Contracts Supersede Marriage

[kudzu]

Actually, the State does care what kind of marriage you have. Can't marry a horse or your cousin.....

Non human's can't consent.. just like minors can't consent.. and you're right.. You can't marry your first cousin. Ask a lawyer.

[Flanders]

Odd, how the right never bitched about government in marriage until gay marriage was an issue.

To Domer76: I had hoped no one would play the gay card since same sex marriages would also be covered by contracts.

If it makes you happy I did have some fun with the gay community on another board. Note that “queer” is their word.

The National LGBTQ Task Force announced Tuesday that “hundreds of LGBTQ advocates will take over Capitol Hill to bring queer voices on the Hill on Thursday.”

The queer crowd is after two things:

1. Special privileges legislated into extraordinary Rights for a minority.

2. Tell free Americans how they must behave.

“The Task Force is convening one of the largest LGBTQ advocacy days in recent history to say: enough is enough. In law and in practice, LGBTQ people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. We plan to tell our lawmakers exactly how to do so.”

Naturally, being treated with dignity and respect means take a queer to lunch after they get:

. . . “explicit” federal protections in housing, employment, public accommodations, jury service, public funding, credit and education.

. . . legislation that guarantees abortion is provided at public expense and requires employers and health plan sponsors to include it, legislation that stops racial and religious profiling in the federal government, and protections for “bodily autonomy” in nursing homes.

Congress gets urged to scrap religious rights
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 01/23/2018 @ 9:31 pm

http://www.wnd.com/2018/01/congress-...igious-rights/

Remember that equal Rights, civil Rights, non-discrimination, quotas, affirmative action, and all of the other touchy-feely liberal causes can be summed up in one sentence: “You must associate with me.” It happened in the workplace, the schools, the military, in private clubs, and everywhere else; so there is every reason to believe that dignity and respect will evolve into forced associations. Never mind that everyone else’s dignity and respect is brushed aside. I offer this scenario to make my point:

I invite a dozen or so neighbors to a cookout. I specifically do not invite a homosexual couple who live down the street. They sue me for discrimination. I lose the case and money. The court orders me to associate with all of my neighbors. That is called protecting the individual while teaching me that I am part of the collective in all things.

Just to be clear on this. I simply do not want to associate with homosexuals. I do NOT wish bodily harm on anyone, nor would I take part in violence directed against homosexuals.

Queer free speech

Somewhere along the way free speech for everyone dropped out of the homosexual marriage debate. Nevertheless, public schools continue to attack free speech today as much as they did in 2006 when Phyllis Schlafly pointed out:

Public schools are a major battleground in the gays' efforts to censor any criticism of their goals or lifestyle. Every year, the National Education Association passes resolutions not only demanding that schools not discriminate against sexual orientation, but also insisting that classroom language be monitored to punish "homophobia" and to "promote 'acceptance' and/or 'respect' instead of 'tolerance'" of the gay lifestyle.

Gay agenda targets free speech
By Phyllis Schlafly
November 6, 2006

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/P...ts_free_speech

The sly transition that went from tolerance to acceptance reminded me of an old adage:

First we abhor; then we tolerate; then we embrace; then we legislate.

In recent years several states moved homosexual marriage into legislation leaving most of us behind in the tolerate stage. So I have to ask if liberals will lift their ban on free speech altogether?

I have another question because constitutionally protected free speech for everyone has been looking mighty bleak of late. When did gay become the politically correct word for homosexual at the expense of free speech?

I cannot say exactly when the homosexual community became the gay community, but here are synonyms for the word gay:

blithe
happy
light-hearted
lively
merry
vivacious
airy
bright
sunny
homophile
homosexual
effervescent
hilarious

I would be accused of homophobia were I to overwork the word homosexual. Aiming for savoir-faire I decided to risk an allegation of flippancy by substituting synonyms for gay wherever appropriate in the rest of this message.

Every time you examine any issue near and dear to liberal hearts you will find that free speech is always the first casualty. With that in mind I want to comment on a few blithe causes collectively referred to as the hilarious agenda.

The vivacious community is only one group. “Put a sock in it if you oppose me” is the bumper sticker for every liberal cause espousing this, that, or the other. It would all mean very little were it not for the judges, and employers who fear the judges. Neither of those two groups is noted for their love of free speech.

You would think that the First Amendment Rights of government employees are protected more than anyone else’s. You would be wrong in spite of powerful government employee unions. Schlafly’s article cited several incidents involving government employees who suffered at the hands of the light-hearted community.

You would be wrong again if you think that colleges and universities form the first line of defense against assaults on free speech Rights. In reality, sunny Rights always displace the First Amendment in institutions of higher agendas.

The happy community, the judges, and just about every liberal in the country forget that hate speech requires the most protection, or at least the same protection liberals enjoy when their hate speech is aimed at someone else’s lifestyle, personality, or beliefs. Example: When an airy entertainer tries to be funny by denigrating stereotypes who oppose effervescent marriages the attempted humor is usually rendered with thinly veiled hate speech.

The queer dance

Once upon a time I read somewhere how that dance craze, The Twist, got started. I do not know if the story is true, but it is worth repeating.

It seems that there was an ordinance in one of Southern California’s beach towns prohibiting same sex partners from dancing with one another in the local gin mills. However, same sex partners tripping the light fantastic had to touch each other in order to be in violation of the law. Homosexuals began to dance The Twist without touching one another just to tweak the noses of the local constabulary who were obviously commanded by Inspector Clouseau. The craze spread, as such things have a way of doing, and The Twist became part of the culture with a lot of help from Chubby Checker.

