Straight Marriage Is Illegal Now

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Straight Marriage Is Illegal Now

«‹›609 »

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

twodot posted:

Cite one? This would not be the first time I asked for a citation.

Robicheaux v. Caldwell

# ? Feb 8, 2014 03:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 15:26

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Ah, I was unaware of this case, because it was a case that filed in July and has since been completely dismissed without actually getting anywhere, though it does seem like they might try again. I agree that this is in fact a case where someone argued that the full faith and credit clause should apply to marriage, though I'll note they were not very successful. Thanks for the case, but you must agree that it does nothing to advance the argument that full faith and credit ought to apply to marriage? The documents that do exist don't even give a reason, which is not to say that is unusual, just that the proceedings didn't get far enough to make an actual argument.

For those curious about the prevalence/success of such arguments, from farraday's own link:

quote:

But there exists an entrenched conventional wisdom that the Full Faith and Credit Clause actually is �irrelevant to the question of whether one state must recognize another state�s marriage.�

quote:

�[t]he fact that the Full Faith and Credit Clause has not been invoked in the marriage context does not mean that it could not be.�

quote:

The Supreme Court has never spoken to the matter, [footnote follows] Nor has any federal circuit court. At least one federal district court has rejected a full faith and credit argument for interstate recognition of a same-sex marriage. Wilson v. Ake

# ? Feb 8, 2014 04:22

Chris James 2: Aug 9, 2012

Twodot has derailed this thread for at least a dozen pages over the course of 3 or 4 times now with non-gay marriage topics, and it's past the point of being ridiculous.

# ? Feb 8, 2014 04:41

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Oh right too recent.

How about Wilson v Ake?

http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12475

Oh it didn't work, that clearly means no one has argued it.

So, to review again twodots argument.

I'm not aware of any serious legal expert that thinks marriage licenses is one of "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings".

I said "I'm not aware of any serious legal expert" because while I've read plenty of academics discussing it one way or another, I've never heard of an actual court challenge to laws which ignore out of state marriages.

The documents that do exist don't even give a reason, which is not to say that is unusual, just that the proceedings didn't get far enough to make an actual argument.

It didn't work so therefore it doesn't count as an actual court challenge,

Translation I CAN'T BE WRONG gently caress YOU FOR QUESTIONING ME.

gently caress off you troll.

# ? Feb 8, 2014 04:42

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Sweeney Tom posted:

Twodot has derailed this thread for at least a dozen pages over the course of 3 or 4 times now with non-gay marriage topics, and it's past the point of being ridiculous.

Whether or not full faith and credit works as an argument for gay marriage seems directly on point for a gay marriage thread (edit: it so far has never worked despite us documenting two cases attempting it so far, this doesn't preclude it from working, but it seems relevant regarding directing effort). People should stop posting wrong things, and I'll stop telling them they are wrong

farraday posted:

gently caress off you troll.

Your stance has evolved from the Supreme Court thinks full faith and credit applies to marriage/you are moron for thinking otherwise to posting a court case that was dismissed, and a court case where that argument lost, and I'm the troll? I think there's reasonable room for disagreement on serious, and it's nice of you to cite me court cases I was unaware of (I was unaware of them as I stated), but after I acknowledge that and ask if you think those cases really are in favor of your argument you completely drop your own arguments, and accuse me of being a troll. That's dumb.

# ? Feb 8, 2014 04:47

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

twodot posted:

Whether or not full faith and credit works as an argument for gay marriage seems directly on point for a gay marriage thread (edit: it so far has never worked despite us documenting two cases attempting it so far, this doesn't preclude it from working, but it seems relevant regarding directing effort). People should posting wrong things, and I'll stop telling them they are wrong

Your stance has evolved from the Supreme Court thinks full faith and credit applies to marriage/you are moron for thinking otherwise to posting a court case that was dismissed, and a court case where that argument lost, and I'm the troll? I think there's reasonable room for disagreement on serious, and it's nice of you to cite me court cases I was unaware of (I was unaware of them as I stated), but after I acknowledge that and ask if you think those cases really are in favor of your argument you completely drop your own arguments, and accuse me of being a troll. That's dumb.

