Texas’s ban on gay marriage struck down by federal judge

posted at 6:41 pm on February 26, 2014 by Allahpundit

The silver lining in theory for SSM opponents is that this’ll give Greg Abbott a little something extra to run on in a very red state. In practice, though, the polling is sufficiently mixed — 37 percent of Texans supported gay marriage and another 28 percent supported civil unions as of last year — that Abbott’s chosen to keep things low-key out of the gate:

Here’s the ruling. By now, if you’ve read one of these decisions, you’ve read ‘em all. Sometimes they find a violation of equal protection, sometimes they find a violation of equal protection and of due process insofar as the right to marry is “fundamental.” Sometimes they find that gays are a “suspect class” deserving of special protection for purposes of EP analysis, sometimes they skip that part and find that bans on gay marriage have no rational basis and therefore it doesn’t matter how you classify gays. The judge in Texas, a Clinton appointee, took the latter route in both cases. The basic point is always the same, though: Federal courts don’t see any compelling reason to restrict marriage to straights only. Procreation’s not compelling because marriage isn’t limited to child-bearing straights. The idea that gay marriage will discourage marriage generally isn’t compelling, partly because there isn’t enough evidence and partly because the no-fault-divorce revolution shows that most states are fine in other contexts with making it easier for marriages to split up. The definitional argument, that “marriage” necessarily means opposite genders, was dismissed by the court in today’s decision this way:

tex

The only semi-novelty in the Texas ruling is that the court also reached the question of whether Texas is required to recognize gay marriages recorded in other states, a subject that doesn’t always come up in these cases. Answer: Yes, for all the same reasons listed above, which means that the main ruling on Texas’s own marriage law is largely irrelevant. If state A has no choice but to recognize a gay marriage recorded in state B, then its options are either to rescind recognition of out-of-state marriage altogether, keep the status quo and force its gay residents to take a vacation to get married, or simply legalize the practice itself. None of those are ideal if you oppose SSM.

If you want to read something new and interesting on this subject rather than slog through another cookie-cutter court ruling, have a look at Pew’s new survey of changing American attitudes on this subject. Lots of interesting results in the crosstabs, some of them counterintuitive. For instance, although support for SSM has risen steadily, that doesn’t mean the trend lines move the same way on every question:

natl
discrim

I would not have guessed that, as the nation gradually finds gay marriage more acceptable, it finds a federal solution less acceptable and actually perceives more discrimination against gays even as their rights expand. On the other hand, some results are very intuitive. The first one here is the big one:

friend
beliefs

The more people realize that they have gay friends, the more opposition to gay marriage softens. That’s the whole political strategy to “coming out.” It works.


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 5 6 7

The problem is very much your imagination, though not just yours. You imagine the Fourteenth Amendment says something it doesn’t by imagining an interpretation that somehow was just found in the text of a law that has existed since the Civil War. The text of the Fourteenth Amendment not only does not address marriage, it does not address homosexuality. It certainly does not address whether marriage as an institution has to be adjusted to accommodate homosexuals.

If you believe that’s what the Constitution should say, then propose an Amendment to the Constitution to say it.

Instead, you want a judge to declare that’s what the Constitution really meant.

Were women given the right to vote by the Fourteenth Amendment? No, they passed a new Amendment. As you should.

Wow, strike the first bolded section, substitute the second with “interracial couples”, take it back in time 50 years and Hello, Virginia!

I’m not subverting the Constitution. That’s not even what theocracy means. Both statements are lies, so how can “the truth” hurt when you haven’t come within a mile of the truth yet.

You want to do an unconstitutional thing with not rational justification. We’ve already established you don’t like being accused of championing theocracy when you’re championing theocracy so if you don’t like me to use the phrase “subverting the Constitution” when you’re subverting the Constitution what word or phrase should I use instead?

A nice bit of projection, though. I’m indebted to you for the phrase, because it describes perfectly what is going on here. You progressives are subverting the Constitution on a daily basis, every time you call it a “living Constitution.” What you really mean is, “it’s too hard to amend the Constitution to say what we want, so we’ll just wave our hands and say the meaning of the Constitution has changed.”

What a dishonest bunch of claptrap! You strike the pose of the noble defender of the Constitution, but you don’t have the decency to admit that a Constitution whose meaning is so elastic that you can read SSM into it where it wasn’t before is a Constitution that has been stripped of any real meaning. If it doesn’t bind anything, if the meaning changes every time a judge wants to inject modern culture, then we should dispense with the pretense that we have a Constitution, and just hand power over to the president like you progressives wanted all along.

Call an ambulance! We’ve got a straw man here who’s in need of some immediate medical attention because he’s just be savaged! He was savaged with a reductio ad absurdum fallacy, but he’s been beaten nonetheless and he needs some help.

I don’t subscribe to the “living” Constitution notion that liberals like to drag out; I’m a down-the-line conservative on pretty much everything but this issue. I believe the Constitution says what it says, including that pesky bit about equal protection, even though that doesn’t lead to the preferred policy position of some of my conservative brethren. I’m for enforcing the rule book, even on the off chance it’s a rule I disagree with. It’s you who seems to be different in that regard. Maybe you should try to pass that amendment you mentioned.

And a third time. If you want to claim the natural law argument is inconsistent with our history, you’re going to have to show how it’s inconsistent.

What is actually inconsistent with our history of laws is SSM. One could say, the inconsistency is flaming.

..

And I pointed out the inherent dishonesty of rejecting the (exceedingly obvious) link between procreation and marriage by changing the subject to whether procreation is always a part of marriage. This is exactly what the judge in question tried to do: shift the argument to whether procreation is required for marriage, so he can dismiss procreation from the discussion of marriage entirely.

Any honest person would have to admit that procreation is part of marriage most of the time.

And again, you try to claim I “refuted” my natural law argument. Conveniently, you didn’t say how it was refuted. You didn’t say so, because ii was not refuted.

..

Three strikes in a single paragraph. I didn’t discard the natural law argument, Christian doctrine is not even required to defend that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and the Constitution is only being superseded by the people who put their own opinions above what it actually says.

Clearly I need to go through this again and explain why your natural law argument is crap. In short form, your argument from your perception of natural law is that marriage is about procreation, homosexuals can’t procreate on their own with the partner they’re married to so that makes them different and we therefore have justification to restrict them from obtaining the legal status of civil marriage. Your argument hinges on the tie you’ve made between marriage and procreation and the problem is that the possibility of procreation has never been a requirement before; we’ve never stopped a couple who could not procreate on their own (infertile couples, older couples) from obtaining access to marriage, and you’re not even suggesting we start doing so now. So of all the population subsets that cannot procreate you want the government to select out one specific one to be held to a new higher standard that has never been applied in the past, and isn’t being required to other couples similarly situated in regards to ability to procreate. Using such a standard to selectively discriminate against homosexuals when we’re not discriminating against other couples who cannot procreate is arbitrary and capricious and cannot hold up to any standard of scrutiny in a court of law. And thankfully it’s not.

