Proof Southerners Are Retarded: Texas bans ALL Marriage (by accident)

ib1yysguy

ib1yysguy

Junior Member
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5700676.shtml

Here's what happened: In 2005, Texas voters and the state Legislature approved a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

But the amendment included the following clause, which was reportedly designed to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships: "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

One thing that is "identical…to marriage," of course, is marriage. And Texas Attorney General candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Democrat, is arguing that the current Attorney General, Republican Greg Abbott, made a "massive mistake" in allowing the language.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
That's the dumbest argument (other than one of Watermarks) I've ever heard.
Click to expand...

It's not an argument at all. It's a statement of fact. The retarded southerners past whom that constitutional amendment was passed aren't philosophically or politically related to Watermark or anything he stands for.

Southerners who are conservatives are retarded. This is but one more shining example, put out on display for all to laugh at.
 
Since I oppose civil marriage, I view this as a good thing, except that they accidentally banned everything, including civil union contracts. Oh, well, its a start.
 
Excellent first step towards a real solution. The government shouldn't be mucking about in marriage anyway.

Of course it is ludicrous to say that something is identical to itself. You aren't your identical twin.
 
Watermark said:
I am identical to myself.
Click to expand...
No, you aren't. You are yourself. Something is not identical to itself. In order for something to be "identical" it must be a separate thing. Two things can be identical, one thing cannot.

Well, I think even you get the idea. A clone of you at the same age could be considered "identical" to you, but you are not identical to yourself.
 
and I b you are identical to a tool, a massive one.
WTF is it with the gay rights, nobody is stopping them from doing what they want to do. This may kill the democrats, moderates think your moon bats with the gay rights crusade. IT's limosine-liberals special, faux outrage that .1% is in a tizzy.
How about you ditch the gay rights and help some of the millions jailed unjustly.
The whole step over a starving person to spit on someone wearing fur mentality of the democrats drives me crazy.
It's the economy stupid.
 
Once again, ignorance flows freely with crass generalizations.

Look at the states that have constitutional ammendments banning gay marriage. Is it limited to the south?

If how they voted is the key, look at the states that went to George W. in 2004 (in 2000 they may not have known better). Was it just southern states that elected him?

This regional bigotry is bullshit. You may claim to be enlightening, but anytime you try and say that an intire region is retarded, you only show your own ignorance.

And btw, Damo is right. Being identical to marriage is not the same as marriage.
 
IB 1 tard is poor so he spews hatefull bile at the south,
I didn't see him slamming liberal Cali when they banned the gay hook up.
 
ib1yysguy said:
....

But the amendment included the following clause, which was reportedly designed to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships: "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

One thing that is "identical…to marriage," of course, is marriage. And Texas Attorney General candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Democrat, is arguing that the current Attorney General, Republican Greg Abbott, made a "massive mistake" in allowing the language.
Click to expand...

This is a simple case of the stupid Democrat interpreting the language incorrectly.
 
Ib, when SM and I agree that you are an idiot, it pretty much nails you.
 
ib1yysguy said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5700676.shtml

Here's what happened: In 2005, Texas voters and the state Legislature approved a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

But the amendment included the following clause, which was reportedly designed to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships: "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

One thing that is "identical…to marriage," of course, is marriage. And Texas Attorney General candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Democrat, is arguing that the current Attorney General, Republican Greg Abbott, made a "massive mistake" in allowing the language.
Click to expand...

this is funny, because it's mostly true. I was telling people to vote this stupid amendment down because of the wording and my fellow texans laughed at me saying the 'people' would understand what it meant. :readit:

I was right, yet again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top