My first thoughts about same sex marriage cautioned that it might be just another bit of tweaking the establishment’s nose à la The Twist. If that was the merry community’s intent they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams thanks to judges.

I doubt if any of them ever thought their inside humor would go as far as it went. Now that they are being taken seriously they have no choice but to run with the Socialists to make it stick. I name the Socialists specifically because the same sex marriage issue is so easily turned into a “constitutional Right.” Socialists love the Constitution whenever they find a new way to tear it down.

Now that a few states are dispensing marriage licenses look for a constitutional amendment to resurface. Speaking for myself, I do not care one way or the other if there is a constitutional amendment to deal with the issue. It will not build discrimination into the Constitution as some claim, but it will trivialize the Constitution to some extent. An amendment specifically designed to address gay nonsense may not be what the light-hearted community expected, but they do have square apples from academe pontificating about same sex marriages as though it is not the silliest damned idea to ever come along. How the merry must be laughing at the straights.

Traditional art

Not many years ago color coordinated gays claimed that every creative artist that ever wrote a play, composed an opera, smeared paint on canvas, or chiseled away at a piece of marble was light-hearted. Michelangelo’s talent became the face of homosexuality.

Do not fret. There has been a make over. The new face is less artistic, but infinitely more monogamous than the old face. The latest story is that they all love their chosen partner, work hard at ordinary jobs, never part company, and would not dream of infidelity. All things considered, the merry crowd should have stayed with the artistic image.

There is one major problem with the new face: How did HIV/AIDS decimate the hilarious community with all of that monogamous love and devotion going around? I have no answer.

One possible result of casual liaisons that kill is that the blithe community stumbled upon fidelity out of fear of HIV/AIDS. That is a good thing for them if that is the case, but it does not mean that same sex marriage should be legislated by judges or by anybody else.

One final observation: Now that homosexuals admit they are stodgy they will have to relinquish the “gay” misnomer.

Ask a lawyer..

To kudzu: Get yourself a new lawyer. Breach of contract disputes are heard in civil courts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_Court

[kudzu]

To Domer76: I had hoped no one would play the gay card since same sex marriages would also be covered by contracts.

If it makes you happy I did have some fun with the gay community on another board. Note that “queer” is their word.

The National LGBTQ Task Force announced Tuesday that “hundreds of LGBTQ advocates will take over Capitol Hill to bring queer voices on the Hill on Thursday.”

The queer crowd is after two things:

1. Special privileges legislated into extraordinary Rights for a minority.

2. Tell free Americans how they must behave.

“The Task Force is convening one of the largest LGBTQ advocacy days in recent history to say: enough is enough. In law and in practice, LGBTQ people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. We plan to tell our lawmakers exactly how to do so.”

Naturally, being treated with dignity and respect means take a queer to lunch after they get:

. . . “explicit” federal protections in housing, employment, public accommodations, jury service, public funding, credit and education.

. . . legislation that guarantees abortion is provided at public expense and requires employers and health plan sponsors to include it, legislation that stops racial and religious profiling in the federal government, and protections for “bodily autonomy” in nursing homes.

Congress gets urged to scrap religious rights
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 01/23/2018 @ 9:31 pm

http://www.wnd.com/2018/01/congress-...igious-rights/

Remember that equal Rights, civil Rights, non-discrimination, quotas, affirmative action, and all of the other touchy-feely liberal causes can be summed up in one sentence: “You must associate with me.” It happened in the workplace, the schools, the military, in private clubs, and everywhere else; so there is every reason to believe that dignity and respect will evolve into forced associations. Never mind that everyone else’s dignity and respect is brushed aside. I offer this scenario to make my point:

I invite a dozen or so neighbors to a cookout. I specifically do not invite a homosexual couple who live down the street. They sue me for discrimination. I lose the case and money. The court orders me to associate with all of my neighbors. That is called protecting the individual while teaching me that I am part of the collective in all things.

Just to be clear on this. I simply do not want to associate with homosexuals. I do NOT wish bodily harm on anyone, nor would I take part in violence directed against homosexuals.

Queer free speech

Somewhere along the way free speech for everyone dropped out of the homosexual marriage debate. Nevertheless, public schools continue to attack free speech today as much as they did in 2006 when Phyllis Schlafly pointed out:

Public schools are a major battleground in the gays' efforts to censor any criticism of their goals or lifestyle. Every year, the National Education Association passes resolutions not only demanding that schools not discriminate against sexual orientation, but also insisting that classroom language be monitored to punish "homophobia" and to "promote 'acceptance' and/or 'respect' instead of 'tolerance'" of the gay lifestyle.

Gay agenda targets free speech
By Phyllis Schlafly
November 6, 2006

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/P...ts_free_speech

The sly transition that went from tolerance to acceptance reminded me of an old adage:

First we abhor; then we tolerate; then we embrace; then we legislate.

In recent years several states moved homosexual marriage into legislation leaving most of us behind in the tolerate stage. So I have to ask if liberals will lift their ban on free speech altogether?

I have another question because constitutionally protected free speech for everyone has been looking mighty bleak of late. When did gay become the politically correct word for homosexual at the expense of free speech?

I cannot say exactly when the homosexual community became the gay community, but here are synonyms for the word gay:

blithe
happy
light-hearted
lively
merry
vivacious
airy
bright
sunny
homophile
homosexual
effervescent
hilarious

I would be accused of homophobia were I to overwork the word homosexual. Aiming for savoir-faire I decided to risk an allegation of flippancy by substituting synonyms for gay wherever appropriate in the rest of this message.

Every time you examine any issue near and dear to liberal hearts you will find that free speech is always the first casualty. With that in mind I want to comment on a few blithe causes collectively referred to as the hilarious agenda.