This argument can just as easily be turned against you. It could fairly be argued that it’s not just about putting as many people on to the planet as possible, the family is about raising children to be productive members of society. All reputable science on the subject has found that all things being equal homosexual couples are equally as good as heterosexual couples at raising children, and since homosexuals cannot produce their own biological offspring they’re more likely to adopt to make sure some of the kids who are already here but who don’t have good homes will end up getting the quality upbringing they desperately need. The government then has a compelling reason to recognize homosexual unions to grant them the same stability and legal protections heterosexual couples enjoy so that any children being raised in those homes (and about a quarter of gay couples are raising children) aren’t placed at a higher risk.

Look up miscegenation.

That might have been the stated reason given by some but even the personal history of one of my favorite presidents and a certain Miss Hemings suggests that might not be what was really on their minds. I would bet heavily that it was the old racists not wanting to see a black man with a white woman.

Apples and oranges, no matter how desperately you wish it were apples and apples. Loving v. Virginia dealt with races, not some amorphous concept of “sexual orientation” that can only be observed by behavior, rather than being a readily observable characteristic. And since race was used to assign human beings to slave status, and since the Fourteenth Amendment was added to correct that past issue, then it’s pretty clear that the Fourteenth Amendment applied correctly to racial issues.

You’re saying race is different because it’s readily observable characteristic? Hold on a minute, I need a quick aside.

*thinks to self* Hmmmm. Readily observable is the standard he wants, eh? There’s got to be an… A HA!

OK, I’m back! Remember the issue we’re talking about here is access to the legal status of civil marriage through the obtaining of a marriage license. If a couple is before a clerk asking for a marriage license then their sexual orientation is every bit as observable as their race is. So if observability is your standard for why racial discrimination wasn’t okay when it comes to obtaining a marriage license but sexual orientation isn’t then, well, I would suggest you might want to rethink that position. Or even better, admit you’ve been wrong on this issue and that you’re changing your mind!

Also, the laws questioned in Loving v. Virginia did not deny marriage to a class of people, as you would like them to say. On the contrary, those laws prevented neither black people from marrying nor white people from marrying. The point of those laws was to keep the races separate.

To make it apply to the current situation, you would have to invent a crisis where homosexuals were marrying heterosexuals, and laws were passed to prevent it.

No, the point of the laws was to keep the races separate. As long as both races of people are treated equally, the Fourteenth Amendment was satisfied. That was called the “separate but equal” argument.

And the key to why Loving v. Virginia was struck down was that “separate but equal” doctrine. That doctrine had been created by the Supreme Court in the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896. It was struck down by the Supreme Court in the Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954. Once “separate but equal” was rejected as a doctrine, it was inevitable that the laws in Loving v. Virginia, which were intended to keep the races separate, would be struck down by the Supreme Court, as it was in 1967.

The more you know of the Loving V. Virginia case, the less it applies to SSM.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 2, 2014 at 3:57 AM

You’re absolutely correct that anti-miscegenation laws didn’t deny someone any and all reasonable opportunity to ever be married. The thing is amendments like the one that just went down in Texas and all the others like it do in fact preclude homosexuals from any reasonable opportunity to ever access marriage. That’s why amendments like this are actually worse than the anti-miscegenation laws, have even less of a legal leg to stand on than those laws did and won’t send us down a slippery slope that those laws didn’t.

alchemist19 on March 2, 2014 at 7:06 PM

There are always those who try to find a scriptural warrant to justify their own cultural beliefs.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 2, 2014 at 4:08 AM

This might be the first thing I’ve heard come out of you that I agree with. :)

alchemist19 on March 2, 2014 at 7:08 PM

sentinelrules on March 2, 2014 at 10:56 AM

I’m about done with amateur hour. There Goes The Neighborhood is wrong about everything but at let he (or she, I’m not sure) is intellectually stimulating. Try to emulate that a little bit next time, maybe practice up a bit and try again later. Thanks for playing and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

alchemist19 on March 2, 2014 at 7:10 PM

The only thing embarrassing about this is their ‘take’ on inter-ethnic marriage.

listens2glenn on March 2, 2014 at 8:45 AM

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

alchemist19 on March 2, 2014 at 7:12 PM

I’m about done with amateur hour. There Goes The Neighborhood is wrong about everything but at let he (or she, I’m not sure) is intellectually stimulating. Try to emulate that a little bit next time, maybe practice up a bit and try again later. Thanks for playing and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

alchemist19 on March 2, 2014 at 7:10 PM

Please, don’t flatter yourself with false praise, Mr. Deluded Narcissist. You lost once again. Just add more users that continue to best you in arguing these debates to your ignore list. Blink, northdallas and Neighborhood are far more intelligent compared to the mental midget you are and will probably continue to be.

Just out of curiosity, were were born this stupid or did it come about naturally?

Just out of curiosity, were were born this stupid or did it come about naturally?

Just out of curiosity, were were born this stupid or did it come about naturally?

sentinelrules on March 2, 2014 at 7:20 PM

The problem is very much your imagination, though not just yours. You imagine the Fourteenth Amendment says something it doesn’t by imagining an interpretation that somehow was just found in the text of a law that has existed since the Civil War. The text of the Fourteenth Amendment not only does not address marriage, it does not address homosexuality. It certainly does not address whether marriage as an institution has to be adjusted to accommodate homosexuals.

If you believe that’s what the Constitution should say, then propose an Amendment to the Constitution to say it.

Instead, you want a judge to declare that’s what the Constitution really meant.

Were women given the right to vote by the Fourteenth Amendment? No, they passed a new Amendment. As you should.

Wow, strike the first bolded section, substitute the second with “interracial couples”, take it back in time 50 years and Hello, Virginia!

