ruffn3k Wrote:
Jan 14, 2014 8:49 PM
And as Utah has shown, that goes both ways, by the way, remind me how many states pass same-sexless unions by way of popular vote and not admitted activist judges? Yeah, that's what I thought. I cant wait for it to hit the supreme court as they've already made clear in their statements that they cannot enforce any other restrictions if they cannot even hold to man-woman, which means its either 1 man - 1 woman, representing nature, or its anything -polygamy, incest, bigamy, child marriages, I mean seriously what are you anti-humans going to say? "well its ok for 2 men to be 'married' but not if they're brothers cuz hey, that would be immoral and unnatural." You people are really amazing, I envy you, I wish I could delude myself into the ficticious realities you so often create in your own minds.