Iowa legalizes same-sex marraige!

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: haljackey

Question: do individual states have to approve legalization, or can the federal government make it legal nationwide if they approve it?quote>

Technically, they can, but at the same time, it is unlikely they will. Issues concerning marriage have usually been left up to the states to decide, and the states are usually very unhappy when the federal government starts assuming powers that have usually been assumed by the states.

Furthermore, any attempt to make it a national law is likely going to be met with significant resistance. The only other option would then be the US Supreme Court, which has given hints that it feels the issue of same-sex marriage "lacks significant federal question."

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Indeed a lot would, however the term marriage was not originally a religious term, in fact the first recorded use of the word marriage was in Roman Italy and it given to describe the union of two men. quote>

Somehow I doubt that, considering they'd have been speaking Latin, not English.

This is what Wiktionary has to say on the matter:

From Anglo-Norman, Old French mariage, from marier (“‘to marry’”), from Latin maritare (“‘to marry, literally “give a husband to”’”), from maritus (“‘married man, husband’”), probably from Proto-Indo-European *mari-, perhaps a feminine stem of *mer-yo- (“‘young man, young woman’”) (hence *mari-to- (“‘given a wife’”)), if not somehow connected with *mas (“‘male’”) (stem mar-).quote>

But, etymology of the word aside, the thing we now know as "marriage" has been a religious practice since long before the days of the Roman Empire, regardless. And it's the practice that's important, not the semantics.

Originally posted by: DuskTrooper

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

The home of Slipknot!

. . . had a Sloppet flashback there for a second . . .

quote>

Des Moines even! XD

I srsly wonder what happened to that dude quote>

Having achieved 0-10000 in record time, and nabbing the top poster spot, there was nothing remaining for him to do here so he left and went to spam up another forum, probably.

[david1314 44]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

civil partnership i don't care if it's legalised for homosexuals. but forcing the church into accepting something it clearly does not is fascism on the states part. as you know you can't pick and choose your beliefs without changing your church. i don't care of whatever wordy, limp wristed, lawyer language-twisting you use but a christian marriage is the pairing of a man and a woman in God's house by a minister/priest/pastor/whatever else. civil partnership/humanist marriage(the same thing) is when you get the tax breaks.

if any religion changed for popular beliefs and flavours of the decade then it wouldn't really be a religion at all since they usually forbid things like alcohol or drugs and often involve fasting and repentance and being nice to people in some shape or form.

quote>

No one is forcing the churches to perform gay ceremonies or changing your beliefs from the bench (unless they're very persuasive). The judge just took the church our of the law persuant to the first and 14th ammendments. Establishing a religious belief as a law across the land is unconstitutional. And afording a special set of rights to men and not women or women and not men is also unconstitutional. For example, unless there is a bona fide reason for which a law should by biological necessity to apply only to a man or woman, any instance of gendered language should be replaced with the more generic "person". The best example of such biological necessity is that (missionary position) rape cannot be committed by a woman on a man without extenuating circumstance.

But to invoke languge from the Declaration of Independence using "man" in it's non-gendered sense to mean "person", we are left with the idea that marriage is the union between one man and one man (and strangely, I'm not the first person on this thread to assert this *scratches chin*).

[yellowguy88 1]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

I welcome it and hope other states follow. To me it's not about damaging the institution of marriage, becuase to be honest straight people have been doing that rather well themselves. It is also not about pawning gay couples off with 'civil partnerships' it's about allowing them the right to avail of a legal union that others take for granted.

No one is saying that religious institutions have to perform gay marriage, I wouldn't ask such a thing, but marriage is NOT a religious union, its a legal union and as such I see no reason why it should be denied to gay people who simply want to marry and give the final seal to their relationship. What harm does that do?

Does the marriage of a gay couple suddenly shatter the world around you? I think people need to get a grip of themselves if that believe that and all the religious BS that accompanies such moves.quote>

Well said my Northern Friend!

This is great news...