I shot down that attempted comparison already. Loving v. Virgina was a completely different case. In short, homosexuals are not a race. In a little more detail:

1) The laws in question tried to restrict marriages between a man and a woman, so made no change to marriage as the institution existed
2) What the law attempted to restrict was something that had been an accepted part of marriages for millennia: marrying people from another tribe, nationality, or race
3) Those laws attempted to maintain the “separate but equal” approach that had been shot down in Brown v. Board of Education about 13 years before. Since the Supreme Court had reversed itself (“separate but equal” was the result of an earlier SCOTUS decision in Plessy v. Ferguson), it was to be expected that laws that had been compatible with the “separate but equal” doctrine could now be reviewed under the new, corrected SCOTUS standard.
4) “Separate but equal” has absolutely nothing to do with SSM. There have been no laws passed that attempt to prevent homosexuals from marrying heterosexuals.
5) The Loving v. Virgina laws were to prevent the production of mixed-race children. Homosexuals can’t have children, and they’re not separate races.

I’m not subverting the Constitution. That’s not even what theocracy means. Both statements are lies, so how can “the truth” hurt when you haven’t come within a mile of the truth yet.

You want to do an unconstitutional thing with not rational justification. We’ve already established you don’t like being accused of championing theocracy when you’re championing theocracy so if you don’t like me to use the phrase “subverting the Constitution” when you’re subverting the Constitution what word or phrase should I use instead?

You don’t even understand what a theocracy is, or what it means to “subvert the Constitution.”

A nice bit of projection, though. I’m indebted to you for the phrase, because it describes perfectly what is going on here. You progressives are subverting the Constitution on a daily basis, every time you call it a “living Constitution.” What you really mean is, “it’s too hard to amend the Constitution to say what we want, so we’ll just wave our hands and say the meaning of the Constitution has changed.”

What a dishonest bunch of claptrap! You strike the pose of the noble defender of the Constitution, but you don’t have the decency to admit that a Constitution whose meaning is so elastic that you can read SSM into it where it wasn’t before is a Constitution that has been stripped of any real meaning. If it doesn’t bind anything, if the meaning changes every time a judge wants to inject modern culture, then we should dispense with the pretense that we have a Constitution, and just hand power over to the president like you progressives wanted all along.

Call an ambulance! We’ve got a straw man here who’s in need of some immediate medical attention because he’s just be savaged! He was savaged with a reductio ad absurdum fallacy, but he’s been beaten nonetheless and he needs some help.

You’re also having trouble with the concept of a straw man.

I don’t subscribe to the “living” Constitution notion that liberals like to drag out; I’m a down-the-line conservative on pretty much everything but this issue. I believe the Constitution says what it says, including that pesky bit about equal protection, even though that doesn’t lead to the preferred policy position of some of my conservative brethren. I’m for enforcing the rule book, even on the off chance it’s a rule I disagree with. It’s you who seems to be different in that regard. Maybe you should try to pass that amendment you mentioned.

You may avoid the phrase, but you’re jumping right on the concept. You don’t care about the text of the Constitution, but when a judge makes a fallacious argument based on a private interpretation of equal protection, you’re leading the parade.

And a third time. If you want to claim the natural law argument is inconsistent with our history, you’re going to have to show how it’s inconsistent.

What is actually inconsistent with our history of laws is SSM. One could say, the inconsistency is flaming.

..

And I pointed out the inherent dishonesty of rejecting the (exceedingly obvious) link between procreation and marriage by changing the subject to whether procreation is always a part of marriage. This is exactly what the judge in question tried to do: shift the argument to whether procreation is required for marriage, so he can dismiss procreation from the discussion of marriage entirely.

Any honest person would have to admit that procreation is part of marriage most of the time.

And again, you try to claim I “refuted” my natural law argument. Conveniently, you didn’t say how it was refuted. You didn’t say so, because ii was not refuted.

..

Three strikes in a single paragraph. I didn’t discard the natural law argument, Christian doctrine is not even required to defend that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and the Constitution is only being superseded by the people who put their own opinions above what it actually says.

Clearly I need to go through this again and explain why your natural law argument is crap. In short form, your argument from your perception of natural law is that marriage is about procreation, homosexuals can’t procreate on their own with the partner they’re married to so that makes them different and we therefore have justification to restrict them from obtaining the legal status of civil marriage. Your argument hinges on the tie you’ve made between marriage and procreation and the problem is that the possibility of procreation has never been a requirement before; we’ve never stopped a couple who could not procreate on their own (infertile couples, older couples) from obtaining access to marriage, and you’re not even suggesting we start doing so now. So of all the population subsets that cannot procreate you want the government to select out one specific one to be held to a new higher standard that has never been applied in the past, and isn’t being required to other couples similarly situated in regards to ability to procreate. Using such a standard to selectively discriminate against homosexuals when we’re not discriminating against other couples who cannot procreate is arbitrary and capricious and cannot hold up to any standard of scrutiny in a court of law. And thankfully it’s not.

Congratulations. You finally managed to find a straw man. Unfortunately, you’re the one who built it.

My natural marriage argument is not all about procreation, though I don’t dishonestly pretend that procreation has nothing to do with marriage. But natural marriage is about mating. It provides companionship for those who mate, a family for the results of the mating, a lifelong relationship, the building of a new generation, and the raising of children by their biological father and mother.

Is procreation part of the natural law argument for marriage? Of course it is, because procreation is part of marriage itself.

What else is part of natural marriage, though? The joining of the two sexes in a way that quite literally completes them both. Is that part of the homosexual faux-marriage? It can’t be.

We are made male and female. Each sex has their own unique characteristics. The male and the female together form the complete human experience.

This is true of the human race as a whole, of the husband and wife in a marriage, and of the father and mother of a child. It is also true in social conventions, where the presence of both sexes adds to the social enjoyment of the occasion.

The husband brings different things to the marriage than the wife does. The mother brings something different to the raising of children than does the father. We have a social laboratory running right now in ghettos across the country that show clearly the negative effects of a generation of black children without fathers in their homes.

This argument can just as easily be turned against you. It could fairly be argued that it’s not just about putting as many people on to the planet as possible, the family is about raising children to be productive members of society. All reputable science on the subject has found that all things being equal homosexual couples are equally as good as heterosexual couples at raising children, and since homosexuals cannot produce their own biological offspring they’re more likely to adopt to make sure some of the kids who are already here but who don’t have good homes will end up getting the quality upbringing they desperately need. The government then has a compelling reason to recognize homosexual unions to grant them the same stability and legal protections heterosexual couples enjoy so that any children being raised in those homes (and about a quarter of gay couples are raising children) aren’t placed at a higher risk.

That claim has been made, but once you back away from those trying to advance an agenda and look at the broader subject of child rearing, children turn out better when raised by a mother and father who are their biological parents.

All too often, the claim of “all reputable science,” is just a code word for “anyone who doesn’t agree with what we say shall be destroyed.” The “all reputable science” dodge has been tried with global warming, which is rapidly being recognized as a lie. It was tried with the Kinsey Report, which turned out to be completely fraudulent.

