Posted on 04/23/2014 6:33:35 AM PDT by maggief
Not sure how you figure that. But, I gave up actually reading half-way through this long accolade and just skimmed.
Meet the PTA president and the board. (shudder)
I can’t wait to see the catfight. Hair is going to be flying everywhere.
This is just another stunt the left is trying to pull to delegitimize marriage.
No, the story says FROM Massachusetts.
The story is from the UK, and 'Kitten' says-
'We decided that I would be the one to carry the babies because I am more than happy to become a full-time mum. When our daughter arrives in July, I'll be the one changing the nappies and doing the feeds!
Best I can tell, the first 2 MAY have gotten married in Mass, then went to England to adopt the kitty in a 'special' marriage ceremony with the help of a family lawyer.
This isn’t a marriage; it’s a freak show initiated by three mentally-ill women. Maybe they can run in the Marathon next year to give Red England media something else to glorify...
Their parenting plans are child abuse ipso facto.
And also there is no way a close-relationship marriage could not win in a court challenge.
Ultimately, when a son seeks to marry his dad to inherit his estate with no estate taxes, and argues "fairness" and "consenting adults" should trump ancient, bigoted morality about incest and procreation, the court will face a serious decision: Can community standards and morality frame marriage, or not? Legal precedence around same-sex marriage have answered that as a resounding "No!". Deciding against polygamous or incestuous marriage would roll that decision criteria back, which would imperil same-sex marriage. Agreeing to the precedence opens marriage up to any two or more consenting adults, and fundamentally changes inheritance and estate laws.
When gaystapo claim marriage should be “any two people”, a change in our definition, we should be challenging it with “why two?”. Marriage must mean something, not anything....then it has no meaning. So why not polygamy? Other cultures allow it, while specifically not allowing gay marriage.
We should demand that there be an ethics basis for the definition of marriage and for our opponents to write down what that definition is and why.
The broom thing is black!
The closest thing I think when seeing “handfast” related to a wedding is the literal “ties that bind” that some ancients used as symbols, tying the arms together at the ceremony.
Where does it state anything like that? (I only skimmed last half of too-long article...)
> You haven’t looked at the article. The “blonde” looks like she changes her hair all the time. So does the “blue”.
Most people with mental illnesses do...
"The Love that Dares Not Speak Its Name" has become "The Perversion That Won't Shut The Hell Up" !!!
“...using an anonymous sperm donor.”
(I’m not saying it.)
That poor kid.
The second they want child support is the second he is no longer anonymous
At this rate, I will not be surprised if we see sibling marriage in five to ten years.
pre-’70s (”It’s private”)
post-’70s “IT’S NOT YOUR BUSINESS ABOUT ALL THE WILD AND FUN SPECIAL THINGS I DO IN THE PRIVACY OF MY BEDROOM!”
At this rate, I will not be surprised if we see sibling marriage in five to ten years.
Exactly.
And that’s all I want! Shut up! Why is it on every sign? Why are there “Gay Games”?
Liberals are pot smoking jackasses beyond belief. Next a female will marry her horse, and Tinkerbell will marry dumbo. WTF. America is turning into a circus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.