Lie about what you said some more.

quote:

I'm not aware of any serious legal expert that thinks marriage licenses is one of "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings".

# ? Feb 8, 2014 04:48

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

farraday posted:

Lie about what you said some more.

Where did I lie? Obviously we have different definitions of serious, which as I've previously noted is fine. You are more than welcome to say my usage of serious is dumb, whether or not academics exist on either side of the issue isn't relevant to any stance I care about. If that's your primary argument, then good job I guess.

# ? Feb 8, 2014 04:52

Chris James 2: Aug 9, 2012

twodot posted:

Whether or not full faith and credit works as an argument for gay marriage seems directly on point for a gay marriage thread (edit: it so far has never worked despite us documenting two cases attempting it so far, this doesn't preclude it from working, but it seems relevant regarding directing effort).

Does this include the part where you started this whole current tangent by linking to how cousin marriage is affected? Because that seems like something that is definitely not on point for a gay marriage thread (unless the cousins are gay, in which case you're still halfway there at best).

# ? Feb 8, 2014 05:15

Blue Footed Booby: Oct 4, 2006; got those happy feet

Sweeney Tom posted:

Does this include the part where you started this whole current tangent by linking to how cousin marriage is affected? Because that seems like something that is definitely not on point for a gay marriage thread (unless the cousins are gay, in which case you're still halfway there at best).

What if the gay cousins are polyamorous? :v:

# ? Feb 8, 2014 05:22

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Sweeney Tom posted:

Does this include the part where you started this whole current tangent by linking to how cousin marriage is affected? Because that seems like something that is definitely not on point for a gay marriage thread (unless the cousins are gay, in which case you're still halfway there at best).

Do you seriously want a recap? Multiple people asserted that same sex marriage was the only metric on which states can ignore marriages that happened in other states. This is simply mistaken. If that were true, and the full faith and credit clause did protect first cousin marriage (among others), then making the argument that full faith and credit should protect same sex marriage just as it does other marriages is much easier. Since other marriages aren't currently protected, the argument becomes much harder (though not impossible). I don't see how this meta-discussion is helping anything.

# ? Feb 8, 2014 05:22

Nostalgia4Infinity: Feb 27, 2007; 10,000 YEARS WASN'T ENOUGH LURKING

twodot posted:

Do you seriously want a recap? Multiple people asserted that same sex marriage was the only metric on which states can ignore marriages that happened in other states. This is simply mistaken. If that were true, and the full faith and credit clause did protect first cousin marriage (among others), then making the argument that full faith and credit should protect same sex marriage just as it does other marriages is much easier. Since other marriages aren't currently protected, the argument becomes much harder (though not impossible). I don't see how this meta-discussion is helping anything.

And yet you continue it.

# ? Feb 8, 2014 05:23

EAT THE EGGS RICOLA: May 29, 2008

twodot posted:

I don't see how this meta-discussion is helping anything.

Okay, so go away?

# ? Feb 8, 2014 05:24

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

eviltastic posted:

For what it's worth: according to a buddy who knows the guy, Rep. Mike Turner of the Oklahoma Legislature, who came up upthread, says that he was horribly misrepresented by the press and was looking to get rid of the Oklahoma definition of marriage in order to enable gays to get married.

I can't find anything supporting this interpretation, although I can't find any actual quotes from him that say his goal is to keep the state from recognizing same sex marriage if they lose the case on equal protection grounds either.

However, his campaign website has this:

Mike Turner's Official Website posted:

I will stand for the traditional values that have made this country great. Some believe values like faith and family are outdated. I believe they are timeless. I�ll support the right to life, Second Amendment freedoms, the rights of students to pray in school and our right to publicly express our faith.