We’ve already seen the APA cave to the homosexual community on whether homosexuality is a mental disorder, which was not based on science at all, but on the campaign of intimidation waged by homosexual activists. That is, the science hadn’t changed, but they removed it anyway.

When someone tries to promote radical social change based on “science,” you can just start looking for the fraud. It’s in there.

And when advocates for the normalization of homosexuality start making the claim that all science indicates children raised by homosexuals do just as well as any other children, but the claims they make contradict the rest of social science that says children need a mother and father, the agenda is plain to see.

Apples and oranges, no matter how desperately you wish it were apples and apples. Loving v. Virginia dealt with races, not some amorphous concept of “sexual orientation” that can only be observed by behavior, rather than being a readily observable characteristic. And since race was used to assign human beings to slave status, and since the Fourteenth Amendment was added to correct that past issue, then it’s pretty clear that the Fourteenth Amendment applied correctly to racial issues.

You’re saying race is different because it’s readily observable characteristic? Hold on a minute, I need a quick aside.

*thinks to self* Hmmmm. Readily observable is the standard he wants, eh? There’s got to be an… A HA!

OK, I’m back! Remember the issue we’re talking about here is access to the legal status of civil marriage through the obtaining of a marriage license. If a couple is before a clerk asking for a marriage license then their sexual orientation is every bit as observable as their race is. So if observability is your standard for why racial discrimination wasn’t okay when it comes to obtaining a marriage license but sexual orientation isn’t then, well, I would suggest you might want to rethink that position. Or even better, admit you’ve been wrong on this issue and that you’re changing your mind!

Cute, but I said sexual orientation could only be observed by behavior, so listing a behavior it could be observed by is not exactly a ‘gotcha’ moment.

Further, I was commenting on the attempt to distinguish between sexual behavior and ‘sexual orientation,’ and the whole point is that the only way you know someone’s sexual orientation is by observing their sexual behavior. Which raises the question of whether sexual orientation is a special identity group at all, or just a term for people engaging in homosexual behavior.

So, not even all that cute. Maybe I should settle for “nice try.”

Also, the laws questioned in Loving v. Virginia did not deny marriage to a class of people, as you would like them to say. On the contrary, those laws prevented neither black people from marrying nor white people from marrying. The point of those laws was to keep the races separate.

To make it apply to the current situation, you would have to invent a crisis where homosexuals were marrying heterosexuals, and laws were passed to prevent it.

No, the point of the laws was to keep the races separate. As long as both races of people are treated equally, the Fourteenth Amendment was satisfied. That was called the “separate but equal” argument.

And the key to why Loving v. Virginia was struck down was that “separate but equal” doctrine. That doctrine had been created by the Supreme Court in the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896. It was struck down by the Supreme Court in the Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954. Once “separate but equal” was rejected as a doctrine, it was inevitable that the laws in Loving v. Virginia, which were intended to keep the races separate, would be struck down by the Supreme Court, as it was in 1967.

The more you know of the Loving V. Virginia case, the less it applies to SSM.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 2, 2014 at 3:57 AM

You’re absolutely correct that anti-miscegenation laws didn’t deny someone any and all reasonable opportunity to ever be married. The thing is amendments like the one that just went down in Texas and all the others like it do in fact preclude homosexuals from any reasonable opportunity to ever access marriage. That’s why amendments like this are actually worse than the anti-miscegenation laws, have even less of a legal leg to stand on than those laws did and won’t send us down a slippery slope that those laws didn’t.

alchemist19 on March 2, 2014 at 7:06 PM

Again, you’re begging the question. You assume that two men or two women can “access marriage,” which is exactly the claim that is trying to be made. But if marriage by nature and definition is between a man and a woman, then there is no discrimination in recognizing that fact.

You go through all these contortions to try to prove that SSM is valid, and it still comes down to saying two men can be married, “because we say so.” After all your arguing, you can’t articulate why those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman are wrong.

Ultimately, it all comes down to your belief that it’s not fair to homosexuals that marriage is between a man and a woman.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 3, 2014 at 2:31 AM

I shot down that attempted comparison already. Loving v. Virgina was a completely different case.

You launched a spit ball attack but it takes more than that to sink a battleship.

In short, homosexuals are not a race.

Have you cornered the world market in straw?

In a little more detail:

1) The laws in question tried to restrict marriages between a man and a woman, so made no change to marriage as the institution existed

Marriage used to be an institution between people of the same race and it was redefined to include interracial couples.

2) What the law attempted to restrict was something that had been an accepted part of marriages for millennia: marrying people from another tribe, nationality, or race

It wasn’t accepted in the places the laws in question existed. That’s, you know, what the laws were about.

3) Those laws attempted to maintain the “separate but equal” approach that had been shot down in Brown v. Board of Education about 13 years before. Since the Supreme Court had reversed itself (“separate but equal” was the result of an earlier SCOTUS decision in Plessy v. Ferguson), it was to be expected that laws that had been compatible with the “separate but equal” doctrine could now be reviewed under the new, corrected SCOTUS standard.

I hope this is a statement of fact on your part and not a part of your position because if this is part of how you justify Loving to yourself then the SCOTUS case that brings about same-sex marriage to the rest of the nation is going to be just the continuation of Windsor.

4) “Separate but equal” has absolutely nothing to do with SSM. There have been no laws passed that attempt to prevent homosexuals from marrying heterosexuals.

Specious argument.

5) The Loving v. Virgina laws were to prevent the production of mixed-race children. Homosexuals can’t have children, and they’re not separate races.

Why would they want to prevent the production of those. Be warned if you’re brave enough to answer that that I might be setting a trap!

You don’t even understand what a theocracy is, or what it means to “subvert the Constitution.”

Sure I do! All I have to do is read what you post and subversion of the Constitution in the name of a more theocratic way of doing things is right there for all to see.

You’re also having trouble with the concept of a straw man.

You accused me of supporting the “living document” ideology then proceeded to savage it when I never claimed to subscribe to that philosophy. Straw man.

You may avoid the phrase, but you’re jumping right on the concept. You don’t care about the text of the Constitution, but when a judge makes a fallacious argument based on a private interpretation of equal protection, you’re leading the parade.

The text of the Constitution is the premise of my whole argument! It says right there in the Fourteenth Amendment that states cannot deny their citizens equal protection under the law.

And a third time. If you want to claim the natural law argument is inconsistent with our history, you’re going to have to show how it’s inconsistent.

