I figured. Not to the Supreme Court. Lack of proof noted. Claim... fails. So because they're not part of marital law married people don't have to follow them? And where is that a requirement to be married? Sorry, opinions don't count. I want you to cite the law that says that all children must have a mother and a father. Careful not to jerk that knee too hard. Just like they overturned the expressed will of the people when they legalized interracial marriage. So you're admitting that I'm right? Which laws are those? But if it is overturned, then same-love couples can pebreastion the court for the right of same-love marriage. Thank you for agreeing with me. That's right. Courts sometimes have to step in so that the rights of a minority don't get trampled by a vote by the majority. Lack of substantiation noted. Claim... fails. Exactly. Allowing same-love marriage is within the realms of the Consbreastution. Ditto. Clbuttic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Blind people are physically unable to drive cars safely. Homoloveual couples are able to enter into a marriage contract without threatening the safety of other people. Just fine. Why? Are you now saying that the judges are never wrong? -- Funny Lurlean quote #15: "Do you know that some vampire lesbians train monster mosquito's to go out and do their blood letting for them - just so's you gullible types won't catch on to what's really a going on." -- Lurlean explains the rampant spread of West Nile virus in the lesbian community.
|