The vivacious community is only one group. “Put a sock in it if you oppose me” is the bumper sticker for every liberal cause espousing this, that, or the other. It would all mean very little were it not for the judges, and employers who fear the judges. Neither of those two groups is noted for their love of free speech.

You would think that the First Amendment Rights of government employees are protected more than anyone else’s. You would be wrong in spite of powerful government employee unions. Schlafly’s article cited several incidents involving government employees who suffered at the hands of the light-hearted community.

You would be wrong again if you think that colleges and universities form the first line of defense against assaults on free speech Rights. In reality, sunny Rights always displace the First Amendment in institutions of higher agendas.

The happy community, the judges, and just about every liberal in the country forget that hate speech requires the most protection, or at least the same protection liberals enjoy when their hate speech is aimed at someone else’s lifestyle, personality, or beliefs. Example: When an airy entertainer tries to be funny by denigrating stereotypes who oppose effervescent marriages the attempted humor is usually rendered with thinly veiled hate speech.

The queer dance

Once upon a time I read somewhere how that dance craze, The Twist, got started. I do not know if the story is true, but it is worth repeating.

It seems that there was an ordinance in one of Southern California’s beach towns prohibiting same sex partners from dancing with one another in the local gin mills. However, same sex partners tripping the light fantastic had to touch each other in order to be in violation of the law. Homosexuals began to dance The Twist without touching one another just to tweak the noses of the local constabulary who were obviously commanded by Inspector Clouseau. The craze spread, as such things have a way of doing, and The Twist became part of the culture with a lot of help from Chubby Checker.

My first thoughts about same sex marriage cautioned that it might be just another bit of tweaking the establishment’s nose à la The Twist. If that was the merry community’s intent they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams thanks to judges.

I doubt if any of them ever thought their inside humor would go as far as it went. Now that they are being taken seriously they have no choice but to run with the Socialists to make it stick. I name the Socialists specifically because the same sex marriage issue is so easily turned into a “constitutional Right.” Socialists love the Constitution whenever they find a new way to tear it down.

Now that a few states are dispensing marriage licenses look for a constitutional amendment to resurface. Speaking for myself, I do not care one way or the other if there is a constitutional amendment to deal with the issue. It will not build discrimination into the Constitution as some claim, but it will trivialize the Constitution to some extent. An amendment specifically designed to address gay nonsense may not be what the light-hearted community expected, but they do have square apples from academe pontificating about same sex marriages as though it is not the silliest damned idea to ever come along. How the merry must be laughing at the straights.

Traditional art

Not many years ago color coordinated gays claimed that every creative artist that ever wrote a play, composed an opera, smeared paint on canvas, or chiseled away at a piece of marble was light-hearted. Michelangelo’s talent became the face of homosexuality.

Do not fret. There has been a make over. The new face is less artistic, but infinitely more monogamous than the old face. The latest story is that they all love their chosen partner, work hard at ordinary jobs, never part company, and would not dream of infidelity. All things considered, the merry crowd should have stayed with the artistic image.

There is one major problem with the new face: How did HIV/AIDS decimate the hilarious community with all of that monogamous love and devotion going around? I have no answer.

One possible result of casual liaisons that kill is that the blithe community stumbled upon fidelity out of fear of HIV/AIDS. That is a good thing for them if that is the case, but it does not mean that same sex marriage should be legislated by judges or by anybody else.

One final observation: Now that homosexuals admit they are stodgy they will have to relinquish the “gay” misnomer.



To kudzu: Get yourself a new lawyer. Breach of contract disputes are heard in civil courts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_Court

I studied civil litigation at the only ABA approved school. You are full of beans. Call your lawyer and ASK.

[Rune]

To kudzu: They are not. If they were they would be litigated as breaches of contract rather than fought in divorce courts.





To kudzu: If in the future I call you brilliant will you stop using my threads to sound intelligent?



To kudzu: Halfwit. They do it all of the time because generally there is no criminal punish attached:

https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/cgi/...&context=gsulr



To Rune: What a clever little sneak you are! The question is your way of denying freedom of speech without ordering me not to say things you do not want anyone to read.

Thank you very much.

I work hard at this and seldom get truly appreciated.

[kudzu]

To Domer76: I had hoped no one would play the gay card since same sex marriages would also be covered by contracts.

If it makes you happy I did have some fun with the gay community on another board. Note that “queer” is their word.

The National LGBTQ Task Force announced Tuesday that “hundreds of LGBTQ advocates will take over Capitol Hill to bring queer voices on the Hill on Thursday.”

The queer crowd is after two things:

1. Special privileges legislated into extraordinary Rights for a minority.

2. Tell free Americans how they must behave.

“The Task Force is convening one of the largest LGBTQ advocacy days in recent history to say: enough is enough. In law and in practice, LGBTQ people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. We plan to tell our lawmakers exactly how to do so.”

Naturally, being treated with dignity and respect means take a queer to lunch after they get:

. . . “explicit” federal protections in housing, employment, public accommodations, jury service, public funding, credit and education.

. . . legislation that guarantees abortion is provided at public expense and requires employers and health plan sponsors to include it, legislation that stops racial and religious profiling in the federal government, and protections for “bodily autonomy” in nursing homes.

Congress gets urged to scrap religious rights
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 01/23/2018 @ 9:31 pm

http://www.wnd.com/2018/01/congress-...igious-rights/

Remember that equal Rights, civil Rights, non-discrimination, quotas, affirmative action, and all of the other touchy-feely liberal causes can be summed up in one sentence: “You must associate with me.” It happened in the workplace, the schools, the military, in private clubs, and everywhere else; so there is every reason to believe that dignity and respect will evolve into forced associations. Never mind that everyone else’s dignity and respect is brushed aside. I offer this scenario to make my point:

I invite a dozen or so neighbors to a cookout. I specifically do not invite a homosexual couple who live down the street. They sue me for discrimination. I lose the case and money. The court orders me to associate with all of my neighbors. That is called protecting the individual while teaching me that I am part of the collective in all things.