Is it news to you that we’ve never used inability to produce offspring be a disqualifying factor for determining who can and cannot access civil marriage?

What is actually inconsistent with our history of laws is SSM. One could say, the inconsistency is flaming.

Is the fact we’ve been wrong up to now a reason to perpetuate our mistake now that we’ve got clear evidence that we’ve been wrong?

And I pointed out the inherent dishonesty of rejecting the (exceedingly obvious) link between procreation and marriage by changing the subject to whether procreation is always a part of marriage. This is exactly what the judge in question tried to do: shift the argument to whether procreation is required for marriage, so he can dismiss procreation from the discussion of marriage entirely.

Any honest person would have to admit that procreation is part of marriage most of the time.

And again, you try to claim I “refuted” my natural law argument. Conveniently, you didn’t say how it was refuted. You didn’t say so, because ii was not refuted.

Once more, and I’ll do this very slowly for you.

Yes, procreation is a part of marriage most of the time. What you don’t understand is that the judge didn’t “shift” the argument; the state itself in both the letter and the application of its laws dismissed the procreation argument. While it is obvious that a large number of married couples can and do procreate, if your goal is to forbid a certain subset of couples (homosexuals in this case) from civil marriage on the grounds they cannot procreate then “They cannot procreate so they cannot get married” must legally be the standard all couples are held to if they wish to get married. The government can’t discriminate against couples who cannot procreate because they’re of the same sex when the government isn’t already also discriminating against couples who cannot procreate because they are old, or because they are infertile. Because of the state’s tradition of granting civil marriage to non-procreating couples the state cannot now refuse to grant a marriage license to one specific group strictly on the basis that couple cannot procreate, and the “natural law” argument becomes untenable.

Congratulations. You finally managed to find a straw man. Unfortunately, you’re the one who built it.

My natural marriage argument is not all about procreation, though I don’t dishonestly pretend that procreation has nothing to do with marriage. But natural marriage is about mating. It provides companionship for those who mate, a family for the results of the mating, a lifelong relationship, the building of a new generation, and the raising of children by their biological father and mother.

Is procreation part of the natural law argument for marriage? Of course it is, because procreation is part of marriage itself.

What else is part of natural marriage, though? The joining of the two sexes in a way that quite literally completes them both. Is that part of the homosexual faux-marriage? It can’t be.

We are made male and female. Each sex has their own unique characteristics. The male and the female together form the complete human experience.

This is true of the human race as a whole, of the husband and wife in a marriage, and of the father and mother of a child. It is also true in social conventions, where the presence of both sexes adds to the social enjoyment of the occasion.

This is largely just your opinion spilled out, and thanks for sharing. I won’t harp on this bit too much because it’s mainly just you philosophizing, and I think you’re probably going to set me up better later on.

The husband brings different things to the marriage than the wife does. The mother brings something different to the raising of children than does the father. We have a social laboratory running right now in ghettos across the country that show clearly the negative effects of a generation of black children without fathers in their homes.

It’s a little more complicated than “There’s no father around.” Two-parent homes are the gold standard because of the added economic and social stability that comes with having two responsible adults around to help raise the child. It’s not quite as simplistic as you’re making it out to be.

That claim has been made, but once you back away from those trying to advance an agenda and look at the broader subject of child rearing, children turn out better when raised by a mother and father who are their biological parents.

Because you personally know who’s just out to advance an agenda, right?

Are you defaming adoptive parents and the work they do, somehow suggesting it’s substandard?

All too often, the claim of “all reputable science,” is just a code word for “anyone who doesn’t agree with what we say shall be destroyed.” The “all reputable science” dodge has been tried with global warming, which is rapidly being recognized as a lie. It was tried with the Kinsey Report, which turned out to be completely fraudulent.

We’ve already seen the APA cave to the homosexual community on whether homosexuality is a mental disorder, which was not based on science at all, but on the campaign of intimidation waged by homosexual activists. That is, the science hadn’t changed, but they removed it anyway.

When someone tries to promote radical social change based on “science,” you can just start looking for the fraud. It’s in there.

And when advocates for the normalization of homosexuality start making the claim that all science indicates children raised by homosexuals do just as well as any other children, but the claims they make contradict the rest of social science that says children need a mother and father, the agenda is plain to see.

Got any proof for these assertions?

Just to let you know, if you really can prove what you say you could score a MAJOR win for your side if you can prove the guy who just testified at the Michigan trial on this issue perjured himself when he said a child having a mother and a father wasn’t critical, at least in their roles as men and women, for determining a child’s outcome then that would be big news.

Snap to it.

Cute, but I said sexual orientation could only be observed by behavior, so listing a behavior it could be observed by is not exactly a ‘gotcha’ moment.

Further, I was commenting on the attempt to distinguish between sexual behavior and ‘sexual orientation,’ and the whole point is that the only way you know someone’s sexual orientation is by observing their sexual behavior. Which raises the question of whether sexual orientation is a special identity group at all, or just a term for people engaging in homosexual behavior.

So, not even all that cute. Maybe I should settle for “nice try.”

What does sexual behavior have to do with the issue of civil marriage? Are you having a Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke-type moment and suggesting we observe people’s sexual behaviors to prove their orientation?

It was extremely cute! It knocked you totally off on a tangent about sexual behaviors for no apparent reason.

Again, you’re begging the question. You assume that two men or two women can “access marriage,” which is exactly the claim that is trying to be made. But if marriage by nature and definition is between a man and a woman, then there is no discrimination in recognizing that fact.

You go through all these contortions to try to prove that SSM is valid, and it still comes down to saying two men can be married, “because we say so.” After all your arguing, you can’t articulate why those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman are wrong.

Ultimately, it all comes down to your belief that it’s not fair to homosexuals that marriage is between a man and a woman.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 3, 2014 at 2:31 AM

Closing with another straw man, are we? No reason to break the trend this late in the game, I guess.

And again, swap a few words in that first paragraph and you’re right back to Virginia of half a century ago.

