N.D. legislator who voted against gay rights bill caught sending pics on Grindr

[PattyHill]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/29/n-d-legislator-caught-sending-grindr-pics-after-voting-against-gay-rights-bill/


Dustin Smith is an “out and proud gay man” living in North Dakota, one of America’s more conservative states. So the 21-year-old wasn’t exactly surprised when he read that state legislators had refused to outlaw discrimination against gays. “These are the members of the House who voted against legal protections,” read the headline of an April 2 article (http://www.inforum.com/news/legislature/3713656-nd-house-kills-bill-outlawing-discrimination-based-sexual-orientation)alongside photos of the politicians.
What surprised Smith was that he knew one of them — somewhat intimately, it turns out.

Smith started going through his conversations on Grindr — “an all-male location-based social network (http://grindr.com/learn-more)“— searching for the round, bespectacled face and bushy eyebrows. And there he was: Top Man!, a.k.a. Randy Boehning, the Republican state representative from Fargo.
Scrolling through the conversation, however, Smith found more than sexually suggestive messages. He found an unsolicited picture of the public servant’s not-so-public parts.Smith started going through his conversations on Grindr — “an all-male location-based social network (http://grindr.com/learn-more)“— searching for the round, bespectacled face and bushy eyebrows. And there he was: Top Man!, a.k.a. Randy Boehning, the Republican state representative from Fargo.
Scrolling through the conversation, however, Smith found more than sexually suggestive messages. He found an unsolicited picture of the public servant’s not-so-public parts.


So another rep who is secretly gay but votes against gay rights bills. I don't approve of outing except in cases like this.

Boehning says

“That’s what gay guys do on gay sites, don’t they?” he told the Forum (http://www.inforum.com/news/3732441-fargo-lawmaker-sent-explicit-photo-claims-disclosure-was-payback-vote-gay-rights-bill). “That’s how things happen on Grindr. It’s a gay chat site. It’s not the first thing you do on that site. That’s what we do, exchange pics on the site.”

And he has a point. Maybe if it's his private penis he can expose it whereever he wants. But remember when Weiner was hounded out of office for penis pictures? Why should this conservative be judged differently?

This is actually good for Boehning's mental state though -

In fact, the politician said he was relieved not to keep secrets anymore, even though those secrets protected him from his own constituents.
“The 1,000-pound gorilla has been lifted,” Boehning said (http://www.inforum.com/news/3732441-fargo-lawmaker-sent-explicit-photo-claims-disclosure-was-payback-vote-gay-rights-bill). “I have to confront it at some point.”

At least now his constituents know the truth.

[Mac-7]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/29/n-d-legislator-caught-sending-grindr-pics-after-voting-against-gay-rights-bill/



So another rep who is secretly gay but votes against gay rights bills. I don't approve of outing except in cases like this.

Boehning says


And he has a point. Maybe if it's his private penis he can expose it whereever he wants. But remember when Weiner was hounded out of office for penis pictures? Why should this conservative be judged differently?

This is actually good for Boehning's mental state though -


At least now his constituents know the truth.

So when a bill comes up to re authorize traffic laws it must fail because all the legislators have received speeding tickets?

Hum.

[PattyHill]

So when a bill comes up to re authorize traffic laws it must fail because all the legislators have received speeding tickets?

Hum.

Sure. Or they should stop speeding.

[PattyHill]

Sure. Or they should stop speeding.


(but in their case, because federal money is tied to speeding laws, they probably won't overturn the laws. They do like the money. )

[Mac-7]

Sure. Or they should stop speeding.

But if they don't stop speeding then throw out the traffic laws?

[del]

randy boening

you can't make this shit up

srsly

[PattyHill]

But if they don't stop speeding then throw out the traffic laws?


Would be a lot less hypocritical. Now, try to stay on topic for a change, why don't you? Stop the straw men.

[Mac-7]

Would be a lot less hypocritical. Now, try to stay on topic for a change, why don't you? Stop the straw men.