Just to be clear on this. I simply do not want to associate with homosexuals. I do NOT wish bodily harm on anyone, nor would I take part in violence directed against homosexuals.

Queer free speech

Somewhere along the way free speech for everyone dropped out of the homosexual marriage debate. Nevertheless, public schools continue to attack free speech today as much as they did in 2006 when Phyllis Schlafly pointed out:

Public schools are a major battleground in the gays' efforts to censor any criticism of their goals or lifestyle. Every year, the National Education Association passes resolutions not only demanding that schools not discriminate against sexual orientation, but also insisting that classroom language be monitored to punish "homophobia" and to "promote 'acceptance' and/or 'respect' instead of 'tolerance'" of the gay lifestyle.

Gay agenda targets free speech
By Phyllis Schlafly
November 6, 2006

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/P...ts_free_speech

The sly transition that went from tolerance to acceptance reminded me of an old adage:

First we abhor; then we tolerate; then we embrace; then we legislate.

In recent years several states moved homosexual marriage into legislation leaving most of us behind in the tolerate stage. So I have to ask if liberals will lift their ban on free speech altogether?

I have another question because constitutionally protected free speech for everyone has been looking mighty bleak of late. When did gay become the politically correct word for homosexual at the expense of free speech?

I cannot say exactly when the homosexual community became the gay community, but here are synonyms for the word gay:

blithe
happy
light-hearted
lively
merry
vivacious
airy
bright
sunny
homophile
homosexual
effervescent
hilarious

I would be accused of homophobia were I to overwork the word homosexual. Aiming for savoir-faire I decided to risk an allegation of flippancy by substituting synonyms for gay wherever appropriate in the rest of this message.

Every time you examine any issue near and dear to liberal hearts you will find that free speech is always the first casualty. With that in mind I want to comment on a few blithe causes collectively referred to as the hilarious agenda.

The vivacious community is only one group. “Put a sock in it if you oppose me” is the bumper sticker for every liberal cause espousing this, that, or the other. It would all mean very little were it not for the judges, and employers who fear the judges. Neither of those two groups is noted for their love of free speech.

You would think that the First Amendment Rights of government employees are protected more than anyone else’s. You would be wrong in spite of powerful government employee unions. Schlafly’s article cited several incidents involving government employees who suffered at the hands of the light-hearted community.

You would be wrong again if you think that colleges and universities form the first line of defense against assaults on free speech Rights. In reality, sunny Rights always displace the First Amendment in institutions of higher agendas.

The happy community, the judges, and just about every liberal in the country forget that hate speech requires the most protection, or at least the same protection liberals enjoy when their hate speech is aimed at someone else’s lifestyle, personality, or beliefs. Example: When an airy entertainer tries to be funny by denigrating stereotypes who oppose effervescent marriages the attempted humor is usually rendered with thinly veiled hate speech.

The queer dance

Once upon a time I read somewhere how that dance craze, The Twist, got started. I do not know if the story is true, but it is worth repeating.

It seems that there was an ordinance in one of Southern California’s beach towns prohibiting same sex partners from dancing with one another in the local gin mills. However, same sex partners tripping the light fantastic had to touch each other in order to be in violation of the law. Homosexuals began to dance The Twist without touching one another just to tweak the noses of the local constabulary who were obviously commanded by Inspector Clouseau. The craze spread, as such things have a way of doing, and The Twist became part of the culture with a lot of help from Chubby Checker.

My first thoughts about same sex marriage cautioned that it might be just another bit of tweaking the establishment’s nose à la The Twist. If that was the merry community’s intent they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams thanks to judges.

I doubt if any of them ever thought their inside humor would go as far as it went. Now that they are being taken seriously they have no choice but to run with the Socialists to make it stick. I name the Socialists specifically because the same sex marriage issue is so easily turned into a “constitutional Right.” Socialists love the Constitution whenever they find a new way to tear it down.

Now that a few states are dispensing marriage licenses look for a constitutional amendment to resurface. Speaking for myself, I do not care one way or the other if there is a constitutional amendment to deal with the issue. It will not build discrimination into the Constitution as some claim, but it will trivialize the Constitution to some extent. An amendment specifically designed to address gay nonsense may not be what the light-hearted community expected, but they do have square apples from academe pontificating about same sex marriages as though it is not the silliest damned idea to ever come along. How the merry must be laughing at the straights.

Traditional art

Not many years ago color coordinated gays claimed that every creative artist that ever wrote a play, composed an opera, smeared paint on canvas, or chiseled away at a piece of marble was light-hearted. Michelangelo’s talent became the face of homosexuality.

Do not fret. There has been a make over. The new face is less artistic, but infinitely more monogamous than the old face. The latest story is that they all love their chosen partner, work hard at ordinary jobs, never part company, and would not dream of infidelity. All things considered, the merry crowd should have stayed with the artistic image.

There is one major problem with the new face: How did HIV/AIDS decimate the hilarious community with all of that monogamous love and devotion going around? I have no answer.

One possible result of casual liaisons that kill is that the blithe community stumbled upon fidelity out of fear of HIV/AIDS. That is a good thing for them if that is the case, but it does not mean that same sex marriage should be legislated by judges or by anybody else.

One final observation: Now that homosexuals admit they are stodgy they will have to relinquish the “gay” misnomer.



