As could I.. But there has been ONE constant....

A man and a woman..

Incorrect.

Now, a woman can marry a banana and Democrats want to call that "marriage"...

Hysterically ignorant straw man fallacy.

Leave it to Democrats to destroy and denigrate ANOTHER long standing institution.. :eyeroll:

Also laughably incorrect.

The problem is, it's DEMOCRAT changes that are being imposed..

Oh, I've got really bad news for you: The origins of not everything are under the control of Democrats or even the United States.

__________________________

Marriage by persons of the same sex has been legal nationwide since:

04/01/2001 ... Netherlands
06/01/2003 ... Belgium
07/20/2005 ... Canada
07/05/2005 ... Spain
11/30/2006 ... South Africa
01/01/2009 ... Norway
05/01/2009 ... Sweden
06/05/2010 ... Portugal
06/27/2010 ... Iceland
07/22/2010 ... Argentina
05/16/2013 ... Brazil
05/18/2013 ... France
08/05/2013 ... Uruguay
08/19/2013 ... New Zealand
01/01/2015 ... Luxembourg
06/26/2015 ... United States

You are dang close to Cuba, why don't you TYA down there?
Oh, wait:

09/27/2022 ... Cuba
__________________________

If I was one of those Americans who whined incessantly/obsessively that everything under the sun was the fault of Democrats, I'd probably blame my limited education... except for the obvious fact that I'd be too daft to understand how patently ridiculous I actually sounded... but I'm not... so I don't.

So, to recap: You can laughably and hysterically blame Democrats for everything or, better yet, it isn't illegal (yet) to crack a book.

As could I.. But there has been ONE constant....

A man and a woman..

Now, a woman can marry a banana and Democrats want to call that "marriage"...

Leave it to Democrats to destroy and denigrate ANOTHER long standing institution.. :eyeroll:

either we accept that norms change with the times,

The problem is, it's DEMOCRAT changes that are being imposed..

Yes, sir. Guilty on all 6 counts.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1434226/download

You see the problem??

I definitely see the problem. You seem to have this ridiculous habit of assuming that every legal definition that doesn't meet with your political or ideological approval is due solely to Democrats, and that's laughably and hysterically incorrect.

Roe v. Wade was decided by a majority of Republicans. Henry Menasco Wade, you see, was a Democrat, and speaking from personal experience regarding Mr. Wade a.k.a. "the Chief"... oh, nevermind, I'll just keep that nugget to myself.

As for Obergefell v. Hodges, it was Justice Anthony Kennedy (R) who authored the majority opinion holding that state bans of marriage of a male to another male and a female to another female are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the clauses of Due Process and Equal Protection. Kennedy was joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. So then, not all Democrats.

Sorry to burst your uninformed bubble, but facts can be such pesky little things.

"The evidence at trial showed Benton bought a $25,000 ticket to a September 2016 Republican National Committee (RNC) event on behalf of Roman Vasilenko, a Russian naval officer turned multilevel marketer."

No collusion!

Death Cult in Disorder

Yes, sir, and they seem to be in a perpetual state of denial too.

The repetitive ignorance to deny that something that definitely existed was never in existence is about as dirt-level dumb as it gets... but wait, there's more... and it's so bottom-dwelling stupid that it requires a shovel and some furious digging.

Trump too shall pass, and the death cult righties will deny he ever existed. "He was a Democrat, not one of us," they'll say, but make no mistake: Trump effing owns every ignorant one of them; they're just too daft to know it.

And the date of that particular definition?? :D

24 Mar 2009...

Funny how that is, eh?? :D Right at the height of Democrat hysterical activism... :D

Here is ANOTHER definition of marriage..

the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman).
-OXFORD

a legally and socially sanctioned union, usually between a man and a woman, that is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners and accords status to their offspring (if any)
-BRITANNICA

You see the problem??

You are simply proving my point for me..

When a definition doesn't work with Democrat ideology, Democrats change the definition..

In the case of 'marriage', 24 Mar 2009...

See also GENDER...

It's like when real science doesn't work with Democrat ideology.. Democrats create Democrat "science"..

See GLOBAL WARMING, GENDER DYSPHORIA, etc etc etc..

It's ideologically driven "truth".. NOT fact..

i.e. marriage is whatever the law says it is.