What hypocrisy?

Does every legislator who votes for gay marriage have to be a homosexual?

I think not.

[PattyHill]

What hypocrisy?

Does every legislator who votes for gay marriage have to be a homosexual?

I think not.

HINT: a straight person voting for SSM isn't hypocritical

A gay/lesbian person voting against equal rights is.

but go ahead, keep on fulminating.

[del]

randy
















boening


it's gotta be a stage name

[Mac-7]

HINT: a straight person voting for SSM isn't hypocritical

A gay/lesbian person voting against equal rights is.

but go ahead, keep on fulminating.

You call it equal rights and I call it a perverted lifestyle.

this guy can be totally confused about sex but still know the difference between right and wrong.

[Safety]

So when a bill comes up to re authorize traffic laws it must fail because all the legislators have received speeding tickets?

Hum.

That was so simple, even a caveman can do it.

- Geico.

[PolWatch]

I wonder how long it will be until his anti-gay speeches are being circulated...the ones where he talked about the perverted lifestyle?

[Ravens Fan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/29/n-d-legislator-caught-sending-grindr-pics-after-voting-against-gay-rights-bill/



So another rep who is secretly gay but votes against gay rights bills. I don't approve of outing except in cases like this.

Boehning says

What exactly does his sexual orientation have to do with his job? Because he may be Gay or Bi, he must follow a script?


And he has a point. Maybe if it's his private penis he can expose it whereever he wants. But remember when Weiner was hounded out of office for penis pictures? Why should this conservative be judged differently?

Comparing the sharing of pictures on Grindr to the way Anthony Weiner sent out unsolicited texts is quite a stretch...

[GrassrootsConservative]

HINT: a straight person voting for SSM isn't hypocritical

A gay/lesbian person voting against equal rights is.

but go ahead, keep on fulminating.

Gay marriage isn't equal rights. Any man or woman has the same right to marry any person of opposite gender as they choose here in America.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Tired of the same old debunked myths please get something new Libs.

[PattyHill]

Gay marriage isn't equal rights. Any man or woman has the same right to marry any person of opposite gender as they choose here in America.


Tired of the same old debunked myths please get something new Libs.


How about you getting something new? "gays/lesbians can marry someone of the opposite gender"? really? wow.

[GrassrootsConservative]

How about you getting something new? "gays/lesbians can marry someone of the opposite gender"? really? wow.

Yep. It's true. They are just as equal as everyone else. That's why instead of debating it you can only "wow" at my supreme intellect.

[metheron]

Gay marriage isn't equal rights. Any man or woman has the same right to marry any person of opposite gender as they choose here in America.

Where does the Constitution define marriage?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Where does the Constitution define marriage?

What?

[metheron]

What?

You said they have the 'right' to marry anyone they choose of the opposite sex. I asked where that is in the Constitution.
I mean we don't base laws off of Webster's dictionary.

[Tahuyaman]

So when a bill comes up to re authorize traffic laws it must fail because all the legislators have received speeding tickets?

Hum.


Sure. Or they should stop speeding.

So then I guess you believe the homosexual should simply decide to not be homosexual any more?

[Tahuyaman]

HINT: a straight person voting for SSM isn't hypocritical

A gay/lesbian person voting against equal rights is.

but go ahead, keep on fulminating.


Are you related to the guy here who calls himself maineman?

[Tahuyaman]

How about you getting something new? "gays/lesbians can marry someone of the opposite gender"? really? wow.

They could if they chose to. Why not?

[GrassrootsConservative]

You said they have the 'right' to marry anyone they choose of the opposite sex. I asked where that is in the Constitution.
I mean we don't base laws off of Webster's dictionary.

Ok, but we don't base rights off "laws." Marriage and the constitution are two ideas so skewed from each other I don't know why you would try and reference one with the other.

Rights are inherent.

[metheron]

Ok, but we don't base rights off "laws." Marriage and the constitution are two ideas so skewed from each other I don't know why you would try and reference one with the other.