The people on your side of the issue are wrong because of the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection, and the lack of any rational basis to deny otherwise-qualified same-sex couples from accessing the legal status of civil marriage. There is simply no good legally-justifiable reason not to adopt my position. I do not doubt the strength of anyone’s convictions or how deeply or sincerely their beliefs might be held but ultimately the law in this country is beholden to the letter of the Constitution. It’s not “because we say so”, it’s “because the Constitution says so.”

alchemist19 on March 3, 2014 at 4:15 AM

alchemist19 on March 2, 2014 at 7:10 PM

sentinelrules on March 2, 2014 at 7:20 PM

Responding in ten minutes when the thread is long gone from the main page? Wow. It appears that you took seriously my suggestion to not let the door hit you on the way out. Well done. Now if we can just get you to start following the rest of my advice and direction you might start moving up in the world a bit.

alchemist19 on March 3, 2014 at 4:17 AM

Responding in ten minutes when the thread is long gone from the main page? Wow. It appears that you took seriously my suggestion to not let the door hit you on the way out. Well done. Now if we can just get you to start following the rest of my advice and direction you might start moving up in the world a bit.

alchemist19 on March 3, 2014 at 4:17 AM

So, not only do you tell people on what is moral, which poster is worthy of reading, but now you’re telling people when they can post. Delusions of grandeur.

Luckily, we don’t live in your theocracy.

And why should I take career advice from a candy sriper like yourself? A professional candy striper?

You get more pathetic each passing day.
You get more pathetic each passing day.
You get more pathetic each passing day.

sentinelrules on March 3, 2014 at 9:48 AM

So, not only do you tell people on what is moral,

I stick to what’s Constitutional. Nothing more, nothing less.

which poster is worthy of reading,

You’re free to take the unserious people here seriously if you so choose.

but now you’re telling people when they can post.

You can post whenever you want, I was just observing how quickly you responded.

Delusions of grandeur.

Just being observant!

Luckily, we don’t live in your theocracy.

:sigh:

And why should I take career advice from a candy sriper like yourself? A professional candy striper?

Is this your career? That would explain the rapid response.

You get more pathetic each passing day.
You get more pathetic each passing day.
You get more pathetic each passing day.

sentinelrules on March 3, 2014 at 9:48 AM

Are you using the old strategy of trying to drag me down to your level so eventually it will be difficult to discern the different between us? I suppose in a way I should be grateful to There Goes The Neighborhood for putting out thoughtful posts which give me a chance to demonstrate my knowledge and reasoning skills in response; if I didn’t have him for a foil people might not get the chance to see me put those skills of mine on display.

alchemist19 on March 3, 2014 at 3:55 PM

I stick to what’s Constitutional. Nothing more, nothing less. You’re free to take the unserious people here seriously if you so choose. You can post whenever you want, I was just observing how quickly you responded. Just being observant! :sigh: Is this your career? That would explain the rapid response.

Are you using the old strategy of trying to drag me down to your level so eventually it will be difficult to discern the different between us? I suppose in a way I should be grateful to There Goes The Neighborhood for putting out thoughtful posts which give me a chance to demonstrate my knowledge and reasoning skills in response; if I didn’t have him for a foil people might not get the chance to see me put those skills of mine on display.

alchemist19 on March 3, 2014 at 3:55 PM

So, you determine what’s constitutional or not. What’s rationale or not. What’s your basis for doing this about from a sick self-inflated ego? Sadly, your opinions seem to come mostly from your rectum rather than your brain. Perhaps this is due to untreated mental illness that you are afflicted with.

Now, if you will, the welfare office would like to have their computer back from you.

Again, I and other posters here can’t be dragged down to the petri dish where your intellect resides. Your knowledge and reasoning seems to come from a person who has just completed his Hooked on phones course. Introductory, naturally.

Seeing you reason and debate people is like having a person in a coma play basketball. It’s just embarrassing of you.

Seeing you reason and debate people is like having a person in a coma play basketball. It’s just embarrassing of you.

Seeing you reason and debate people is like having a person in a coma play basketball. It’s just embarrassing of you.

sentinelrules on March 3, 2014 at 4:09 PM

sentinelrules on March 3, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Fifteen minute response time? You’re slipping!

So, you determine what’s constitutional or not. What’s rationale or not.

No, the judiciary does that.

Sadly, your opinions seem to come mostly from your rectum rather than your brain. Perhaps this is due to untreated mental illness that you are afflicted with.

Now, if you will, the welfare office would like to have their computer back from you.

Again, I and other posters here can’t be dragged down to the petri dish where your intellect resides. Your knowledge and reasoning seems to come from a person who has just completed his Hooked on phones course. Introductory, naturally.

Hmmm. It just occurred to me that I’ve never seen you and blinky in the same place at the same time. Could that mean that…. no, NO!, there’s no way!……

Seeing you reason and debate people is like having a person in a coma play basketball. It’s just embarrassing of you.

Seeing you reason and debate people is like having a person in a coma play basketball. It’s just embarrassing of you.

Seeing you reason and debate people is like having a person in a coma play basketball. It’s just embarrassing of you.

LOL!

alchemist19 on March 3, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Fifteen minute response time? You’re slipping! No, the judiciary does that. Hmmm. It just occurred to me that I’ve never seen you and blinky in the same place at the same time. Could that mean that…. no, NO!, there’s no way!… LOL!

Wait, you said that you determined what is rationale or not based on the long history of polygamy and not the judiciary. Another flip flop for you? LOL, you are pathetic.

And wait, I thought you said that you don’t read blinky’s posts, so how can you make that accusation?

Were you born a liar or did it come about naturally?
Were you born a liar or did it come about naturally?
Were you born a liar or did it come about naturally?

sentinelrules on March 3, 2014 at 5:22 PM

sentinelrules on March 3, 2014 at 5:22 PM

Eight minutes from the time I posted to when you saw it, read it, wrote your own response and submitted it! Well done! Do you just sit here all day reloading the page until you see something from me?

Wait, you said that you determined what is rationale or not based on the long history of polygamy and not the judiciary. Another flip flop for you? LOL, you are pathetic.

I was engaging in the same type of analysis the courts would do when confronted with a question. When it’s an issue that’s as cut-and-dried as polygamy it’s not a difficult exercise.

And wait, I thought you said that you don’t read blinky’s posts, so how can you make that accusation?

More an observation that you’re descending into the same type of posts that I remember blink throwing out, all ad hominem and completely void of intellectual substance. I don’t need to read anything blink posts now to remember that about her; it was all she ever did and she did it a lot.

Were you born a liar or did it come about naturally?
Were you born a liar or did it come about naturally?
Were you born a liar or did it come about naturally?

sentinelrules on March 3, 2014 at 5:22 PM

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

alchemist19 on March 3, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Eight minutes from the time I posted to when you saw it, read it, wrote your own response and submitted it! Well done! Do you just sit here all day reloading the page until you see something from me? I was engaging in the same type of analysis the courts would do when confronted with a question. When it’s an issue that’s as cut-and-dried as polygamy it’s not a difficult exercise.

More an observation that you’re descending into the same type of posts that I remember blink throwing out, all ad hominem and completely void of intellectual substance. I don’t need to read anything blink posts now to remember that about her; it was all she ever did and she did it a lot.

