’t you the one that claimed your brain has finished evolving millions of years ago?

blink on February 14, 2014 at 10:26 AM

No I said the brain began evolution millions of years ago.

Evolution is a not a “finished” product.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Marriage “as a civil institution run by civil authority” no longer exists. As currently implemented it serves no legal benefit to anyone except women with children who can then claim financial support. Because it is essentially a government mandated institution. Those who shirk their personal responsibilities have MORE benefits (the men) than those who abide by the civil laws which have become warped and unenforceable.

To wit, the men in the ghetto are playing it smart.

It makes absolutely no sense in this age for government to act as the high school matriarch blessing who is officially dating whom.
Families are dead except for those who understand what they really are and no amount of CIVIL legislation will bring that back.

A posterboy for the faux Libertarian.

Ghetto males are really smart. That’s why they are illiterate, unemployable and shoot each other with great frequency. This is what happens when civil society collapses. The death of civil society is the same as the death of civilization. A faux Libertarian clown like you would be dead in 15 mintues in a such society.

jerryofva on February 14, 2014 at 10:29 AM

To liberalnorules

22044 on February 14, 2014 at 10:29 AM

:)

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Evolution is a not a “finished” product.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Sort of like your more errorer riddled posts?

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Please explain how two men sodomizing one another repeatedly constitutes a basis for “marriage”.
Cleombrotus on February 14, 2014 at 9:13 AM
You seem to be too much concerned about what consensual adults are doing in their pursuit of happiness.
Help me out here.
How does that affect your life?
If you want to talk marriage, the concept of one man and one woman marriage is very new in terms of human evolution.
liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:19 AM

Man, the red herrings are flying fast and furiously here.

Hey, Goofball, take away the sodomy and the issue disappears, doesn’t it?

This is simply all about a politically powerful minority special interest group using the hijacked power of the State to force the general population to accept their deviant sexual lifestyle.

Cleombrotus on February 14, 2014 at 10:30 AM

If confirmed I expect there will be a new item on the selective abortion list…

Eugenics…It’s what’s for Breakfast

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Yep. Lets not forget that over 95% of those children positively diagnosed as having Downs in the womb are aborted. Here comes the gay gene test and the wave of supposedly gay babies killed before birth as a result.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 10:23 AM

The irony is what it is.

The Gay lobby went hysterical about this possibility years ago during the early stages of Lifestyle vs. Born this way as the political argument evolved.

If a couple tested for the gene in the interests of say…perpetuating the family surname line or religious objection would they have a right to choose to abort based on a Gay gene criteria?

And what will the feminists say about that?

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Go read up on human evolution and come back.
The world is not 6000 years old I’m afraid.
Sorry to be the purveyor of “bad” news
liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:21 AM

You really don’t want evolution to be your guiding force for morality…

There’s a reason the outliers of society were killed off quickly and it has EVERYTHING to do with evolution and the survival of the species.

Skywise on February 14, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Time for a national divorce.

Or a new Declaration of Independence.

njrob on February 14, 2014 at 10:32 AM

No I said the brain began evolution millions of years ago.

Evolution is a not a “finished” product.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Human Erectus’ brain evolved a million years ago. A completely DIFFERENT GENUS. We did not evolve from Human Erectus.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 10:32 AM

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:29 AM

This one really deserves our pity…

OmahaConservative on February 14, 2014 at 10:34 AM

41 pages? I wonder how long she has had that in her holster?

strengthandhonor on February 14, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Here comes the gay gene test and the wave of supposedly gay babies killed before birth as a result.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 10:23 AM

The Progs know. That’s why they never engage the debate.

I’ve been trying to figure out what protective laws they’re going to mutate to create special protections against selection.

It won’t be abortion rights. Gay men are not going to saddle up with Pro-Lifers, lest risk the wrath of the fembots who’ve they’ve been comrades with from the start.

It’s going to be something bizarre because the choice cannot be one the affirms life before delivery.

I keep thinking discrimination law. It has to be something that subjugates the parent’s action and ignores the fetus.

budfox on February 14, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Idiot, modern humans have only been around for 50k-100k years. YOU are no one to be telling someone to go study.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Modern humans evolved thousands of years ago.

But our ancestors like the Homo habilis are from millions from years ago.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:36 AM

We now have seventeen states plus Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia on appeal.

What a wonderful Valentine’s day!

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Time for a national divorce.

