The repeal of gay marriage: A case not made

Judged:

6

6

5

WeTheSheeple wrote:

There is now open speculation even among Republicans that the votes to repeal the marriage equality bill in NH are not there, much less enough votes to override a promised veto.
My understanding is that unless the sponsor of the bill withdraws it, it HAS to be voted on. That could be VERY embarassing to the anti-gays if they can't even win a simple majority vote when they control 75% of the seats in BOTH houses.

Judged:

6

5

5

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
WeTheSheeple.
I agree. Like most other decent people of good-will, I love my Homosexual friends, the lesbians, and the "Blacks" too. The question we should be asking is not whether Homosexual "marriage" laws should be repealed. Rather, we should be asking why the expensive taxpayer funded Homosexual/"Black" controlled Los Angeles school district failed to notify non-Homosexual parents that high paid district teachers were suffering the vilest kind of sexual abuse on their innocent little children.
Ronald

Judged:

3

3

3

Testy Testicular wrote:

New Hampshire is closer to MAINE than it is to California.

Judged:

5

4

4

Gay Pride wrote:

.
LET MY PEOPLE VOTE! STOP THE ABOMINATIONS CREEPING INTO OUR SOCIETY!

Judged:

4

4

3

Gay Pride wrote:

Except in California, all the states that now allow gay marriage has been the result of corrupt politicians and justices....

Judged:

4

4

4

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
Ronald.
We agree, you are one disordered fckhead. You couldn't write a coherent paragraph if Jesus himself came down again to Personally tutor you.
As for whatever defaming point you were trying to make: You're a sexually sick bigot and moron.
Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate

Judged:

2

2

2

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate.
Just because I believe my Homosexual friends, and the lesbians are no better than "Blacks" I am "a sexually sick bigot and moron"? Isn't that a rather racist Homophobic position on your part?
Well, be that as it may, your characterization fails to address the issue. The issue is - now that our high paid taxpayer funded Homosexual friends, the lesbians, and the "Blacks" are in control of the expensive Los Angeles school district - why aren't they notifying non-Homosexual parents when their high paid taxpayer funded Government agent teacher subordinates commit the vilest kind of depraved sexual abuse on innocent little children who are incarcerated in forced Government schools.
This question is ment to involve more than the notification of parents of innocent little "Hispanic" children. Don't you agree that the high paid multiculturally diverse taxpayer funded administrators should be fired, now that they hold the reigns of power?
I would appreciate your not resorting to falling-down carpet munching hysterics when you answer, because innocent little children may be reading these posts. Thanks.
Ronald

Judged:

2

2

2

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
Ronald.
I agree. We should get some innocent little children, or even a higher primate of some sort, to help you write your replies. Then they might look less like brain injury poetry.
Moron, the issue here is marriage equality. It is not your addled complaint about high taxes and the fact that most child sex abuse takes place within the extended nuclear family, the RCC notwithstanding.
Now take your medicine.
Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate

Judged:

2

2

2

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate.
So why don't we stop beating around the bush and just cut to the quick?
Ronald

Judged:

2

2

2

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
Ronald.
Yes, I agree that your brain injury poetry is not iambic. Please stop implying I said otherwise. I agree you are a homophobic bigot with an obsession for LA taxes and childcare and schools, but the issue here is the case for preventing marriage equality not being made.
Perhaps if your posts represent your taking your medicine you should stop taking your medicine. Let your doctor know, though.
Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate

Judged:

2

2

2

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate.
So, in other words, you believe it is "the Government" - rather than the overburdened "tapped out" taxpayer - who is paying the wages and the unbelievably expensive "fringe benefits" of high paid Los Angeles school district Government teacher agents who suffer unspeakable sexual abuse on innocent little non-Homosexual "students"?
How about our wealthy taxpayer funded Homosexual and lesbian friends who run the Los Angeles school district along with the "Blacks", and who provide cover for their child abuser underlings? Is it "the Government" that is paying the cost of high paid administrators' wages and their grossly expensive fringe benefits too?
Ronald

Judged:

2

2

2

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
Ronald.
Yes, I agree sending you even to a tax payer supported, LA, elementary school would improve the quality of your comic ravings here. Since this is a thread about marriage equality...which you seem unable to grasp while spewing your unhinged, attempted racist and homophobic defamations.
Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate

Judged:

2

2

2

DNF wrote:

As soon as I began to read the decision I immediately thought of the situation in NH and had to wonder just what the experts on TV were drinking that compelled them to say this won't have any impact outside CA.

Judged:

3

2

2

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate.
Fair enough. So let me try to brush away all the evasive political correctness and try to determine what you really mean. Are you saying that, as Homosexual "marriage" becomes more and more "accepted", even more of our Homosexual friends, the lesbians and the " Blacks" will fill expensive taxpayer funded Los Angeles school district administrative positions? And that, as a result, "the old morality" - the so-called "H8ate" - will be swept aside? And, because of that, the sexual abuse - of the vilest kind imaginable - of innocent little non-Homosexual children by high paid taxpayer funded district Government agent "teachers" will be the rule, rather than the exception? You never gave an answer as to why you h8ate little non-Homosexual children. Wanna' take a stab at it now?
Ronald

Judged:

2

2

2

Edio wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep. You are correct, sir. The NH situation was the first thing I thought about after the Prop 8 decision; then, the other states where marriage equality exists: Iowa in particular.(I think MA, VT, NY, CT are fairly safe.)