Still whining when I respond to your stupid posts? It’s easy to refute your stupid arguments, which is why I can respond so easily and quickly. Please think of more intelligent responses, but that’s impossible due to your tiny IQ. And now you’re interested in what I do all day? Are you a stalker as well? Wouldn’t surprise me. Please cite instances where judges use the long history of polygamy to ban them.

Again, how can you know blink and I are the same poster if you wrote that you ignore blinks posts? How do you know when blink posts and when I do? Another lie exposed on your part. But, like others, blink is far smarter than you and you’re a mental midget compared to her.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

alchemist19 on March 3, 2014 at 8:06 PM

LOL, crybaby. Have a hit a nerve?
LOL, crybaby. Have a hit a nerve?
LOL, crybaby. Have a hit a nerve?

sentinelrules on March 3, 2014 at 8:17 PM

Still whining when I respond to your stupid posts?

Not whining at all, just amused by it.

It’s easy to refute your stupid arguments, which is why I can respond so easily and quickly. Please think of more intelligent responses, but that’s impossible due to your tiny IQ.

Eleven minutes to notice and get a response out is somewhat noteworthy, I’ll give you that.

And now you’re interested in what I do all day?

I’m not interested in what you do all day; it was rhetorical, and besides I think it’s pretty clear what you do all day.

Are you a stalker as well? Wouldn’t surprise me.

Nah. I don’t spend all day on a basically dead thread constantly reloading so I can have a response out inside of 15 minutes. That would be crazy!

Please cite instances where judges use the long history of polygamy to ban them.

I didn’t say they have done it, I said that’s what they would do if forced to rule on the subject.

Again, how can you know blink and I are the same poster if you wrote that you ignore blinks posts? How do you know when blink posts and when I do? Another lie exposed on your part. But, like others, blink is far smarter than you and you’re a mental midget compared to her.

What does my skipping over blink’s posts have to do with you and her possibly being the same person. I’ve noticed your styles are similar (assuming blinky hasn’t changed her style since I stopped reading. Trolls if nothing else are very consistent so I’m guessing she’s still just like I remember her); you exhibit the same unwillingness to let things go that blink did and your posts are the same type of largely ad hominem fluff devoid of an actual argument, but that doesn’t prove the same troll is using multiple accounts. It’s certainly suggestive but far from conclusive.

LOL, crybaby. Have a hit a nerve?
LOL, crybaby. Have a hit a nerve?
LOL, crybaby. Have a hit a nerve?

sentinelrules on March 3, 2014 at 8:17 PM

Not at all. I just felt like a loaded question deserved a loaded question in response.

alchemist19 on March 3, 2014 at 10:29 PM

Not whining at all, just amused by it. Eleven minutes to notice and get a response out is somewhat noteworthy, I’ll give you that. I didn’t say they have done it, I said that’s what they would do if forced to rule on the subject.

What does my skipping over blink’s posts have to do with you and her possibly being the same person. I’ve noticed your styles are similar (assuming blinky hasn’t changed her style since I stopped reading. Trolls if nothing else are very consistent so I’m guessing she’s still just like I remember her); you exhibit the same unwillingness to let things go that blink did and your posts are the same type of largely ad hominem fluff devoid of an actual argument, but that doesn’t prove the same troll is using multiple accounts. It’s certainly suggestive but far from conclusive.

Of course you’re whining and it’s getting to you. Which is good, because it shows how much of a fool you are. I easily respond to your posts because they’re rather silly and pathetic. And once again, you proclaim you know how judges will rule because you say so. Your deluded narcissism is strong tonight.

Again, you say you ignore blinks posts, but then compare her time stamps with my posts. Which goes to show that you’re not ignoring them thus exposing you as a liar once again. As for not letting things go, you’re the one continually responding to my posts even thought you said you would no longer do so. Once again, you’re exposed as a liar.

Not at all. I just felt like a loaded question deserved a loaded question in response.

alchemist19 on March 3, 2014 at 10:29 PM

Translation: You’re being beaten badly and you’re whining.
Translation: You’re being beaten badly and you’re whining.
Translation: You’re being beaten badly and you’re whining.

sentinelrules on March 3, 2014 at 10:37 PM

And once again, you proclaim you know how judges will rule because you say so. Your deluded narcissism is strong tonight.

It’s not all that difficult to predict if you know the Constitution and can apply a bit of brain power. But I can see how you would find it complicated.

Again, you say you ignore blinks posts, but then compare her time stamps with my posts. Which goes to show that you’re not ignoring them thus exposing you as a liar once again.

I said something about never seeing you and blink in the same place at the same time, which is a reference to what they used to say about Superman and Clark Kent, or Bruce Wayne and Batman. It was a reference to the fact your styles are similar to the point that it could lead someone to suspect you could maybe possibly be the same troll with multiple accounts. Possibly.

As for not letting things go, you’re the one continually responding to my posts even thought you said you would no longer do so. Once again, you’re exposed as a liar.

I was trying to give you a chance to make the most graceful exit possible. You decided differently.

Of course you’re whining and it’s getting to you. Which is good, because it shows how much of a fool you are. I easily respond to your posts because they’re rather silly and pathetic.

I didn’t mean anything about how long it takes you to type out your response; it’s clear you don’t put much thought into your posts so it’s easy to imagine you can write it fairly quickly. What I was pointing out was all your responses to me today were posted within 15 minutes of my initial post, some in less than ten minutes. Even if you can think of and post a response in two minutes then that still means you’ve got to be reloading this page about every five minutes all day long to respond as quickly as you do. You spent all day constantly checking this page for me. Whether you’re completely serious or just another troll (or troll’s alter ego) I sucked up an entire day of your life today. I am living totally rent free in your head.

alchemist19 on March 4, 2014 at 2:24 AM

It’s not all that difficult to predict if you know the Constitution and can apply a bit of brain power. But I can see how you would find it complicated. I said something about never seeing you and blink in the same place at the same time, which is a reference to what they used to say about Superman and Clark Kent, or Bruce Wayne and Batman. It was a reference to the fact your styles are similar to the point that it could lead someone to suspect you could maybe possibly be the same troll with multiple accounts. Possibly. I was trying to give you a chance to make the most graceful exit possible. You decided differently.