Or a new Declaration of Independence.

njrob on February 14, 2014 at 10:32 AM

The National Divorce train recognizes all.

nobar on February 14, 2014 at 10:37 AM

Saltyron on February 14, 2014 at 10:02 AM

.
So that would mean, marriage in this country has been redefined then?

Because if we are to go strictly to what “traditional marriage” is thousands or possibly millions of years ago, you will find out it is NOT…one man and one woman.

So here is a question for you……….

If we as a country can change marriage to be one man and woman, what’s stopping us from making more changes?

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:09 AM

.
You’re not going to get a concession from me that marriage was ever defined differently than “one man, one woman”, at any time in the world’s past history.

Ergo, marriage was NOT “redefined” at the founding of this country, or any other time since, till the very recent past.

listens2glenn on February 14, 2014 at 10:37 AM

I keep thinking discrimination law. It has to be something that subjugates the parent’s action and ignores the fetus.

budfox on February 14, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Quite possibly, but enforcement will be a b!tch, don’t you think? And what’s to stop people from saying, “Fine. No abortions based on gender or race,either.”? Again, impossible to enforce. Ultimately there will come a time when the pro-abortion lobby is left with no choice but to embrace life.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 10:38 AM

In western society some aspects of modern family relationships and composition can be traced to ancient Mesopotamia and Babylonia. Ideas such as the wedding, marriage, and divorce began developing then. Through innumerable legal documents from the Sumerian to the Seleucid period, we see the individual as father, son, brother, or husband. The root of these relationships started with a proposal, followed by the marriage contract, and ending with the wedding.”

http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=58

That’s about the last 5,000 years of human history.

Viator on February 14, 2014 at 10:16 AM

Western Marriage concepts are of Greco-Roman origin not Mesopotamian or Babylonian. It is the cornerstone of civil society. One of the reasons that Western society came to dominate the world was the social stability provided by monogamy. Societies that recognize polygamy have a surplus of trouble making unattached males who have no hope of passing on their genetic heritage. The Jews recognized polygamy until they adopted the Greek marriage concept under the rule of Alexander’s successors. Christians, being rooted in Hellenized Jewish tradition, continued the practice after the Western empire collapsed.

jerryofva on February 14, 2014 at 10:38 AM

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 10:36 AM

I know at least a level headed and sincere commenter like you will agree what Kaitlyn Hunt did was commit sexual molestation of a 14 yo child. I wonder why no one else in your community here wants to go on record with a declaration like that?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:39 AM

St. Valentine weeps in his grave.

22044 on February 14, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Here comes the gay gene test and the wave of supposedly gay babies killed before birth as a result.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 10:23 AM

The Progs know. That’s why they never engage the debate.

I’ve been trying to figure out what protective laws they’re going to mutate to create special protections against selection.

It won’t be abortion rights. Gay men are not going to saddle up with Pro-Lifers, lest risk the wrath of the fembots who’ve they’ve been comrades with from the start.

It’s going to be something bizarre because the choice cannot be one the affirms life before delivery.

I keep thinking discrimination law. It has to be something that subjugates the parent’s action and ignores the fetus.

budfox on February 14, 2014 at 10:34 AM

The political fragmentation is gonna be….interesting

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Modern humans evolved thousands of years ago.

But our ancestors like the Homo habilis are from millions from years ago.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Two seconds of looking at Wiki:

Homo habilis is a species of the Hominini tribe, which lived from approximately 2.33 to 1.44 million years ago, during the Gelasian Pleistocene period.[1] While there has been scholarly controversy regarding its placement in the genus Homo rather than the genus Australopithecus,[2][3] its brain size has been shown to range from 550 cm3 to 687 cm3, rather than from 363 cm3 to 600 cm3 as formerly thought.[3][4] These more recent findings concerning brain size favor its traditional placement in the genus Homo, as does the need for the genus to be monophyletic if H. habilis is indeed the common ancestor.[citation needed]

In its appearance and morphology, H. habilis is the least similar to modern humans of all species in the genus Homo (except the equally controversial H. rudolfensis), and its classification as Homo has been the subject of controversial debate since its first proposal in the 1960s. H. habilis was short and had disproportionately long arms compared to modern humans; however, it had a less protruding face than the australopithecines from which it is thought to have descended. H. habilis had a cranial capacity slightly less than half of the size of modern humans. Despite the ape-like morphology of the bodies, H. habilis remains are often accompanied by primitive stone tools (e.g. Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania and Lake Turkana, Kenya).

