tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post807486029642534180..comments2024-03-28T15:06:21.128-05:00Comments on Marshal Art's: What About Shellfish?Marshal Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comBlogger192125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-31444985219230754052015-08-09T05:56:11.134-05:002015-08-09T05:56:11.134-05:00Moving on....
"“Since 2003,” Wolfson explain...Moving on....<br /><br /><i>"“Since 2003,” Wolfson explained, “with the ruling in the Lawrence v. Texas case, that moral objection or moral disapproval of gay people because of who they are is not a basis for making laws to disadvantage people.”"</i><br /><br />Again, this was never the issue with regard to Lawrence. The objection was to a behavior, and as Scalia explains in his dissent, it was no different than any other legal objections to other sexual behaviors. The disapproval therefore, was not so much of homosexuals themselves, but of the homosexual behavior in which they might engage. What's more, and this was another travesty of the Lawrence majority opinion, the sodomy law was not exclusively intended for homosexuals alone. This was rhetoric of the activist and thus, like the lion's share of the activist rhetoric, a bald-faced lie.<br /><br /><i>"Instead, “They actually had to come up with a neutral-sounding rationale for why states were denying marriage. And that got them twisted up in knots about, well, it’s heterosexual people who can procreate by accident, and that’s actually the whole purpose of marriage. And that just made no sense to anyone who, of course, thinks about marriage about as about love and commitment.”</i><br /><br />Rank stupidity. This argument ignores why the state takes interest at all in marriages or sexual relationships. While the individual might see himself as marrying for love, the state does not concern itself with whether or not love exists between the two seeking to marry, but only the consequence of their sexual union and the impact that consequence might have on society. Activists just cannot seem to focus on reality in their whiny defense of sexual immorality.<br /><br /><i>"The contrast was evident in the 2013 Windsor case, when opponents of marriage equality were forced to reconcile the “moral disapproval of homosexuality” lawmakers cited as their reasoning for passing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996."</i><br /><br />The idiocy continues as this passage contained links that supposedly demonstrated a reconciling of some kind. Both of the links provided righteous arguments in defense of real marriage, but the activist cannot accept that one can disapprove of a behavior while as the same time respecting the person who desires to engage in that immoral behavior. There's nothing to reconcile except by the activist as to how that can be so. The activist doesn't want it to be so. He needs the defender of real marriage to be a hater. Pathetic.<br /><br /><i>"Anderson thus tasks himself with convincing the reader that the traditional wedding vows — “to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part,” as Roman Catholics like Anderson recite — get marriage wrong."</i><br /><br />This is lunacy, as if these vows do nothing for the benefit of the children produced by the union. If love was all that mattered, what need would there be for such vows? But the love of a real marriage is not the erotic, romantic version that Ford and activists insist is the purpose and point of marriage. These vows bind people who will typically lose that romantic attraction that brought them together and led to procreation. Indeed, it anticipates the fading of romance and the dissolution of the relationship that would otherwise be inevitable, just as similar relationships fade and dissolve when marriage does not take place. What of the kids then?<br /><br />That's all I have time for now. I will pick it up from the "Fallacies And Falsehoods Galore" point later. Do not comment until I have completed my response. I will delete them to maintain continuity. Afterwards, you or anyone else may try to "debunk" my comments.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-62730524385912357942015-08-09T05:34:36.815-05:002015-08-09T05:34:36.815-05:00Anon,
I've finally found some time to begin p...Anon,<br /><br />I've finally found some time to begin perusing your offering. I don't think you understand what the word "debunk" means, for I've yet to find anything in this article that constitutes a "debunking" of any defense of actual marriage. Take the following:<br /><br /><i>"...Anderson constructs an artificial concept of what marriage is. Instead of the familiar religious and civil definitions of marriage, he develops his own hypothetical ideal of “marriage,” an abstract, philosophical notion that supposedly borrows from both the civil and religious definitions."</i><br /><br />This is abject nonsense. Anderson "constructs" nothing but an <i>explanation</i> of what marriage has always been and meant, both religiously and in civil law. Zach Ford merely <i>asserts</i> that Anderson is weaving out of whole cloth some new concept of what marriage is. In short, he is projecting onto Anderson what has been S.O.P. for the homosexual activist since the beginning of the "marriage equality" campaign began...that marriage is something it never was. Anderson, by contrast, reminds what marriage actually is and always has been, and why. Ford's initial charge is patently ridiculous.