47 super brave conservatives!!!

[SneakyQuick]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...-for-a-bill-protecting-marriage-equality/amp/

This article contains their names. What brave conservatives they are. Oh wait? They didn’t conserve anything, they actually voted to redefine marriage!


One of these guys is Brian Mast from Florida. He won election cause he was a Middle East war vet who had his legs blown off by an ied and he supported trump. This is of course while the us was busy spreading democracy in places that had no desire for it. If this is democracy it’s not difficult to understand why so many of those stubborn Iraqis and afghans never wanted it!


Worst part is I thought this clown was ok initially.

I think I’m done voting.

 

[white lightning]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...-for-a-bill-protecting-marriage-equality/amp/

This article contains their names. What brave conservatives they are. Oh wait? They didn’t conserve anything, they actually voted to redefine marriage!


One of these guys is Brian Mast from Florida. He won election cause he was a Middle East war vet who had his legs blown off by an ied and he supported trump. This is of course while the us was busy spreading democracy in places that had no desire for it. If this is democracy it’s not difficult to understand why so many of those stubborn Iraqis and afghans never wanted it!


Worst part is I thought this clown was ok initially.

I think I’m done voting.

These traitors (Rinos) and the (Demoncrats) did this to try and stop the Supreme Court from having any ability to overturn Gay Marraige. Somehow, some way I hope it fails and Clarence Thomas and the rest of the good
guys at the Supreme Court find a way to override this horrible bill. Marriage is not for Adam and Steve. It's meant for a man and a woman period.

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

it is my position that the federal government shouldn’t say anything at all about marriage. period. leave it to the local church, like it historically has been, and all would be well. if the feds weren’t trying to tax everyone and everything this would be a non-issue.

 

[Bucky]

2 wings, same bird.

 

[Freethinker]

it is my position that the federal government shouldn’t say anything at all about marriage. period. leave it to the local church, like it historically has been, and all would be well. if the feds weren’t trying to tax everyone and everything this would be a non-issue.

Absolutely the correct position.

However, since The State has no interest in being a neutral party and wants to force its belief system on the rest of us, we have few options. Either get out from under this State or take control of The State and impose our will on them.

 

[Flint]

Absolutely the correct position.

However, since The State has no interest in being a neutral party and wants to force its belief system on the rest of us, we have few options. Either get out from under this State or take control of The State and impose our will on them.

I think at one time the state had an interest in regulating and recording marriages. It was good for society but more importantly since back in the day almost every marriage resulted in kids, often many of them, it made legal issues surrounding inheritance and divorce easier to handle from a court perspective. Now few people marry, fewer have kids, most kids don't have a father and the majority of "marriages" end in divorce. So the whole legal system is overloaded and dysfunctional. No need to record, track, or regulate, the few marriages that occur. But since it's the most important thing in the world to gay people and their sympathizers we will now see Uncle Sam involved in marriage like never before.

I agree that the state should never have gotten in the marriage business, marriage is a religious matter. They could have went with Civil Unions, or partnerships, or some kind of neutral wording, but the gays wanted to stick a finger in the eyes of straight people, so stealing the term "marriage" was important to them. Mission accomplished. The goal is destroy, piece by piece, every decent institution in the country.

 

[icsept]

No reason to get a marriage “license” (permission) from a government to legalize a relationship. Which results in the requirement of a state sanctioned “divorce” to formally dissolve the relationship. Keep all your interpersonal relationships strictly private, and leave the government out.

 

[SneakyQuick]

Well it would certainly be nice if the government would keep out of all of it, but since to govern means to control, what is the likelihood of that happening?


Complete joke.

 

[Phall]

I was on a Zoom call today, and one of the participants was a balding tranny freak with a streak of purple hair. He was wearing a dress and had a big gold ring through his pierced septum. His entire appearance was an affront to professional decorum and human decency. The worst part of all was at some point he held up a baby on his lap. Some people "humble brag" in this fashion to invite compliments, but I got the feeling that this mentally-ill freak was actually showing off this poor, damned child to rub it in the noses of the rest of us ostensibly-normal non-freaks. In a sane world, all members of this Zoom call would be contacting child protective services immediately. In clown world, they are probably the agency that arranged this baby kidnapping.

I don't oppose a government incentivizing marriage in the proper context. A couple of the Slavic countries have offered financial incentives for having kids, apparently with some decent success. Marriage affects your auto insurance premiums because its a marker that you are stable and represent less risks. On a completely unrelated note, did you know that 50% of male homosexual marriages are "open?" That's not a measure of infidelity; they actively engage in anal ramming with other men with their partner's endorsement. Not exactly risk-averse if you ask me!