Rights are inherent.

Ok, so then we agree that marriage isn't a 'right' at all.

So then where do we go from there? Shouldn't we use the Constitution to guide us on a marriage law?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Ok, so then we agree that marriage isn't a 'right' at all.


... Please... please tell me your reading comprehension isn't really that bad. Am I being trolled?

/Edit: Why do you think they're referring to this as a "gay rights bill?"

[metheron]

... Please... please tell me your reading comprehension isn't really that bad. Am I being trolled?

/Edit: Why do you think they're referring to this as a "gay rights bill?"

You do know what inherent means don't you?

Full Definition of INHERENT : involved in the constitution or essential (http://thepoliticalforums.com/essential[1]) character of something : belonging by nature or habit : intrinsic (http://thepoliticalforums.com/intrinsic) <risks inherent in the venture>

You said rights were inherent. The right of one to marry is not inherent, so I am just going with you here. Don't try to change it now because it didn't fit your argument.

It is gay rights because gays want equality. It is not a marriage rights bill is it? The ability for gays to marry is all part of a broader picture, thats why its under gay rights bill.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Yeah, if you had read the first six words instead of just the first four words you might have a clue.


I already explained gays are equal. They have the same right to marry everybody else does. You have yet to debate that.

I'm not going to go in circles with you people any longer. You just don't get it and you refuse to get it.

[metheron]

Yeah, if you had read the first six words instead of just the first four words you might have a clue.


I already explained gays are equal. They have the same right to marry everybody else does. You have yet to debate that.

I'm not going to go in circles with you people any longer. You just don't get it and you refuse to get it.

Yep, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want. But what 'legal' basis prevents them from marrying anyone of the same sex they want? Other than a flimsy definition. I mean your definition suits you just fine, but obviously not them.

Why not change it? I have yet to have anyone come up with a legal basis for allowing gays to marry.

You people just seem like your scared of catching gay. Its not contagious.

But I appreciate that you don't want to go in circles. You people have been driving me crazy too. So instead of being all circular, just tell me directly what the legal basis, derived from the Constitution, for not allowing same sex marriages?

[Peter1469]

You said they have the 'right' to marry anyone they choose of the opposite sex. I asked where that is in the Constitution.
I mean we don't base laws off of Webster's dictionary.

10th Amendment. Marriage is not part of the enumerated powers so the states retain authority over it.

[metheron]

10th Amendment. Marriage is not part of the enumerated powers so the states retain authority over it.

I think that is the most solid argument, although as I have said many times, even states can't legally discriminate. So states would need a legal basis to not allow same sex marriage. The Constitution does allow for equality for everyone.

So I ask you, what is a legal basis for not allowing same sex marriage?

[Peter1469]

I think that is the most solid argument, although as I have said many times, even states can't legally discriminate. So states would need a legal basis to not allow same sex marriage. The Constitution does allow for equality for everyone.

So I ask you, what is a legal basis for not allowing same sex marriage?My argument would be that everyone is treated equally.

Two adults not closely related of the opposite sex can get married. That is equality under the law.

If we change the definition of marriage we are opening it up to anything. Justice Alito asked the question during oral arguments. Based on the arguments to change the definition what could stop 4 attorneys from getting married?

Additionally, Justice Souter brought up States rights and said the Supreme Court is not the body to tell the States that the word marriage has suddenly changed its ancient meaning.

[metheron]

My argument would be that everyone is treated equally.

Two adults not closely related of the opposite sex can get married. That is equality under the law.

If we change the definition of marriage we are opening it up to anything. Justice Alito asked the question during oral arguments. Based on the arguments to change the definition what could stop 4 attorneys from getting married?

Additionally, Justice Souter brought up States rights and said the Supreme Court is not the body to tell the States that the word marriage has suddenly changed its ancient meaning.