<br /><br /><i>"...he simultaneously ignores much of how marriage is actually practiced in culture and the many different ways it is important to people and the government that recognizes it."</i><br /><br />Here Ford must be speaking after the fact, that is, after SSM had been imposed upon at least 35 states that roundly rejected it when give the opportunity to vote on the issue. Until then, how it was practiced was nowhere near as varied as Ford would like his readers to pretend. Further, how it varies in importance to different people is not a matter of significance for why government takes interest in the practice. The highlighted statement if fantasy in the manner the typical pro-SSM argument usually is.<br /><br />Before I go further, I feel it incumbent upon me to make known the fact that I have yet to read Anderson's book upon which this inane article is based. But as Ford declares it is mostly a rehashing of the book I <i>have</i> read, I feel justified in "debunking" Ford's "debunking" of the recent Anderson offering. Thus...<br /><br /><i>"He conveniently selects concepts that serve his purpose of rejecting same-sex marriage without explicitly sounding anti-gay..."</i><br /><br />This is the typical distortion of reality so routine in the homosexual whine. Anderson defends marriage. He isn't rejecting SSM. There's a distinction that the pro-homosexual activist purposely ignores so as to demonize the defender of marriage as one who is "anti-gay". While such a person may indeed be, the defense of real marriage does not require a position on homosexual behavior itself. This does not serve the narrative of the SSM proponent who needs marriage defenders to be recognized as haters to distract from their own lack of legitimate argument.<br /><br /><i>"Wolfson provides helpful understanding for Anderson’s artificial framework for marriage. In an interview with NPR’s Fresh Air earlier this month, he pointed out how drastically marriage equality opponents had to change their tone — to cover up their homophobia — after the Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws in 2003."</i><br /><br />This is just another example of pro-homosexual idiocy presented as deep thought. No one on the right side of this issue who pretend there doesn't exist simple "hatred" and revulsion toward homosexuals. But the irony with Wolfson's perspective is that it is the very type of animus towards all defenders of real marriage that is asserted as the basis for all arguments for that defense. It suggests that any objection to a behavior indicates a hatred or "phobia" of the person who engages in the behavior. This has never proven to be the case in the typical objector to SSM.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-61522808451801978162015-08-09T04:23:13.610-05:002015-08-09T04:23:13.610-05:00Sorry feo, but again you err, and famously. You&#...Sorry feo, but again you err, and famously. You've never identified candidates that have my values because first, you don't seem to recognize what my values are, and secondly, you don't understand what "values" are. You lack the capacity.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-64202257555902518842015-07-24T19:29:55.720-05:002015-07-24T19:29:55.720-05:00I found this article useful in debunking just abou...I found this article useful in debunking just about every argument you've touched on in this thread. <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/07/24/3683386/ryan-anderson-truth-overruled/" rel="nofollow">Enjoy</a>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-9164841070522119152015-07-10T07:34:01.220-05:002015-07-10T07:34:01.220-05:00Speaking of candidates that have your values, I...Speaking of candidates that have your values, I'm loving Trump. He so clearly shows all of us where people like you are: spreading hate even as innocent lives are slaughtered by your children.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-17305915221290192212015-07-04T22:02:10.920-05:002015-07-04T22:02:10.920-05:00Sorry, feodope. I don't vote Democratic. I s...Sorry, feodope. I don't vote Democratic. I support good people that at least appear to adhere to traditional notions of character and virtue. Why you'd think I'd vote like you will is a mystery to me. Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-41037242883696350132015-07-02T00:09:00.263-05:002015-07-02T00:09:00.263-05:00For coming in last, Marshall, you get a clown'...For coming in last, Marshall, you get a clown's car of options. Take your time. I'm sure you'll pick the least compassionate, most rigid, most pharisaical and history/science denying white male failed politician available. (Probably didn't know "pharisaical" was a word, did you?) Sometimes we are what we don't know.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-28712455167781573202015-06-28T05:50:51.179-05:002015-06-28T05:50:51.179-05:00A black robe doesn't make idiocy more profound...A black robe doesn't make idiocy more profound or compelling. Nice try.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-89007846160233885292015-06-26T09:29:15.558-05:002015-06-26T09:29:15.558-05:00Exactly as I've argued: Kennedy's decisio...Exactly as I've argued: <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf" rel="nofollow">Kennedy's decision</a>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-652824879933169212015-06-20T08:15:27.799-05:002015-06-20T08:15:27.799-05:00Amazing. You both are fixated on group masturbati...Amazing. You both are fixated on group masturbation. Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-21132700148317945922015-06-19T21:35:16.875-05:002015-06-19T21:35:16.875-05:00Geoffrey, we have pretty much hashed this out in t...Geoffrey, we have pretty much hashed this out in the above comments. At this time we, at least I, are waiting for the court's ruling on the subject to comment further. Since the thread consists primarily of comments and replies from Marshall and me, our totally opposite positions (no pun intended) on this issue would preclude the thread from being a circle jerk.<br /><br />Join in. What do you think the ruling will be?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-75497395134487399852015-06-19T17:04:13.546-05:002015-06-19T17:04:13.546-05:00Of course you do, Geoffrey. You could believe not...Of course you do, Geoffrey. You could believe nothing better, considering your character. But regardless of that sorry level, you were never prohibited from contributing, such as you are able, to any conversation here. It's not like some blogs where the host shuts down discourse rather than offering a defense of questionable and less-than-Christian positions. Feel free. I'm sure you finally have profound alternatives to those arguments you believe are less so. I can't wait to hear what you regard as "better arguments". For my part, I don't believe there exists "better arguments" than truth and reality. That is <i>actual</i> truth and reality, not the progressive alternatives.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-23759279161844273592015-06-19T13:32:12.757-05:002015-06-19T13:32:12.757-05:00Is this a private circle jerk, or can anyone join ...Is this a private circle jerk, or can anyone join in? I was going to use other metaphors, but really, seeing as no one commenting here has moved on to greener pastures, found better arguments, and seems to prefer one another's company, I believe that the most apt.Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-3435755046366863362015-05-03T03:10:40.528-05:002015-05-03T03:10:40.528-05:00"No you have apparently assumed that authorit...<i>"No you have apparently assumed that authority."</i><br /><br />Not at all. Indeed, I don't give much thought as to whether or not speaking truthfully is offensive, particularly when speaking about the sexually immoral.<br /><br />"So you've never gotten a blow job or gone down on your partner?"<br /><br />I'm sure you think that is some kind of "touche", but it isn't. Foreplay between husband and wife isn't a perversion of body parts because the context in which the practice takes place is the only one where sex for pleasure is acceptable morally. Yet, when you engage in such outside of marriage, then it's problematic. And doing so with someone of the same sex is indeed perversion. Indeed, it's the hat trick for homosexuals: wrong partner, wrong context and wrong use of body parts.<br /><br />"Says the only one who uses the term in polite company."<br /><br />You're not particularly polite. What's more, I use the term "hetero" just as often, if not more.<br /><br />"How can being something be derogatory?" <br /><br />Because being homosexual tends to lessen the merit or reputation of a person in the eyes of those who are honest about sexual morality. That's what a derogatory remark does. That's what being a practicing homosexual does. Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-52004118275215919312015-05-01T22:19:09.350-05:002015-05-01T22:19:09.350-05:00"they have been given the authority to dictat..."they have been given the authority to dictate what is or isn't offensive"<br /><br />No you have apparently assumed that authority.<br /><br />"They pervert the function of their sexual organs for sexual self-gratification, for one."<br /><br />So you've never gotten a blow job or gone down on your partner?<br /><br />"And the term "homo" is simply a contraction of the word homosexual."<br /><br />Says the only one who uses the term in polite company.<br /><br />How can being something be derogatory?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-11746607116559843402015-05-01T03:33:38.189-05:002015-05-01T03:33:38.189-05:00Considering how whiny the LGBT community is, and h...Considering how whiny the LGBT community is, and how they have been given the authority to dictate what is or isn't offensive, simply because it serves them to call anything that isn't outright praise and admiration "offensive", few are willing to get bogged down calling a spade a spade. Homosexuals ARE perverts. (They pervert the function of their sexual organs for sexual self-gratification, for one.) And the term "homo" is simply a contraction of the word homosexual. But you know this and like them, you aren't honest enough to regard it as such and prefer instead to demonize those who oppose sexual immorality by equating the term with something derogatory, as if actually <i>being</i> homosexual, lesbian, "bi" or "transgendered" isn't derogatory all on its own.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-4435419513299510482015-04-30T22:38:13.706-05:002015-04-30T22:38:13.706-05:00The justices and the attorneys.The justices and the attorneys.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-59387863387651713592015-04-29T10:06:41.171-05:002015-04-29T10:06:41.171-05:00Of whom are you referring?Of whom are you referring?Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-45614543332488828172015-04-28T23:50:29.617-05:002015-04-28T23:50:29.617-05:00Well I can tell you they never called the plaintif...Well I can tell you they never called the plaintiffs "homos" of perverts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-67401266606830876822015-04-28T18:07:46.778-05:002015-04-28T18:07:46.778-05:00If SCOTUS rules in favor of SSM, it will be becaus...If SCOTUS rules in favor of SSM, it will be because they ignored the arguments I brought up (of course Scalia, Alitto and Thomas have more integrity and wisdom to ignore the essential elements which are the foundation of the states rights in this matter).Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-32851587551438362892015-04-27T20:51:50.109-05:002015-04-27T20:51:50.109-05:00Well, I'll be listening and following the oral...Well, I'll be listening and following the oral arguments tomorrow. We'll see what the Court thinks is a good argument and what isn't. There will be a lot about rational basis and compelling interests and due process.<br /><br />If SCOTUS rules against same sex marriage it will be solely because of the states' rights argument, and none of the ones you brought up. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-71667648583258866342015-04-25T15:07:15.499-05:002015-04-25T15:07:15.499-05:00"You only want to deny same sex couples the a...<i>"You only want to deny same sex couples the ability to legally marry the person they love."</i><br /><br />This is just more idiocy on your part and proof of a dishonest dismissal of my position. Homos can marry each other all day long. I see no reason why the state must be forced to recognize, sanction, endorse and/or license their unholy unions as it does the unions of normal people. I haven't pushed for outlawing homo unions (though I wouldn't oppose it), so there is no question of legality. That is, neither "legal" or "illegal" as far as the state is concerned.<br /><br /><i>"Any law that discriminates against a class requires a justification for doing so."</i><br /><br />And this is the lie you continue to perpetrate. There was never any prohibition against homosexuals entering into an marital union. No law regarding marriage ever prohibited them. There had always been homosexuals marrying. No marriage law concerned itself with the degree of love that exists between the two parties seeking licensing from the state. <i>ALL</i> that was required (and that requirement applied equally to all, regardless of "orientation") was that the union be between a male and a female, not closely related, not already married and of legal age. Where's the discrimination against any class in this? This essential question is NEVER addressed by supporters of SSM. YOU'VE never done it. HOMOSEXUALS have never done it. What HAS been done is arguing on that which isn't a factor, such as "marrying the one you LOVE" as if any of the marriage laws even mentioned the word. <br /><br /><i>"And yes all those homo-loving incompetent Bush judges laughed them out of court."</i><br /><br />Laughing them out of court is not the same as explaining why the arguments are not valid, which has never been done. I haven't gotten through your Posner ruling yet (way busy these days), but you haven't cited a damned thing from it that stands as such an explanation. Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-31364529456281095092015-04-25T14:51:56.115-05:002015-04-25T14:51:56.115-05:00"Ask any judge who has heard or will hear thi...<i>"Ask any judge who has heard or will hear this case it that's the essence of these trials. It's not. If it were, SCOTUS wouldn't have decided against the District of Columbia regarding possession of hand guns. The issue is whether there is a legitimate harm to the state of allowing same sex marriage."</i><br /><br />Then those judges are indeed incompetent because that is indeed the essence of these cases. All one needs to do is actually look at what is being demanded by the homosexual lobby. They are indeed essentially demanding for everyone to agree that "marriage" is defined as the union of any two people, rather than what has always been the case in this nation and before. Thus, they are trying to force the rest of the nation to regard as true what isn't. The state's position doesn't require proving there is harm in allowing homos to marry. The state's position is that the reason it takes interest in marriage is due to the unique nature of the typical male/female sexual relationship. You, like all defenders of sexual immorality, simply lack the honesty to recognize that fact. <br /><br /><i>"So why are you basing your rejection of same sex marriage on the premise that the state takes an interest in opposite sex couples?"</i><br /><br />Even with your inability to pay attention, a simple re-reading of most any of my comments on this issue would demonstrate how idiotic that question is. I base my rejection of the demand of the homosexual on the basis of <i>why</i> the state takes an interest in the unions of normal people, not simply that it does.<br /><br /><i>"This really proves that your argument is based on antipathy of homosexuals."</i><br /><br />Why? Because I refuse to ignore the obvious regarding the abnormality of same-sex attraction? Don't be absurd. Failing to endorse is not the same as expressing antipathy. <br /><br />But assuming antipathy toward homosexuality and the homosexual agenda does exist within me (and I don't deny it, I just don't admit it is the basis of my opposition), it exists because of the facts regarding the condition and the agenda, the sum of which provides all the basis I need before that sum can begin to result in antipathy.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-20498556319624816802015-04-25T14:37:32.226-05:002015-04-25T14:37:32.226-05:00"So how do explain that in all the many cases...