I have a hard time believing that he's a pro-lifer who wants to put 'student-led' prayer in schools and make Christianity the state-endorsed religion* yet is somehow tolerant and accepting of sinful sinful gay marriage. But I don't know, the whole thing is phrased so wishy-washy, that maybe his whole statement is about his opposition to the death penalty and call for tolerance toward Muslims and other minority faiths :v:

*At least that's how I interpret the "right to publicly express our faith". Since that right isn't under threat anywhere, like at all, people who talk about it usually mean they want 10 Commandments in the courtrooms, crosses on the buildings, and Jesus everywhere.

# ? Feb 8, 2014 23:01

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

VitalSigns posted:

*At least that's how I interpret the "right to publicly express our faith". Since that right isn't under threat anywhere, like at all, people who talk about it usually mean they want 10 Commandments in the courtrooms, crosses on the buildings, and Jesus everywhere.

There are a subset of people who believe that they are so just by saying "yeah I'm not going to do <thing that isn't happening> " they get support.

See: people saying "I will not condone people spitting on troops", etc.

# ? Feb 8, 2014 23:27

MaxxBot: Oct 6, 2003; you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

VitalSigns posted:

I have a hard time believing that he's a pro-lifer who wants to put 'student-led' prayer in schools and make Christianity the state-endorsed religion* yet is somehow tolerant and accepting of sinful sinful gay marriage. But I don't know, the whole thing is phrased so wishy-washy, that maybe his whole statement is about his opposition to the death penalty and call for tolerance toward Muslims and other minority faiths

I'm skeptical also but there are a pretty significant number of conservatives who are conservative across the board on every issue except gays, because they have a friend or relative who is gay. Since homosexuality is mostly random your typical Republican politician is more likely to have gay family members or close friends than they are likely to have close family or friends who are poor, minorities, atheist, or women seeking an abortion.

# ? Feb 9, 2014 00:03

Mr Ice Cream Glove: Apr 22, 2007

This is HUGE

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/08/politics/holder-same-sex-marriage-rights/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

quote:

CNN) -- The U.S. government will recognize same-sex marriages as equal to traditional marriages in all federal matters, including in U.S. courts, bankruptcies, prison visits and survivor benefits, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Saturday.

The expansion of such federal recognition will include 34 states where same-sex marriage isn't legal, but the new federal benefits being extended to those states will apply only where the U.S. government has jurisdiction, Holder said.

For example, a same-sex couple legally married in Massachusetts can now have their federal bankruptcy proceeding recognized in Alabama, even though it doesn't allow same-sex marriages. In the past, the U.S. government could challenge the couple's joint bankruptcy because Alabama doesn't recognize same-sex marriage.

Holder's announcement was revealed in an advance copy of a speech he will deliver at the Human Rights Campaign's New York City gala Saturday night.

Holder plans to announce that the Justice Department will issue a memo Monday that recognizes same-sex marriages "to the greatest extent possible under the law."

The move affects how millions of Americans interact with their federal government, including bankruptcy cases, prison visitation rights, survivor benefits for police officers and firefighters killed on the job, and the legal right to refuse to testify to incriminate a spouse.

The Human Rights Campaign, an advocate of gay rights, lauded Holder for his support of same sex marriage in a recent speech to the Swedish parliament.

In an excerpt of his speech provided in advance, Holder compared his work for the gay rights cause to the 1960s civil rights struggle and then- Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's support for equality.

"This means that, in every courthouse, in every proceeding, and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States -- they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections and rights as opposite-sex marriages under federal law," Holder said of his initiative.

Under the new policy, the Justice Department will recognize that same-sex spouses of individuals involved in civil and criminal cases should have the same legal rights as all other married couples -- including the right to decline to give testimony that might incriminate their spouses.

Also, the government won't contest same-sex married couples their rights in states where previously prosecutors could argue that the marriage is not recognized in the state where the couple lives, Holder said.

Couples in same-sex marriages will be allowed to file for bankruptcy as a couple. This ensures alimony and domestic support debts aren't discharged in bankruptcy cases. Federal inmates with same-sex spouses will now have full visitation, compassionate release and other benefits.