To kudzu: Get yourself a new lawyer. Breach of contract disputes are heard in civil courts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_Court

I studied civil litigation at the only ABA approved school. You are full of beans. Call your lawyer and ASK.

[kudzu]

To Domer76: I had hoped no one would play the gay card since same sex marriages would also be covered by contracts.

If it makes you happy I did have some fun with the gay community on another board. Note that “queer” is their word.

The National LGBTQ Task Force announced Tuesday that “hundreds of LGBTQ advocates will take over Capitol Hill to bring queer voices on the Hill on Thursday.”

The queer crowd is after two things:

1. Special privileges legislated into extraordinary Rights for a minority.

2. Tell free Americans how they must behave.

“The Task Force is convening one of the largest LGBTQ advocacy days in recent history to say: enough is enough. In law and in practice, LGBTQ people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. We plan to tell our lawmakers exactly how to do so.”

Naturally, being treated with dignity and respect means take a queer to lunch after they get:

. . . “explicit” federal protections in housing, employment, public accommodations, jury service, public funding, credit and education.

. . . legislation that guarantees abortion is provided at public expense and requires employers and health plan sponsors to include it, legislation that stops racial and religious profiling in the federal government, and protections for “bodily autonomy” in nursing homes.

Congress gets urged to scrap religious rights
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 01/23/2018 @ 9:31 pm

http://www.wnd.com/2018/01/congress-...igious-rights/

Remember that equal Rights, civil Rights, non-discrimination, quotas, affirmative action, and all of the other touchy-feely liberal causes can be summed up in one sentence: “You must associate with me.” It happened in the workplace, the schools, the military, in private clubs, and everywhere else; so there is every reason to believe that dignity and respect will evolve into forced associations. Never mind that everyone else’s dignity and respect is brushed aside. I offer this scenario to make my point:

I invite a dozen or so neighbors to a cookout. I specifically do not invite a homosexual couple who live down the street. They sue me for discrimination. I lose the case and money. The court orders me to associate with all of my neighbors. That is called protecting the individual while teaching me that I am part of the collective in all things.

Just to be clear on this. I simply do not want to associate with homosexuals. I do NOT wish bodily harm on anyone, nor would I take part in violence directed against homosexuals.

Queer free speech

Somewhere along the way free speech for everyone dropped out of the homosexual marriage debate. Nevertheless, public schools continue to attack free speech today as much as they did in 2006 when Phyllis Schlafly pointed out:

Public schools are a major battleground in the gays' efforts to censor any criticism of their goals or lifestyle. Every year, the National Education Association passes resolutions not only demanding that schools not discriminate against sexual orientation, but also insisting that classroom language be monitored to punish "homophobia" and to "promote 'acceptance' and/or 'respect' instead of 'tolerance'" of the gay lifestyle.

Gay agenda targets free speech
By Phyllis Schlafly
November 6, 2006

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/P...ts_free_speech

The sly transition that went from tolerance to acceptance reminded me of an old adage:

First we abhor; then we tolerate; then we embrace; then we legislate.

In recent years several states moved homosexual marriage into legislation leaving most of us behind in the tolerate stage. So I have to ask if liberals will lift their ban on free speech altogether?

I have another question because constitutionally protected free speech for everyone has been looking mighty bleak of late. When did gay become the politically correct word for homosexual at the expense of free speech?

I cannot say exactly when the homosexual community became the gay community, but here are synonyms for the word gay:

blithe
happy
light-hearted
lively
merry
vivacious
airy
bright
sunny
homophile
homosexual
effervescent
hilarious

I would be accused of homophobia were I to overwork the word homosexual. Aiming for savoir-faire I decided to risk an allegation of flippancy by substituting synonyms for gay wherever appropriate in the rest of this message.

Every time you examine any issue near and dear to liberal hearts you will find that free speech is always the first casualty. With that in mind I want to comment on a few blithe causes collectively referred to as the hilarious agenda.

The vivacious community is only one group. “Put a sock in it if you oppose me” is the bumper sticker for every liberal cause espousing this, that, or the other. It would all mean very little were it not for the judges, and employers who fear the judges. Neither of those two groups is noted for their love of free speech.

You would think that the First Amendment Rights of government employees are protected more than anyone else’s. You would be wrong in spite of powerful government employee unions. Schlafly’s article cited several incidents involving government employees who suffered at the hands of the light-hearted community.

You would be wrong again if you think that colleges and universities form the first line of defense against assaults on free speech Rights. In reality, sunny Rights always displace the First Amendment in institutions of higher agendas.

The happy community, the judges, and just about every liberal in the country forget that hate speech requires the most protection, or at least the same protection liberals enjoy when their hate speech is aimed at someone else’s lifestyle, personality, or beliefs. Example: When an airy entertainer tries to be funny by denigrating stereotypes who oppose effervescent marriages the attempted humor is usually rendered with thinly veiled hate speech.

The queer dance

Once upon a time I read somewhere how that dance craze, The Twist, got started. I do not know if the story is true, but it is worth repeating.

It seems that there was an ordinance in one of Southern California’s beach towns prohibiting same sex partners from dancing with one another in the local gin mills. However, same sex partners tripping the light fantastic had to touch each other in order to be in violation of the law. Homosexuals began to dance The Twist without touching one another just to tweak the noses of the local constabulary who were obviously commanded by Inspector Clouseau. The craze spread, as such things have a way of doing, and The Twist became part of the culture with a lot of help from Chubby Checker.

My first thoughts about same sex marriage cautioned that it might be just another bit of tweaking the establishment’s nose à la The Twist. If that was the merry community’s intent they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams thanks to judges.