<i>"So how do explain that in all the many cases leading up to the coming case being heard next week, no judge or panel of judges has ruled based on what the "meaning of the word" is?"</i><br /><br />Because they were all activist judges who wanted to rule in favor of homosexuals. What other explanation can there be for judges neglecting to account for the true definition before doing so? Certainly no compelling reason by homosexuals since there are none.<br /><br /><i>"Are you suggesting that all of these judges including many appointed by conservative presidents are legal incompetents?"</i><br /><br />That explanation is just as good, but I favor the above reason. They wanted to rule in favor of homosexuals. (This was certainly true in the Prop 8 case)<br /><br /><i>"That doesn't matter. What matters is what marriage means today under the law and the Constitution."</i><br /><br />That's another idiotic response on two counts:<br /><br />1. What the law says it means today is the result of the corruption imposed on the law by activist judges (and immoral legislatures and/or voters in two or three of the states that dropped the moral ball). The law said one thing and the judge forced it to mean another, which isn't really within his job description to do. Every one of those judges were obligated to rule on the law as it stood, not change it to his own satisfaction.<br /><br />2. There is no mention of marriage in the Constitution. But there was in various <i>state</i> constitutions until activist judges overstepped their authority.<br /><br /><i>"It does delegate to the judiciary the power to enforce the Constitution and its amendments."</i><br /><br />Not true. It is to interpret the Constitution and its amendments for the purpose of proper application. It has not done so with regard to the whine of the homosexual lobby. Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-76749192374738234062015-04-25T03:34:14.257-05:002015-04-25T03:34:14.257-05:00"The judge knows exactly what the words mean ...<i>"The judge knows exactly what the words mean as a matter of law."</i><br /><br />Evidently not, considering those who rule in favor of homosexuals. Yet they do not insist on homosexuals proving the definition is as vague as needed to allow for state licensing of same-sex couples as if they are actually married.<br /><br /><i>"Then why do you obsess about what the definition is or about whether or not a judge knows what the word means?"</i><br /><br />"Obsess"? You regard reiterating the true definition of marriage equal to "obsessing"? Establishing the meaning of the word, specifically at the time any related law was put in place or any previous court ruling was decided would seem to any rational and honest person essential in deciding whether or not "rights" have been denied or whether the laws are equally applied. <br /><br /><i>"It doesn't matter what marriage "ever meant", really. What matters is what it means now as a matter of law.There is nothing about marriage law today that cannot apply to two people of the same sex."</i><br /><br />Of course it matters, and does so specifically in every case where a judge has ruled in favor of homosexuals. Those judges have decided that the meaning of the word in the properly established laws means something other than what those who enacted the laws knew better what it meant. So, as a matter of law, in those states where judges ruled in favor of homosexuals, the laws overruled by those activist judges had clearly legislated according to the actual definition of the word.<br /><br />And yes, there are plenty of reasons to maintain what was the status quo. They are the same reasons the state took interest in the marital relationship in the first place. In other words, there is nothing about homosexual relationships that compels the state to take interest.<br /><br /><i>"So the question is why shouldn't same sex couples have access to the same rights and responsibilities."</i><br /><br />Because by law, their unions did not, and do not, constitute a marriage, any more than multiple partner relationships, incestuous relationships, best friends, roommates, business partners or you and your goat do. There is no argument put forth by homosexuals that compels the state to alter that definition. There is no argument that justifies the state acquiescing to the homosexual demand to do so.<br /><br /><i>"That is the essence of 14th Amendment jurisprudence."</i><br /><br />Nonsense on two counts:<br /><br />1. All marriage laws in every state until the first fell to judicial activism had no prohibition against homosexuals entering into a marriage agreement as the word was defined by law and every honest person in the world since the dawn of time...and in this country in particular. <br /><br />2. The 14th was ratified at a time when homosexual behavior was outlawed in every state in the union. Thus, it couldn't possibly have been meant to apply to whiny homosexuals seeking to legitimize their immoral sexual behavior.<br /><br /><i>"This was fixed by Lawrence."</i><br /><br />What was "fixed" by Lawrence was the ability of the state to intrude into anyone's private residence for the purpose of arresting two consenting adults from engaging in whatever kinky sexual activity by which they chose to defile themselves. More importantly here, the Lawrence decision (foolishly rendered) doesn't mitigate in the least the fact that <i>"There has never been any widely held notion that marriage meant merely the union of any two people regardless of the gender of either..."</i>Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.com