The Justice Department's policy change will extend benefits to same-sex couples who benefit from federal programs such as the Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund, Radiation Exposure Compensation program and to the families of police officers and firefighters who receive benefits from the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program.

"Just like during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the stakes involved in this generation's struggle for LGBT equality could not be higher," Holder said. "As attorney general, I will not let this Department be simply a bystander during this important moment in history."

In a statement, Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said that "this landmark announcement will change the lives of countless committed gay and lesbian couples for the better.

"While the immediate effect of these policy decisions is that all married gay couples will be treated equally under the law, the long-term effects are more profound. Today, our nation moves closer toward its ideals of equality and fairness for all," Griffin said.

# ? Feb 9, 2014 00:16

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

So is this, like, the Nega-DOMA? In that now all same-sex marriages regardless of state of residency are recognized by federal courts?

# ? Feb 9, 2014 00:20

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Gerund posted:

So is this, like, the Nega-DOMA? In that now all same-sex marriages regardless of state of residency are recognized by federal courts?

Well, you still have to get married in a legalized state and it still doesn't apply to only state stuff, but otherwise yeah.

# ? Feb 9, 2014 00:28

Mercury_Storm: Jun 12, 2003; *chomp chomp chomp*

Welp, looks like Oklahoma really will have to ban all marriages now! I mean, if they're going to be consistent about denying rights and benefits like with the whole national guard debacle.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/27/oklahoma-s-governor-denies-marriage-benefits-to-national-guard-members.html

http://www.newson6.com/story/24543033/lawmakers-consider-preventing-all-marriage-in-oklahoma

# ? Feb 9, 2014 00:51

Blarghalt: May 19, 2010

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

This is HUGE

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/08/politics/holder-same-sex-marriage-rights/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Finally. I thought we'd have to keep hiding our radical homosexual plan to destroy America forever.

Begin the sacrifices! Everything is legal! :unsmigghh:

# ? Feb 9, 2014 01:41

eviltastic: Feb 8, 2004; Fan of Britches

Blarghalt posted:

Finally. I thought we'd have to keep hiding our radical homosexual plan to destroy America forever.

Begin the sacrifices! Everything is legal!

Probably a good moment to pull this'un back out of retirement:

# ? Feb 9, 2014 02:51

Torrannor: Apr 27, 2013; ---FAGNER---
TEAM-MATE

MaxxBot posted:

I'm skeptical also but there are a pretty significant number of conservatives who are conservative across the board on every issue except gays, because they have a friend or relative who is gay. Since homosexuality is mostly random your typical Republican politician is more likely to have gay family members or close friends than they are likely to have close family or friends who are poor, minorities, atheist, or women seeking an abortion.

Actually, since boys are more likely to be gay for each older brother they have... tell me again, who has more children on average, (religious) conservatives or the evil pro-choice liberals? It's like the universe is trolling them! :haw:

# ? Feb 9, 2014 07:39

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Gerund posted:

So is this, like, the Nega-DOMA? In that now all same-sex marriages regardless of state of residency are recognized by federal courts?

It's more a matter of applying federal side law recognition for same sex marriages for things such as the spousal privilege in court cases, bankruptcy and also prison visitation rights to federal prisons.

# ? Feb 9, 2014 08:03

emfive: Aug 6, 2011; Hey emfive, this is Alec. I am glad you like the mummy eating the bowl of shitty pasta with a can of 'parm.' I made that image for you way back when. I’m glad you enjoy it.

Torrannor posted:

Actually, since boys are more likely to be gay for each older brother they have... tell me again, who has more children on average, (religious) conservatives or the evil pro-choice liberals? It's like the universe is trolling them!

This has probably come up in the thread before but that says some interesting things about Jackson and Justin Duggar.

The new Federal stance on marriage validity seems like something destined to trigger a decade or so worth of lawsuits, as well as many lightning-rod issues for state and local politics in red states. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out in the elections this year.

