Nah, actually I bought my copy of the Constitution for $0.25 at the United States Capitol Building in 1995. So I assume it’s accurate. 
Wrong VERsION. PLease reFER to the RAnd PAUL constituTION. The One that HE signed.
3 Likes
"Woman is subordinate to man. " Federal Judge James Leon Holmes, Dubya appointee
2 Likes
They’re not even trying hard. The way the system now works is: keep filing suits until one of them gets in front of a Federalist Society judge or judges. If the right judge(s) get it, they’ll decide it the way you want it. That’s how a logically ridiculous suit citing a grammatical oversight/error is now before the Supremes and may block affordable insurance for 30 million. Rich extremists don’t want it. They shopped the legal system, and found judges to toss out precedent and logic. Federalists have thoroughly corrupted America’s justice system and debased legal discourse.
3 Likes
Holographic ID!!! They can be faked!!! I’ve seen in mysel! See breibart.com!1!!! What we need is DNA match for VOting and also too able to quote random BIBLE versus and tasering if you FAIL! Age limits! No collage students! No HS dropouts! NO MORE VOTER FRUAD!!!1!11!one!!!
2 Likes
Another socially-regressive state manages to attack the struggles for women’s rights and gay rights with one stone.
1 Like
If that’s the case, we would all be called ‘huwomen’ or ‘hugays’… yeah, I can’t even keep a straight face for this, it’s just so sad what they’ve done. When I first read the headline I though SC was only going for a ban on lesbian marriage, then in reading the article started thinking they’re only trying to ban gay (male) marriage. Now I just think they’re rooting to bring back the Equal Rights Amendment.
They would go further, but Loving v. VA made the argument that marriage itself is outside of the realm of the 14A (which basically was what many thought back in the day … but we are not there) just too stupid. But, with sexual equality at its current point & after four decades of case law since Reed v. Reed, this isn’t much better.
1 Like
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Good one…!!!1!!one!!
Pretty circular logic.
What did James Madison have to say about disco?
2 Likes
IF the FRAmers WANTed GAY MARRY, they WOULd’ve PUT it IN THe CONstiTUtion.
True. Same goes for possessing AK-47s equipped with 22 shot magazines containing armor piercing ammunition.
22 shots? Here in Arizona 30 round magazines are legal for that AK.
What gave you the idea that conservatives were human beings?
There is no evidence to support that concept.
1 Like
He gave it a 98—good beat and he could dance to it.
1 Like
That Confederate shithole needs a new lawyer. The correct God Hates Fags legal argument is that definition of marriage is a power left to the states. This has the benefit of actually being mostly true.
Of course there’s the small problem of Loving v. Virginia and its progeny coupled with the 14th Amendment which render that argument weaker than a gamer too.
2 Likes
Someone here said that was exactly what KY was doing, that Gov. Beshear’s insane brief arguing that their ban isn’t discriminatory because it applies to straight people too (Anatole France would be proud) was basically throwing the case without actually refusing to defend the law, which would get the state’s crazy right crazy. Since Beshear’s the guy who valiantly fought to bring Obamacare to KY and created maybe the best exchange in the country, I choose to believe that interpretation.
2 Likes
Yeah. Beshear was going through the motions per his official duties and slyly skullfucking the God Hates Fags crowd in the process. Made a mockery out of them.
4 Likes
Spock’s vulcan mind would explode with these “legal” arguments.
Not even close to logical.
That’s some lame-ass argument they proffered. Leave it to the conservative nutjobs on the Supreme Court to buy into that argument.