I doubt if any of them ever thought their inside humor would go as far as it went. Now that they are being taken seriously they have no choice but to run with the Socialists to make it stick. I name the Socialists specifically because the same sex marriage issue is so easily turned into a “constitutional Right.” Socialists love the Constitution whenever they find a new way to tear it down.

Now that a few states are dispensing marriage licenses look for a constitutional amendment to resurface. Speaking for myself, I do not care one way or the other if there is a constitutional amendment to deal with the issue. It will not build discrimination into the Constitution as some claim, but it will trivialize the Constitution to some extent. An amendment specifically designed to address gay nonsense may not be what the light-hearted community expected, but they do have square apples from academe pontificating about same sex marriages as though it is not the silliest damned idea to ever come along. How the merry must be laughing at the straights.

Traditional art

Not many years ago color coordinated gays claimed that every creative artist that ever wrote a play, composed an opera, smeared paint on canvas, or chiseled away at a piece of marble was light-hearted. Michelangelo’s talent became the face of homosexuality.

Do not fret. There has been a make over. The new face is less artistic, but infinitely more monogamous than the old face. The latest story is that they all love their chosen partner, work hard at ordinary jobs, never part company, and would not dream of infidelity. All things considered, the merry crowd should have stayed with the artistic image.

There is one major problem with the new face: How did HIV/AIDS decimate the hilarious community with all of that monogamous love and devotion going around? I have no answer.

One possible result of casual liaisons that kill is that the blithe community stumbled upon fidelity out of fear of HIV/AIDS. That is a good thing for them if that is the case, but it does not mean that same sex marriage should be legislated by judges or by anybody else.

One final observation: Now that homosexuals admit they are stodgy they will have to relinquish the “gay” misnomer.



To kudzu: Get yourself a new lawyer. Breach of contract disputes are heard in civil courts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_Court

I studied civil litigation at the only ABA approved school. You are full of beans. Call your lawyer and ASK.

[domer76]

To Domer76: I had hoped no one would play the gay card since same sex marriages would also be covered by contracts.

If it makes you happy I did have some fun with the gay community on another board. Note that “queer” is their word.

The National LGBTQ Task Force announced Tuesday that “hundreds of LGBTQ advocates will take over Capitol Hill to bring queer voices on the Hill on Thursday.”

The queer crowd is after two things:

1. Special privileges legislated into extraordinary Rights for a minority.

2. Tell free Americans how they must behave.

“The Task Force is convening one of the largest LGBTQ advocacy days in recent history to say: enough is enough. In law and in practice, LGBTQ people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. We plan to tell our lawmakers exactly how to do so.”

Naturally, being treated with dignity and respect means take a queer to lunch after they get:

. . . “explicit” federal protections in housing, employment, public accommodations, jury service, public funding, credit and education.

. . . legislation that guarantees abortion is provided at public expense and requires employers and health plan sponsors to include it, legislation that stops racial and religious profiling in the federal government, and protections for “bodily autonomy” in nursing homes.

Congress gets urged to scrap religious rights
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 01/23/2018 @ 9:31 pm

http://www.wnd.com/2018/01/congress-...igious-rights/

Remember that equal Rights, civil Rights, non-discrimination, quotas, affirmative action, and all of the other touchy-feely liberal causes can be summed up in one sentence: “You must associate with me.” It happened in the workplace, the schools, the military, in private clubs, and everywhere else; so there is every reason to believe that dignity and respect will evolve into forced associations. Never mind that everyone else’s dignity and respect is brushed aside. I offer this scenario to make my point:

I invite a dozen or so neighbors to a cookout. I specifically do not invite a homosexual couple who live down the street. They sue me for discrimination. I lose the case and money. The court orders me to associate with all of my neighbors. That is called protecting the individual while teaching me that I am part of the collective in all things.

Just to be clear on this. I simply do not want to associate with homosexuals. I do NOT wish bodily harm on anyone, nor would I take part in violence directed against homosexuals.

Queer free speech

Somewhere along the way free speech for everyone dropped out of the homosexual marriage debate. Nevertheless, public schools continue to attack free speech today as much as they did in 2006 when Phyllis Schlafly pointed out:

Public schools are a major battleground in the gays' efforts to censor any criticism of their goals or lifestyle. Every year, the National Education Association passes resolutions not only demanding that schools not discriminate against sexual orientation, but also insisting that classroom language be monitored to punish "homophobia" and to "promote 'acceptance' and/or 'respect' instead of 'tolerance'" of the gay lifestyle.

Gay agenda targets free speech
By Phyllis Schlafly
November 6, 2006

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/P...ts_free_speech

The sly transition that went from tolerance to acceptance reminded me of an old adage:

First we abhor; then we tolerate; then we embrace; then we legislate.

In recent years several states moved homosexual marriage into legislation leaving most of us behind in the tolerate stage. So I have to ask if liberals will lift their ban on free speech altogether?

I have another question because constitutionally protected free speech for everyone has been looking mighty bleak of late. When did gay become the politically correct word for homosexual at the expense of free speech?

I cannot say exactly when the homosexual community became the gay community, but here are synonyms for the word gay:

blithe
happy
light-hearted
lively
merry
vivacious
airy
bright
sunny
homophile
homosexual
effervescent
hilarious

I would be accused of homophobia were I to overwork the word homosexual. Aiming for savoir-faire I decided to risk an allegation of flippancy by substituting synonyms for gay wherever appropriate in the rest of this message.

Every time you examine any issue near and dear to liberal hearts you will find that free speech is always the first casualty. With that in mind I want to comment on a few blithe causes collectively referred to as the hilarious agenda.