# ? Feb 9, 2014 16:16

notthegoatseguy: Sep 6, 2005

emfive posted:

The new Federal stance on marriage validity seems like something destined to trigger a decade or so worth of lawsuits, as well as many lightning-rod issues for state and local politics in red states. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out in the elections this year.

I don't know about lawsuits, but a Republican POTUS could possibly overturn it with an executive order or with just a new AG in charge.

# ? Feb 9, 2014 16:29

emfive: Aug 6, 2011; Hey emfive, this is Alec. I am glad you like the mummy eating the bowl of shitty pasta with a can of 'parm.' I made that image for you way back when. I’m glad you enjoy it.

notthegoatseguy posted:

I don't know about lawsuits, but a Republican POTUS could possibly overturn it with an executive order or with just a new AG in charge.

Sure but that too would be pretty contentious, especially after a period of time during which a number of couples have explicitly benefited from the support of the Federal Government under the current (new) guidelines. A presidential candidate vowing to take away something that a majority favors in order to please a minority seems, well, unwise.

# ? Feb 9, 2014 16:38

hangedman1984: Jul 25, 2012

emfive posted:

Sure but that too would be pretty contentious, especially after a period of time during which a number of couples have explicitly benefited from the support of the Federal Government under the current (new) guidelines. A presidential candidate vowing to take away something that a majority favors in order to please a minority seems, well, unwise.

Unwise, but somewhat par for the course with republicans.

# ? Feb 9, 2014 17:18

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

There's about an 80% chance that we won't see a Republican president again before gay marriage is legalized nationwide.

# ? Feb 9, 2014 17:20

PleasingFungus: Oct 10, 2012; idiot asshole bitch who should fuck off

computer parts posted:

There's about an 80% chance that we won't see a Republican president again before gay marriage is legalized nationwide.

Why 80%?

# ? Feb 9, 2014 19:39

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Because 79% is too low and 81% is too high.

# ? Feb 9, 2014 19:41

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

PleasingFungus posted:

Why 80%?

Because I think it'll happen before the end of the decade and I'm being charitable for the Republicans having a 1 in 5 chance in getting the White House in 2016.

# ? Feb 9, 2014 19:45

staticman: Sep 12, 2008; Be gay
Death to America
Suck my dick Israel
Mess with Texas
and remember to lmao

Who could this be?

It's America Man! He flies in his plane to ~~help fight against bigotry in Russia~~ make the lives of gay people in Russia worse.

quote:

On Friday evening, while huge crowds made their way to the Olympic opening ceremony viewing party, the men warned that �Judgment is coming� and shook hands with anyone who would stop to listen. A few locals did. But more significantly, at a time when discussion of the Olympics is dominated by issues of discrimination, none of the large police presence near the station appeared to approach them. Meanwhile, Friday night brought reports that at least four gay rights activists were arrested in St. Petersburg. One of the three men in Sochi�Larry Craft from Rochester, N.Y.�said that earlier in the day, they had spent a few hours at the police station after their banner got them in trouble. It read, �God bless Putin for his stance on homosexuals.� He said that they were allowed to return to the sidewalk if they promised to put the banner away.

Pardon the meme, but

# ? Feb 9, 2014 21:38

Chris James 2: Aug 9, 2012

If marriage equality isn't in the majority of states by 2020 (if not outright the law of the land country-wide by then, which I believe will happen), I'll be utterly surprised.

# ? Feb 9, 2014 21:58

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

There's a TFF thread about it but the NFL is about to get its first openly gay player:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/sports/michael-sam-college-football-star-says-he-is-gay-ahead-of-nfl-draft.html?_r=0

quote:

Coaches at the University of Missouri divided players into small groups at a preseason football practice last year for a team-building exercise. One by one, players were asked to talk about themselves � where they grew up, why they chose Missouri and what others might not know about them.

As Michael Sam, a defensive lineman, began to speak, he balled up a piece of paper in his hands. �I�m gay,� he said. With that, Mr. Sam set himself on a path to become the first publicly gay player in the National Football League.