If we were making arguments for allowing anyone to marry, even opposite sex marriages it could/should obviously have been asked what if same sex people wanted to marry.
And while You can persuade me to agree with Alito that maybe they shouldn't be the ones telling the states how to define marriage, they are certainly he body that should ensure that states that are willing to allow it can and that the states that don't still have to accept them as a legal couple within the state. So, in essence, gay couples would just hop to another state to get married and then go home. That would fall under equal protections.
And while I wouldn't necessarily agree if that were the ruling I think it would satisfy most legal reasoning.

[Peter1469]

If we were making arguments for allowing anyone to marry, even opposite sex marriages it could/should obviously have been asked what if same sex people wanted to marry.
And while You can persuade me to agree with Alito that maybe they shouldn't be the ones telling the states how to define marriage, they are certainly he body that should ensure that states that are willing to allow it can and that the states that don't still have to accept them as a legal couple within the state. So, in essence, gay couples would just hop to another state to get married and then go home. That would fall under equal protections.
And while I wouldn't necessarily agree if that were the ruling I think it would satisfy most legal reasoning.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause always had exceptions. I don't see SCOTUS forcing marriage from one state to be binding in another where the marriage does not meet the local definition of the word.

[metheron]

The Full Faith and Credit Clause always had exceptions. I don't see SCOTUS forcing marriage from one state to be binding in another where the marriage does not meet the local definition of the word.

I disagree.
We'll soon find out.

[Peter1469]

I disagree.
We'll soon find out.

My last post only applies if SCOTUS leaves gay marriage to the States.

[domer76]

So when a bill comes up to re authorize traffic laws it must fail because all the legislators have received speeding tickets?

Hum.

Another stupid post. And you criticize Canadians for their supposed lack of content? What a joke!

[domer76]

Gay marriage isn't equal rights. Any man or woman has the same right to marry any person of opposite gender as they choose here in America.

Another idiotic post that has been re-vomited time and again. Let that stupidity die along with the need for procreation as a component for marriage.

[domer76]

Ok, but we don't base rights off "laws." Marriage and the constitution are two ideas so skewed from each other I don't know why you would try and reference one with the other.

Rights are inherent.

Rights are bestowed by the government. You didn't receive your right to carry your popgun from God.

[domer76]

10th Amendment. Marriage is not part of the enumerated powers so the states retain authority over it.
The 10th Amendment is meaningless. The 14th will prevail on this one

[Peter1469]

The 10th Amendment is meaningless. The 14th will prevail on this one

I understand that a lot of Americans feel that the 10th Amendment is meaningless. Thinkers understand that it is as meaningful as any other part of the Constitution.

Under your world view the Constitution is dead. A meaningless piece of paper.

[domer76]

10th Amendment. Marriage is not part of the enumerated powers so the states retain authority over it.
They'll merely have to recognize all marriages legally recognized in other states, won't they?

[Peter1469]

They'll merely have to recognize all marriages legally recognized in other states, won't they?
No. I explained that in another thread.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause has always had exceptions for deeply held local standards. Example. My VA carry conceal permit doesn't work in DC.

[domer76]

I understand that a lot of Americans feel that the 10th Amendment is meaningless. Thinkers understand that it is as meaningful as any other part of the Constitution.

Under your world view the Constitution is dead. A meaningless piece of paper.

No, it's your narrow interpretation that is dead. Madison himself thought the 10th a superfluous addition

[domer76]

No. I explained that in another thread.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause has always had exceptions for deeply held local standards. Example. My VA carry conceal permit doesn't work in DC.

Pretty poor comparison. But, it does raise a point. How "local" is local?

[Peter1469]

No, it's your narrow interpretation that is dead. Madison himself thought the 10th a superfluous addition

Many Founders thought the entire BoR was superfluous. The States only gave limited and enumerated powers to the federal government. See Art. 1, Sec. 8, U.S. Constitution. There was no real need for the BoR.

[Captain Obvious]

People get all bedshitty when legislators don't legislate their way but to be honest, if this guy is gay but represents a conservative voting base and he was simply voting for what his supporters put him in office for then good for him.