The vivacious community is only one group. “Put a sock in it if you oppose me” is the bumper sticker for every liberal cause espousing this, that, or the other. It would all mean very little were it not for the judges, and employers who fear the judges. Neither of those two groups is noted for their love of free speech.

You would think that the First Amendment Rights of government employees are protected more than anyone else’s. You would be wrong in spite of powerful government employee unions. Schlafly’s article cited several incidents involving government employees who suffered at the hands of the light-hearted community.

You would be wrong again if you think that colleges and universities form the first line of defense against assaults on free speech Rights. In reality, sunny Rights always displace the First Amendment in institutions of higher agendas.

The happy community, the judges, and just about every liberal in the country forget that hate speech requires the most protection, or at least the same protection liberals enjoy when their hate speech is aimed at someone else’s lifestyle, personality, or beliefs. Example: When an airy entertainer tries to be funny by denigrating stereotypes who oppose effervescent marriages the attempted humor is usually rendered with thinly veiled hate speech.

The queer dance

Once upon a time I read somewhere how that dance craze, The Twist, got started. I do not know if the story is true, but it is worth repeating.

It seems that there was an ordinance in one of Southern California’s beach towns prohibiting same sex partners from dancing with one another in the local gin mills. However, same sex partners tripping the light fantastic had to touch each other in order to be in violation of the law. Homosexuals began to dance The Twist without touching one another just to tweak the noses of the local constabulary who were obviously commanded by Inspector Clouseau. The craze spread, as such things have a way of doing, and The Twist became part of the culture with a lot of help from Chubby Checker.

My first thoughts about same sex marriage cautioned that it might be just another bit of tweaking the establishment’s nose à la The Twist. If that was the merry community’s intent they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams thanks to judges.

I doubt if any of them ever thought their inside humor would go as far as it went. Now that they are being taken seriously they have no choice but to run with the Socialists to make it stick. I name the Socialists specifically because the same sex marriage issue is so easily turned into a “constitutional Right.” Socialists love the Constitution whenever they find a new way to tear it down.

Now that a few states are dispensing marriage licenses look for a constitutional amendment to resurface. Speaking for myself, I do not care one way or the other if there is a constitutional amendment to deal with the issue. It will not build discrimination into the Constitution as some claim, but it will trivialize the Constitution to some extent. An amendment specifically designed to address gay nonsense may not be what the light-hearted community expected, but they do have square apples from academe pontificating about same sex marriages as though it is not the silliest damned idea to ever come along. How the merry must be laughing at the straights.

Traditional art

Not many years ago color coordinated gays claimed that every creative artist that ever wrote a play, composed an opera, smeared paint on canvas, or chiseled away at a piece of marble was light-hearted. Michelangelo’s talent became the face of homosexuality.

Do not fret. There has been a make over. The new face is less artistic, but infinitely more monogamous than the old face. The latest story is that they all love their chosen partner, work hard at ordinary jobs, never part company, and would not dream of infidelity. All things considered, the merry crowd should have stayed with the artistic image.

There is one major problem with the new face: How did HIV/AIDS decimate the hilarious community with all of that monogamous love and devotion going around? I have no answer.

One possible result of casual liaisons that kill is that the blithe community stumbled upon fidelity out of fear of HIV/AIDS. That is a good thing for them if that is the case, but it does not mean that same sex marriage should be legislated by judges or by anybody else.

One final observation: Now that homosexuals admit they are stodgy they will have to relinquish the “gay” misnomer.



To kudzu: Get yourself a new lawyer. Breach of contract disputes are heard in civil courts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_Court

Your verbose cut and paste bullshit is just that. And a laughable diversion from my point.

Use your own words, you fucking moron. That is, if you have them. Nobody wades through the pile of horseshit you just posted.

[kudzu]

Your verbose cut and paste bullshit is just that. And a laughable diversion from my point.

Use your own words, you fucking moron. That is, if you have them. Nobody wades through the pile of horseshit you just posted.

He seems to think that gay people didn't have civil rights.

[CharacterAssassin]

This has to be a publicity stunt:

Gwyneth Paltrow Brings Ex-Husband Chris Martin on Honeymoon with Her New Husband
by Warner Todd Houston
11 Jan 2019

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainm...r-new-husband/

Paltrow’s story reminds me of the need to overhaul the archaic institution of marriage itself.

1. Do away with the legality attached to organized religion ceremonies. Couples could still marry in a church if they choose, but marriages performed by priest, cult leaders, and so on, would carry no weight in law. If ever the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State means anything it must include separating organized religion marriages from the state.

2. Every couple should cohabit by a legal contract. That would include contracts that cover hide the baloney.

cohabit (verb, intransitive)
cohabited, cohabiting, cohabits

1. To live together as spouses.

2. To live together in a sexual relationship when not legally married.

3. Clauses in a cohabit contract would cover everything from who gets what —— including the children and the family pet.

4. Either party could simply cancel the contract by notifying the state in writing instead of filing for a divorce. There are so many organized religion marriages they have become nothing more than contracts if you look at how judges rule on the details in messy divorces.

5. If it ain’t in the contract it does not exist for either party.

6. Lawyers would perform legal ceremonies instead of priests and justices of the peace doing the honors.

7. If only one partner has an income, the money paid to Social Security is split equally between both partners so that only one person should be entitled to Social Security benefits. In other words only one individual and minor children can collect from the government. When that person whose name is on the account dies SS dies with them, or dies the minute a minor child becomes 18 years old.

Incidentally, Social Security was initiated because banks, and bankers, could not be trusted.

SS should have been a pension plan. FDR Socialists were very careful to make SS a required insurance policy rather than make it a voluntary pension plan administered by the government. Had they done it that way American workers would have the choice of paying into a government-administered pension plan, or buying a private sector pension plan gambling on getting a higher payout.