EXCEPT if Democrats don't like what the law says... :^/

3/20

i.e. marriage is whatever the law says it is. a hundred thirty-two years ago was the first time polygamy was nationally outlawed as a legal condition for marriage. until 1996, the nation's laws had no position about the sex or gender of the married people, so it was up to the individual states.

Going back to the Republicans in disarray column, I understand Pramila Jayapal has come up with Republicans in ruin.

Ruin? Oh, come on. Can't y'all Democrats do better than that?

Republicans in Residue
Trumplicans in Toilet

Oh, I disagree. In fact, based on history, I expect we'll find that quite a number of them will run even further to the right and attempt to primary incumbent Republicans on this issue as well as others.

Turns out, they are slow to recognize that multiple of their Christian nationalist positions are now serving as huge turn-offs to entire generations of voters, but will it really deter them? Oh, hell no... because bigotry is a huge selling point with their base and always has been. Coming soon to a primary near you, incumbent "Republicans" will face primary challenges by Christian nationalists because: Since when have we not known the right-wing extremists to double down?

Witness Trump's full embrace of the right-wingnut Q-Anon crazies because he's literally got nowhere else to go, and there literally is no bottom.

So, to recap: You're the GOP and you've allowed yourself to become dependent on liars, deniers, conspiracy theorists, zealots, and extremists with multiple political views out of America's mainstream so what do you do? You double down full steam ahead because you've literally got nowhere else to go. Eventually, the Trumptanic will hit the proverbial wall, list, break in half, and sink under its own weight.

Pretty pitiful for Michale, that he has to pretend that words don't mean what they mean.

You mean, like what 'marriage' actually means..

Until Democrats' political agenda demanded EVERYONE to pretend marriage means something it doesn't..

You mean, like that??

:eyeroll:

I really don't have a problem with gay marriage.. None at all..

But here again is ANOTHER perfect example of Democrats demanding that society accepts THEIR ideologically based beliefs..

The fact that Democrats, as a Party, are so insecure in their beliefs that they must demand that society accepts and constantly re-enforces Democrats and their beliefs would seem to indicate that their beliefs are not morally or ethically acceptable..

Given the Democrat Party's on-going acceptance of blatant systemic/institutionalized racism and systemic/institutionalized bigotry...

It's obvious that Democrats' insecurities are well founded and based in reality...

2/20

Not factually accurate, since there never existed a federal right to killing one's unborn baby..

JFC,

Pretty pitiful for Michale, that he has to pretend that words don't mean what they mean.

Says the guy who supports the Party that actually tries to CHANGE the definitions of words to fit their political agenda..

Says the guy who supports the Party that once said, "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

:eyeroll:

1/20

Didn't leave nobody but the baby/O Brother, Where Art Thou?

That's awfully specific...

John From Censornati wrote:

I probably won't get gay married, but I'm glad that I could.

Me, too Buddy. Especially in light of all them tall skinny white girls with big brains and...ahem...

Wha' broke my heart to date. Jezebels, all of them! Woody Allen was right: bisexuality DOUBLES yer chances of a date on Saturday night, a-yup.

Will the extremist Q-nut party try to take our rights away?

Well, of course they will, you Big Silly!

Otherwise they will have LOST the battle of Good versus Evil, no?

Unclear on the concept of OWNING anyone.

(thinking)

I mean, besides my White Slaver TALL SKINNY WHITE GIRLS WITH BIG BRAINS AND A BIG HEART AND LITTLE BOOBS AND A LITTLE BUTT fantasy. But, enough about me. What were we talking about, again?

NY Post this evening,

FLORIDA MAN MAKES ANNOUNCEMENT -- Page 26

Ready to bail on Trump yet, Michale? Will you even remember your Dear Leader? That you equated hating Trump with hating America -- Seig Heil! Do you even remotely give a fuck that all that pre-election trash talk makes you look like, less than prophetic?
Why shouldn't I scroll through your uselessness? I dont get what it is that you offer here: OR, is this what you consider OWNING THE LIBS? If so, do you get a little micro-boner when you OWN THE LIBS?

Will the extremist Q-nut party try to take our rights away?

Pretty pitiful for Michale, that he has to pretend that words don't mean what they mean.

I am grateful for your support on this topic, but please try to use "marriage equality" and not "gay marriage" when discussing the subject. A big part of the fight has been to get people to recognize that there is no such thing as "str8 marriage" or "gay marriage"... there is only "marriage"!

R