[PattyHill]

They could if they chose to. Why not?

Oh, because they don't love them. Don't want to have sex with them. There are marriages that are fine on that basis, but saying that a gay person should be happy because they can marry a woman instead of the man they love is pretty crappy. That's not equality.

[PattyHill]

Another idiotic post that has been re-vomited time and again. Let that stupidity die along with the need for procreation as a component for marriage.

well said!

[Tahuyaman]

Oh, because they don't love them. Don't want to have sex with them. There are marriages that are fine on that basis, but saying that a gay person should be happy because they can marry a woman instead of the man they love is pretty crappy. That's not equality.

It's absolutely equal. Every man, straight or homosexual is free to marry the woman of his choice whether he loves her or not. The same thing applies to women. It's absolute equality.

[domer76]

It's absolutely equal. Every man, straight or homosexual is free to marry the woman of his choice whether he loves her or not. The same thing applies to women. It's absolute equality.

Yep, Patty. The vomitus keeps returning.

[Common Sense]

It's absolutely equal. Every man, straight or homosexual is free to marry the woman of his choice whether he loves her or not. The same thing applies to women. It's absolute equality.

Really? Then I'll marry Scarlett Johansson please.

[Tahuyaman]

Yep, Patty. The vomitus keeps returning.


You think equality is "vomitus"?

[Tahuyaman]

Really? Then I'll marry Scarlett Johansson please.

I'll provide the caveat that it needs to be consensual.

[Common Sense]

I'll provide the caveat that it needs to be consensual.

Well shit...

[domer76]

You think equality is "vomitus"?
No, it's your idiotic "logic".

[Tahuyaman]

No, it's your idiotic "logic".


My my logic says equality is a good thing.

[The Sage of Main Street]

HINT: a straight person voting for SSM isn't hypocritical

A gay/lesbian person voting against equal rights is.

but go ahead, keep on fulminating. What do you expect from the party of pro-war draftdodgers?

[domer76]

My my logic says equality is a good thing.
We can agree on that. It's just that you have a twisted and exclusionary concept of the concept.

[Tahuyaman]

We can agree on that. It's just that you have a twisted and exclusionary concept of the concept.

My "concept of the concept" is that when all are treated equally, we have equality. I don't know why you are so confused by that?

[PolWatch]

Equality is a good thing....but I think the theory of separate but equal proved that some of us are more equal than others....

[The Sage of Main Street]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/29/n-d-legislator-caught-sending-grindr-pics-after-voting-against-gay-rights-bill/



So another rep who is secretly gay but votes against gay rights bills. I don't approve of outing except in cases like this.

Boehning says


And he has a point. Maybe if it's his private penis he can expose it whereever he wants. But remember when Weiner was hounded out of office for penis pictures? Why should this conservative be judged differently?

This is actually good for Boehning's mental state though -


At least now his constituents know the truth. You can spin it the way you roll, but this is just more proof of the low and selfish character of Gayists that this sneaky rat would betray his own kind just to get political power.

[PattyHill]

Yep, Patty. The vomitus keeps returning.


Yeah. No idea why they think that is a valid argument.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Another idiotic post that has been re-vomited time and again. Let that stupidity die along with the need for procreation as a component for marriage.

But you can't debate it.

Save your keystrokes for someone who can.

[domer76]

My "concept of the concept" is that when all are treated equally, we have equality. I don't know why you are so confused by that?
The confusion lies with you. Soon, the SCOTUS will straighten all that out for you. I imagine you'll still be confused, however.

[domer76]

But you can't debate it.

Save your keystrokes for someone who can.

In one way, you're right. One can't debate stupidity. Both those "arguments", procreation and marrying anyone you wish (as long as it's the opposite gender), are both of those in spades.

[Tahuyaman]

The confusion lies with you. Soon, the SCOTUS will straighten all that out for you. I imagine you'll still be confused, however.