I didn’t mean anything about how long it takes you to type out your response; it’s clear you don’t put much thought into your posts so it’s easy to imagine you can write it fairly quickly. What I was pointing out was all your responses to me today were posted within 15 minutes of my initial post, some in less than ten minutes. Even if you can think of and post a response in two minutes then that still means you’ve got to be reloading this page about every five minutes all day long to respond as quickly as you do. You spent all day constantly checking this page for me. Whether you’re completely serious or just another troll (or troll’s alter ego) I sucked up an entire day of your life today. I am living totally rent free in your head.

Based on your idiotic belief that you think blink and I are the same person, it’s doubtful that you can predict how any judiciary can rule. The chances that two posters would ever post at the same time stamp are very remote. For you to make such a silly accusation continues to show that your IQ is well below 100. How you are able to function mentally is a mystery to myself and others here as you continually make yourself an object of ridicule and pity. Though, I do enjoy the fact that you say you ignore northdallas and blinks posts, but continually to respond to mine. It goes to show how you’re being bettered and you’re inflated ego is unable to grasp that fact.

As for my quick responses to your posts, you must understand that I am better than you. You can understand that I spend time on Hot Air and that mouse is used to reload pages. It takes less than a second. So, when I see another pathetic reply from you, it doesn’t take long to dissect such stupidity on your part. I spend most of my time currently on Hot Air on other threads; the thought that you must suck most of day here is another massive delusion on your part. I must give you nightmares or you must lose sleep over my posts as you continue to respond to them. It’s very easy to manipulate you because you have a feeble mind. Not very intellectual of you, but we all knew that to start.

That took four minutes to write, while your posts take hours.

Do you get that now? Good boy, have a cookie
Do you get that now? Good boy, have a cookie.
Do you get that now? Good boy, have a cookie.

sentinelrules on March 4, 2014 at 9:02 AM

Based on your idiotic belief that you think blink and I are the same person, it’s doubtful that you can predict how any judiciary can rule. The chances that two posters would ever post at the same time stamp are very remote. For you to make such a silly accusation continues to show that your IQ is well below 100. How you are able to function mentally is a mystery to myself and others here as you continually make yourself an object of ridicule and pity. Though, I do enjoy the fact that you say you ignore northdallas and blinks posts, but continually to respond to mine. It goes to show how you’re being bettered and you’re inflated ego is unable to grasp that fact.

As is your wont, you’ve failed at reading comprehension yet again. My comment wasn’t about timestamps, it was about your and blink’s near-identical styles (which is a compliment for neither of you).

As for my quick responses to your posts, you must understand that I am better than you. You can understand that I spend time on Hot Air and that mouse is used to reload pages. It takes less than a second. So, when I see another pathetic reply from you, it doesn’t take long to dissect such stupidity on your part. I spend most of my time currently on Hot Air on other threads; the thought that you must suck most of day here is another massive delusion on your part. I must give you nightmares or you must lose sleep over my posts as you continue to respond to them. It’s very easy to manipulate you because you have a feeble mind. Not very intellectual of you, but we all knew that to start.

That took four minutes to write, while your posts take hours.

It’s not that you can respond quickly after you’ve seen me post, it’s how often you must be checking the page to see the posts in the first place. I think the longest gap between me posting and you responding was under 15 minutes. You spent the entire day on Hot Air just waiting for me. There are more great books out there than a person can read in a lifetime and instead of doing that you…. wait, sorry, forgot about you and reading comprehension there for a moment. Let’s try this again. The new season of House of Cards just came out on Netflix a couple weeks ago and rather than binge on that you spent the entire day on Hot Air checking to see if I’d posted anything so you could respond. Whether you’re serious, a troll or a troll’s alter ego, that’s pretty pathetic. There’s nothing I can say that could possibly make you look any worse than you made yourself look.

Do you get that now? Good boy, have a cookie
Do you get that now? Good boy, have a cookie.
Do you get that now? Good boy, have a cookie.

sentinelrules on March 4, 2014 at 9:02 AM

It looks like There Goes The Neighborhood might be done so now the only really interesting thing left is to see if I’ve shamed you to the point you’ll wait a little longer before posting your reply so as to not further confirm your lack of a life and borderline obsession, or if you won’t be able to resist the temptation for another quick response.

alchemist19 on March 4, 2014 at 3:07 PM

As is your wont, you’ve failed at reading comprehension yet again. My comment wasn’t about timestamps, it was about your and blink’s near-identical styles (which is a compliment for neither of you).

It’s not that you can respond quickly after you’ve seen me post, it’s how often you must be checking the page to see the posts in the first place. I think the longest gap between me posting and you responding was under 15 minutes. You spent the entire day on Hot Air just waiting for me. There are more great books out there than a person can read in a lifetime and instead of doing that you…. wait, sorry, forgot about you and reading comprehension there for a moment. Let’s try this again. The new season of House of Cards just came out on Netflix a couple weeks ago and rather than binge on that you spent the entire day on Hot Air checking to see if I’d posted anything so you could respond. Whether you’re serious, a troll or a troll’s alter ego, that’s pretty pathetic. There’s nothing I can say that could possibly make you look any worse than you made yourself look.

It looks like There Goes The Neighborhood might be done so now the only really interesting thing left is to see if I’ve shamed you to the point you’ll wait a little longer before posting your reply so as to not further confirm your lack of a life and borderline obsession, or if you won’t be able to resist the temptation for another quick response.

As usual, you ignore your own posts and then feign ignorance when you make another mistake. You clearly mentioned the same time between blink and I even though it’s beyond ludicrous for that to even occur.

How could the longest gap between you posting and me responding be 15 minutes when I responded 6+ hours after your last moronic post? It looks like your reading comprehension is getting worse by the day. You are barely literate possibly due your mother smoking crack when you were in her polluted uterus. As for you binging on Netflix, yes, we know, you have no life and just sit behind the computer or watch TV because of your disturbing personality. You are a farce, a pathetic farce.

And, yes, Neighborhood is done with you after beating you once again at another debate. You’re so bad at it. So, your pathetic nature will either allow for you post another moronic post to my superior ones as your ego has been beaten or you will feebly attempt at another chance to look intelligent, which I predict will happen. You are so easy to manipulate.

My response took 6 minutes to write while yours took hours.
My response took 6 minutes to write while yours took hours.
My response took 6 minutes to write while yours took hours.

sentinelrules on March 4, 2014 at 3:32 PM

alchemist19 on March 4, 2014 at 3:07 PM

sentinelrules on March 4, 2014 at 3:32 PM

25 minutes. HA!

alchemist19 on March 4, 2014 at 5:50 PM

25 minutes. HA!

alchemist19 on March 4, 2014 at 5:50 PM

You can count.
Those 6 years in first grade finally paid off for you.

sentinelrules on March 4, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7