�I looked in their eyes, and they just started shaking their heads � like, finally, he came out,� Mr. Sam said Sunday in an interview with The New York Times, the first time he spoke publicly about his sexual orientation.

Mr. Sam, a 6-foot-2, 260-pound senior, went on to a stellar season for Missouri, which finished 12-2 and won the Cotton Bowl. He was named a first-team all-American. He was the defensive player of the year in the Southeastern Conference, widely considered the top league in college football. Teammates voted him Missouri�s most valuable player.

e: He still has to do some stuff which may lower his draft stock, but it seems pretty likely that he goes within the first 2 rounds or so.

# ? Feb 10, 2014 02:23

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

computer parts posted:

There's a TFF thread about it but the NFL is about to get its first openly gay player:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/sports/michael-sam-college-football-star-says-he-is-gay-ahead-of-nfl-draft.html?_r=0

e: He still has to do some stuff which may lower his draft stock, but it seems pretty likely that he goes within the first 2 rounds or so.

PLEASE don't get upset if he lasts until Day 3, players- All Pro quality players- can and have dropped for things as minor as hand size and number of steps in the 40.

If he goes undrafted, burn the motherfucker to the ground.

# ? Feb 10, 2014 06:10

Gygaxian: May 29, 2013

So remember Moral Mondays in North Carolina (and if I've heard correctly, in other Southern states now), and the pro-union protests in Wisconsin? Utah is doing that now for a statewide anti-discrimination ordinance for LGBT folks, and just like in the other states, people are now getting arrested. The state senate won't hear the anti-discrimination bill, since they're saying that since same-sex marriage is so emotional on both sides they won't allow discussion of anything related to same-sex marriage, even though anti-discrimination is not directly related to marriage.

# ? Feb 10, 2014 23:42

UltimoDragonQuest: Oct 5, 2011

An Indiana Senate committee passed the House version of HJR-3. It was a party line vote. This is the version that would not go on the ballot until 2016. It can still be amended back to HJR-3 Classic on the floor and go back to conference and another vote in each house.

# ? Feb 11, 2014 00:00

Teddybear: May 16, 2009; Look! A teddybear doll!
It's soooo cute!

Nevada is dropping its defense of their gay marriage ban.

Their argument relied heavily on sexual orientation not being subject to heightened scrutiny, which a recent 9th Circuit case basically left meritless.

They won in the District Court, so I reckon that either the district court or the 9th will quickly overturn the ban.

# ? Feb 11, 2014 01:18

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Teddybear posted:

Nevada is dropping its defense of their gay marriage ban.

Their argument relied heavily on sexual orientation not being subject to heightened scrutiny, which a recent 9th Circuit case basically left meritless.

They won in the District Court, so I reckon that either the district court or the 9th will quickly overturn the ban.

I expect more states to drop their defenses as well, although I suppose the super conservative bastions like Oklahoma and Utah will futilely stick with it.

# ? Feb 11, 2014 01:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 15:26

staticman: Sep 12, 2008; Be gay
Death to America
Suck my dick Israel
Mess with Texas
and remember to lmao

In case you still don't think Scott Lively needs to be lined up against a wall:

quote:

I have just two words in response the Human Rights Watch video of supposed homosexual harassment in Russia: Matthew Shepard. I say the Human Rights Watch video is just another piece of deceptive Machiavellian 'gay' propaganda, offered to prove the completely false narrative that all disapproval of homosexuality leads to hatred and murder. Whether or not any parts of the video are unstaged, the product as a whole is perpetrating a hoax. Do not be fooled. The 'gays' are not the victims, at least not as a class. In stories like this they are usually the bullies beating up each other (or themselves) on and off camera, sometimes by consent, to dupe the public into granting them collective 'victim status,' with all of the extensive social and political benefits that entails.

Here's the video he's referring to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMTbFSJ_Tr4

# ? Feb 11, 2014 02:56

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Straight Marriage Is Illegal Now

«‹›609 »