Maybe their decision will leave you flummoxed?

[Tahuyaman]

Another idiotic post that has been re-vomited time and again. Let that stupidity die along with the need for procreation as a component for marriage.


The he only people I see bringing up this procreation thing as a prerequisite for marriage is the left wing loons trying to misrepresent the position of others.

[PattyHill]

The he only people I see bringing up this procreation thing as a prerequisite for marriage is the left wing loons trying to misrepresent the position of others.


Or um Bob

[Tahuyaman]

Or um Bob

Battery Operated Buddy?

[del]

Battery Operated Buddy?

no, bob

he's a poster here who makes you look, well, not intelligent exactly, but certainly less incredibly fucking stupid.

you should send him a gift card

[PolWatch]

One of Bob's main arguments against gay marriage is that marriage is for the purpose of procreation. I don't think he will appreciate being called a liberal....

[Tahuyaman]

no, bob

he's a poster here who makes you look, well, not intelligent exactly, but certainly less incredibly $#@!ing stupid.

you should send him a gift card

No one can look as incredibly ignorant as you, but maineman and safety are getting there.

[Tahuyaman]

One of Bob's main arguments against gay marriage is that marriage is for the purpose of procreation. I don't think he will appreciate being called a liberal....

Procreation is not a requirement for marriage, but the creation of stable families is one of the building blocks of civilization.

The requirement for marriage is one man and one woman. Not two men, or two women.

[PolWatch]

Procreation is not a requirement for marriage, but the creation of stable families is one of the building blocks of civilization.

The requirement for marriage is one man and one woman. Not two men, or two women.

Tell the person who thinks procreation is the reason....I was just pointing out that it was not liberals saying that initially....it was a conservative.

[Tahuyaman]

Tell the person who thinks procreation is the reason....I was just pointing out that it was not liberals saying that initially....it was a conservative.


I'll let let him tell me himself. Liberals don't always represent the views of others accurately.

[del]

No one can look as incredibly ignorant as you, but maineman and safety are getting there.

surprisingly, that doesn't have much sting coming from you, rainman

[PattyHill]

I'll let let him tell me himself. Liberals don't always represent the views of others accurately.

you can read all about it in this thread if you haven't already

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/43687-From-Scotusblog-today

[TrueBlue]

It's absolutely equal. Every man, straight or homosexual is free to marry the woman of his choice whether he loves her or not. The same thing applies to women. It's absolute equality.
That is not equality that would be arbitrary and capricious forcefulness against an individual's better judgment as to whom they feel they want to marry. After all, it is their own decision that matters not whom you feel they should marry anymore than you would want Gays to dictate to you to marry a member of your own sex.

[Tahuyaman]

That is not equality that would be arbitrary and capricious forcefulness against an individual's better judgment as to whom they feel they want to marry. After all, it is their own decision that matters not whom you feel they should marry anymore than you would want Gays to dictate to you to marry a member of your own sex.


What in the fuck are you talking about?

[Tahuyaman]

surprisingly, that doesn't have much sting coming from you, rainman

aren't you quick on the draw tonight?

[TrueBlue]

What in the $#@! are you talking about?
Are you incapable of understanding your own postings? You said the following followed by my reply to your posting. My reply is on this thread which is #80.


Originally Posted by Tahuyaman http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1070733#post1070733) It's absolutely equal. Every man, straight or homosexual is free to marry the woman of his choice whether he loves her or not. The same thing applies to women. It's absolute equality.


I was replying in disagreement to that. Got it now?

[Tahuyaman]

Are you incapable of understanding your own postings? You said the following followed by my reply to your posting. My reply is on this thread which is #80.



I was replying in disagreement to that. Got it now?

i guess I'm not capable of making sense of overly worded drivel.

[TrueBlue]

i guess I'm not capable of making sense of overly worded drivel.
More like incapable of making sense at all.

[Tahuyaman]

More like incapable of making sense at all.

make sense and it will make sense.