NOTE: City, state, and federal employees were allowed to opt of SS. Private sector workers do not have that option. That will never change now that immigrants who never paid a penny into SS collect benefits from Americans who were forced to pay.

It will not take long for a standard contract form to become available.

Only one form containing a few words canceling a contract is all that is required. “I’m outta here.” signed and filed by the unhappy partner will suffice.

The U.S. Constitution and contracts are supposed to be inviolate in this country, while the union of one man and one woman that has been in effect for centuries is not worth the vows the happy couple take. Hopefully, a man and a woman cohabiting by contract will stay together longer than Democrats stayed with the Constitution.

contract (noun)
Abbr. contr., cont.

1. a. An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law. b. The writing or document containing such an agreement.

2. The branch of law dealing with formal agreements between parties.

3. Marriage as a formal agreement; betrothal.

4. Games. a. The last and highest bid of one hand in bridge. b. The number of tricks thus bid. c. Contract bridge.

5. A paid assignment to murder someone: put out a contract on the mobster's life.

verb
contracted, contracting, contracts (verb, transitive)

1. To enter into by contract; establish or settle by formal agreement: contract a marriage.

2. To acquire or incur: contract obligations; contract a serious illness.

3. a. To reduce in size by drawing together; shrink. b. To pull together; wrinkle.

4. Grammar. To shorten (a word or words) by omitting or combining some of the letters or sounds.

verb, intransitive

1. To enter into or make an agreement: contract for garbage collection.

2. To become reduced in size by or as if by being drawn together: The pupils of the patient's eyes contracted.

Finally, I assume a parent, or a legal guardian. can sign a contract for a minor. Sad to say this former child bride got the shaft from everybody who was supposed to look out for her. I assume her sorry ass husband is still here:

FILE – In this Feb. 2, 2016, file photo, Naila Amin, 26, holds a book from one of the classes she was taking at Nassau Community College in Garden City, N.Y. According to data provided to The Associated Press, the U.S. approved thousands of requests by men to bring child and teenage brides from another country. “My passport ruined my life,” said Naila Amin, a dual citizen from Pakistan who grew up in New York City. She was forcibly married at 13 in Pakistan and applied for papers for her 26-year-old husband to come to the country. “People die to come to America. I was a passport to him. They all wanted him here, and that was the way to do it.” (AP Photo/Kathy Kmonicek)

Requests to bring in child brides OK’d; legal under US laws
By Associated Press |
PUBLISHED: January 11, 2019 at 9:39 pm | UPDATED: January 11, 2019 at 9:42 pm
By COLLEEN LONG

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/01...ride-requests/

On the plus side child brides (and child grooms) can cancel the contract on the day they had enough.

Marriage IS a contract, you pathetic helmet.

[The Anonymous]

Can we vote Flanders off the island?

I vote your mom off the island.

[domer76]

He seems to think that gay people didn't have civil rights.

I couldn’t get that far into the babbling piece of bullshit to even know.

[Irish Exit]

Wrong. You don't understand the meaning of "party".

You don't understand the meaning of authority.

[Irish Exit]

Not in law.. The contract is between 2 parties and the government is NOT party to the marriage. Ask ANY lawyer.

Without government consent, your marriage is illegal

[Flanders]

I studied civil litigation at the only ABA approved school. You are full of beans. Call your lawyer and ASK.

I studied civil litigation at the only ABA approved school. You are full of beans. Call your lawyer and ASK.

I studied civil litigation at the only ABA approved school. You are full of beans. Call your lawyer and ASK.

To kudzu: Only an asshole repeats his stupidity three times.

Your verbose cut and paste bullshit is just that. And a laughable diversion from my point.

Use your own words, you fucking moron. That is, if you have them. Nobody wades through the pile of horseshit you just posted.

I couldn’t get that far into the babbling piece of bullshit to even know.

To domer76: Interesting. Refusing to read does not stop you from replying and mouthing off!

He seems to think that gay people didn't have civil rights.

To kudzu: They do not. They have special privileges.

Marriage IS a contract, you pathetic helmet.

To CharacterAssassin: If you insist on running with an idiot please explain which clause —— spoken or written —— is a breach of contract in a divorce proceeding? I am not even sure if a prenup qualifies as an actionable breach of contract in a divorce settlement because of community property.

You might want to ask Jeff Bezos about it. Even if he had a prenup Washington State law nullifies it:

Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos live in Washington State. Washington is a community property state which means assets accrued during the marriage must be split equally in a divorce.

Jan 13, 2019, 11:10am
MacKenzie's Revenge: Can The Soon-To-Be Former Wife Of Jeff Bezos Wreak Havoc On Amazon?
Brittain Ladd

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brittai.../#54cfff1a494b

[CharacterAssassin]

To kudzu: Only an asshole repeats his stupidity three times.





To domer76: Interesting. Refusing to read does not stop you from replying and mouthing off!



To kudzu: They do not. They have special privileges.



To CharacterAssassin: If you insist on running with an idiot please explain which clause —— spoken or written —— is a breach of contract in a divorce proceeding? I am not even sure if a prenup qualifies as an actionable breach of contract in a divorce settlement because of community property.

You might want to ask Jeff Bezos about it. Even if he had a prenup Washington State law nullifies it:

Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos live in Washington State. Washington is a community property state which means assets accrued during the marriage must be split equally in a divorce.

Jan 13, 2019, 11:10am
MacKenzie's Revenge: Can The Soon-To-Be Former Wife Of Jeff Bezos Wreak Havoc On Amazon?
Brittain Ladd

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brittai.../#54cfff1a494b

Which doesn't change the fact that marriage is a contract, ya simp.