Which cowardly homosexual cheerleader at the LA Times wrote the headline to this article? No name was provided for this "editorial. What sort of ridiculous moral confusion could equate fudge packing with normal relations between a man and a woman? Note the headline which assumes that something wrong has been done. Talk about a straw man. This kind of faux outrage over a denial of rights that have never been granted except in the collective imagination of the devolved may ultimately result in a movement to put the abnormal back in the closet where they belong.
Pink Triangle Partnerships or a Sodomy Inc. status might to be offered to take care of the “incidents of marriage” or better, such partnerships should simply be made absolutely illegal.
Sean O'Reilly
www.dickmanagement.com
If he hadn't vetoed a bill granting marriage rights to all, the governor could have saved the state a court battle.
January 3, 2007
"IT COULD have been different. If Gov. Schwarzenegger had signed a bill in 2005 legalizing same-sex marriage instead of vetoing it, the California Supreme Court would have been spared the task of deciding, as it probably will this year, whether a voter-approved ban violates the state Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law." Equal Protection of what? Anal Sex?
But Schwarzenegger said he had to respect Proposition 22, approved in 2000, which states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." (translation: sodomy is not marriage)Whether committed same-sex couples (masturbation partners) will be relieved of second-class status now (they have no status) depends on the state Supreme Court. And as the Superior Court's ruling notes, the state Constitution overides any ballot question and entitles same-sex couples to what he called "the last step in the equation: the right to marriage itself." I can't stand this shit. Somebody throw these sophists into jail where they belong.
No comments:
Post a Comment