Homo habilis has often been thought to be the ancestor of the more gracile and sophisticated Homo ergaster, which in turn gave rise to the more human-appearing species, Homo erectus. Debates continue over whether all of the known fossils are properly attributed to the species, and some paleoanthropologists regard the taxon as invalid, made up of fossil specimens of Australopithecus and Homo.[5] New findings in 2007 seemed to confirm the view that H. habilis and H. erectus coexisted, representing separate lineages from a common ancestor instead of H. erectus being descended from H. habilis.[6] An alternative explanation would be that any ancestral relationship from H. habilis to H. erectus would have to have been cladogenetic rather than anagenetic (meaning that if an isolated subgroup population of H. habilis became the ancestor of H. erectus, other subgroups remained as unchanged H. habilis until their much later extinction).[7]

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 10:41 AM

I know at least a level headed and sincere commenter like you will agree what Kaitlyn Hunt did was commit sexual molestation of a 14 yo child. I wonder why no one else in your community here wants to go on record with a declaration like that?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Zach, levelheaded..? He only comes on the homosexual threads to weep about his victimhood.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Quite possibly, but enforcement will be a b!tch, don’t you think? And what’s to stop people from saying, “Fine. No abortions based on gender or race,either.”? Again, impossible to enforce. Ultimately there will come a time when the pro-abortion lobby is left with no choice but to embrace life.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 10:38 AM

I hope you’re right. Personally, I’d love to see all-against-all tear the proglodytes apart.

There has to be a string that once pulled, the whole movement unravels into civil war, and I keep finding the path in science.

budfox on February 14, 2014 at 10:42 AM

I think I am getting more stupider just reading your posts.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 10:15 AM

.
Go read up on human evolution and come back.

The world is not 6000 years old I’m afraid.

Sorry to be the purveyor of “bad” news

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:21 AM

.
Don’t be afraid … but yes, it is.

listens2glenn on February 14, 2014 at 10:42 AM

If this ruling stands, then states no longer have the right to put any restrictions on marriage at all — that includes age, consanguinity, number of participants, and anything else you can imagine. Want to marry your daughter? and your son? Want to marry your brother? Go for it — equality, man. Want to marry a four-year-old? Why not? Want to marry your next door neighbor and his wife and their son? Go for it. Furthermore, single people can yell discrimination and inequality wherever there is a law that favors the married. All this is the inevitable result of declaring homosexual relationships to be marriages. Watch for it. Coming to a state near you!

loveyouall on February 14, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Gee, there is something about that word “marriage”.

Individuals are equal, but the unions they form are not. If same sex unions were the same as heterosexual unions, then as a society we should be indifferent as to how individuals pair up. We should be indifferent if men pair up with men or if they pair up with women. Conversely, we should be indifferent if women pair up with women or if they pair up with men. And yet, we are not indifferent at all! As a society, we need men to pair up with women. It’s the “more perfect” union, deserving of its own name and status.

Look no further than the first lady of NYC…a former lesbian. Isn’t it better for our society that she paired with Bill DiBlasio and had two children?

monalisa on February 14, 2014 at 10:43 AM

I am astounded at how ridiculous mankind has become by over-thinking and over analyzing everything in search of a justification for behavior.

Take all the Bibles, Judges, and peripheral clap trap out of it, it’s terribly simple.

Biologically, species can only survive on this rock by the act of copulation by a male and female. The fact that sex “feels good” is a great bi-product and how you choose to achieve that great feeling is a CHOICE you make, just like you make a choice to do other things that make you feel good.

Tim Zank on February 14, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Quite possibly, but enforcement will be a b!tch, don’t you think? And what’s to stop people from saying, “Fine. No abortions based on gender or race,either.”? Again, impossible to enforce. Ultimately there will come a time when the pro-abortion lobby is left with no choice but to embrace life.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Maybe…

Of course that would inhibit the progressive cause of breaking down traditional cultural norms and political control wouldn’t it?

I mean to say Eugenics is a founding principle of progressivism.

The conundrum seems an unintended ethical consequence of recent events.

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Folks, anyone? Why won’t gay commenters here make a stance in reference to Kaitlyn Hunt’s child molestation. Is she really that big of a gay community hero that she’s completely off limits for comments?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 9