[TrueBlue]

make sense and it will make sense.
Wow, I should have been a lawyer, huh. One last time with the hope that you will "catch it" this time.

You said: "It's absolutely equal. Every man, straight or homosexual is free to marry the woman of his choice whether he loves her or not. The same thing applies to women. It's absolute equality."

I am in disagreement with that not because they can't marry someone of the opposite sex but because quite obviously that is not whom they want to marry or they would be doing it. How much plainer can that get?

[Peter1469]

Wow, I should have been a lawyer, huh. One last time with the hope that you will "catch it" this time.

You said: "It's absolutely equal. Every man, straight or homosexual is free to marry the woman of his choice whether he loves her or not. The same thing applies to women. It's absolute equality."

I am in disagreement with that not because they can't marry someone of the opposite sex but because quite obviously that is not whom they want to marry or they would be doing it. How much plainer can that get?

What does who you want to marry have to do with the historical definition of marriage? It has always been 1 man to one women and for the vast majority of instances love had nothing to do with it.

And study what the word federalism is. This is a local issue. Not a federal issue.

[Tahuyaman]

You said: "It's absolutelay equal. Every man, straight or homosexual is free to marry the woman of his choice whether he loves her or not. The same thing applies to women. It's absolute equality."



thats a fact, isn't it?

[domer76]

The he only people I see bringing up this procreation thing as a prerequisite for marriage is the left wing loons trying to misrepresent the position of others.
Then you're not paying attention

[Tahuyaman]

I pay attention. I just don't create things out of thin air to fit my agenda.

[domer76]

What does who you want to marry have to do with the historical definition of marriage? It has always been 1 man to one women and for the vast majority of instances love had nothing to do with it.

And study what the word federalism is. This is a local issue. Not a federal issue.

Back to the myth that states have rights again, huh?

[del]

aren't you quick on the draw tonight?

it just seems that way to the preternaturally slow

[del]

I pay attention. I just don't create things out of thin air to fit my agenda.

lol

[Tahuyaman]

it just seems that way to the preternaturally slow

What Are you talking about? That was so long ago I forgot what you were babbling about.

[Tahuyaman]

lol

is your given name Delbert?

[domer76]

I pay attention. I just don't create things out of thin air to fit my agenda.

Nope. You've merely missed the common, and bogus, social conservative argument that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have children. If you get your head out of your heiney you might notice those posts.

[Tahuyaman]

Like I said, if you can't make your case honestly, make it up.

[PattyHill]

What does who you want to marry have to do with the historical definition of marriage? It has always been 1 man to one women and for the vast majority of instances love had nothing to do with it.

And study what the word federalism is. This is a local issue. Not a federal issue.

And yet the SCOTUS has gotten involved; not just with the Loving case, but with the right of prisoners to marry. So it's not just local

[domer76]

Like I said, if you can't make your case honestly, make it up.

I can't correct your denseness from afar.

[Tahuyaman]

yawn..........

[Bo-4]

Another vehement anti-gay con who turns out to be gay, is like the sun rising in the east ;-)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vlK0JxhpfVg/UCEbYI8FtiI/AAAAAAAAbFQ/8wZUg7HD2jQ/s1600/pmacraig.png

[Howey]

Nobody knew???? Are the people of North Dakota blind???

http://i.imgur.com/Z0ZSZ3g.gifhttp://i.imgur.com/GSVJ9UX.jpg

[PattyHill]

Nobody knew???? Are the people of North Dakota blind???

http://i.imgur.com/Z0ZSZ3g.gifhttp://i.imgur.com/GSVJ9UX.jpg


ha ha. So I was at my company's sales kickoff meeting. Hanging out with my female co-worker, who brought her friend (female) with her. I go up to their room, have some drinks, eventually head back. On the way back to my room - the fact there was one bed started registering. And that my co-worker kept calling her friend baby registered. And that the friend had moved into my co-worker's house registered.

ha ha! some of us are more clueless than others, but it does sink in eventually!