[belfastuniguy 18]

But, etymology of the word aside, the thing we now know as "marriage" has been a religious practice since long before the days of the Roman Empire, regardless. And it's the practice that's important, not the semantics.quote>

In the past it has yes, but modern society is different. More and more people are getting married at civil ceremonies without a church or minister in sight. Marriage is defined as a legal, spiritual or social union, it is not described as a solely religious union. As such no difference should be made, people are free to have a religious marriage if they so wish while other are free to have a marriage free from religious ceremony. Its a matter of personal choice and freedom and one that developed nations are increasingly recognising.

But, etymology of the word aside, the thing we now know as "marriage" has been a religious practice since long before the days of the Roman Empirequote>

How did you work that out?

It was Christianity that imposed religious ceremony as we know it onto marital unions. The Romans didn't, the Greeks most certainly didn't and both ancient China and Japan also has same sex unions.

Unless I have missed the Decree of Zeus condemning such immoral acts?

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

but forcing the church into accepting something it clearly does not is fascism on the states part. quote>

I agree. But where or how is that happening?

Last I heard, there were many man / woman couples who could not have a "church wedding" because they didn't meet certain criteria.

He didn't convert. She didn't convert. They failed pre-nup classes. One of them was divorced. They didn't pay the fee to get their previous marriage annulled. The priest / minister doesn't know them well enough. The list goes on.

Who is telling churches that they have to change their criteria?

Or have churches stopped giving engaged couples hoops to jump through? Maybe I'm just showing my age here . . .

[Patricius Maximus 236]

So, ultimately, somebody's rights have to get trampled on here. Either the Christians maintain their right to preach against homosexuality, or the gays get their right to live their lifestyle and not be preached against. It can't be both ways.quote>

I would not campaign against freedom of speech, but with homosexuality it becomes complicated. Some would argue that homosexuality is not a choice for an individual while religious belief is. As such gay people are to be protected against hate and oppression. In the UK with have strict Hate Crime legislation as well as some of the best anti-homophobia laws and guidelines. We also have laws to protect the rights of people to hold a religious belief and not be subject to incitement of religious hated. However, the view that religion for too long has been over stepping the mark is shown by the abolition of blasphemy laws and a general shift in society. quote>

It is a false contradiction. The issue of same-sex marriage is simply one of eliminating government prohibition of it. It has nothing to do with freedom of expression or preaching. I don't really care what a church preaches, so long as the government doesn't listen to it.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Indeed a lot would, however the term marriage was not originally a religious term, in fact the first recorded use of the word marriage was in Roman Italy and it given to describe the union of two men.

quote>

.. where'd you hear that from? Either way, just because someone used the word "marriage" doesn't mean it was equivalent to modern marriage.

I honestly don't care if gay people get married. Besides, there's plenty of marriages that wouldn't be considred "marriage in the eye of God" like, for example, those secular people who get marriages at city hall. If people feel that it is sinful and will corrupt children's minds, then I think those parents should just teach their children the purpose of heterosexual marriage and tell them why homosexual marriage is wrong. Parents do that with plenty of other things - like smoking for example.

After all, if we banned everything that was considred abominable, then a whole bunch of stuff here in the U.S. would dissapear.

[hym 358]

It was Christianity that imposed religious ceremony as we know it onto marital unions. The Romans didn't, the Greeks most certainly didn't and both ancient China and Japan also has same sex unions.quote>

Ancient Judaism had marriage as a religious institution before the existence of either the Roman or Greek Empires.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

but forcing the church into accepting something it clearly does not is fascism on the states part. quote>

I agree. But where or how is that happening?quote>

The common argument is that to use the term "marriage" for a same sex coupling is to say that it's no different than and completely equal to a marriage between a man and a woman. Using "civil union" establishes it as something different and lesser - which is exactly what many Christians insist on, at the very least, while at the same time being something the gays find completely unacceptable.

But, it's easy to understand why it's such a commonly proposed compromise. It grants same sex couples all the same rights as opposite sex couples, but at the same time permits religious institutions to continue defining "marriage" as between a man and a woman only.

And there's the problem: churches don't want the law to define "marriage" as something which they say it fundamentally is not. But gays don't want to be told by the church that they're not allowed in the club, so to speak.

Last I heard, there were many man / woman couples who could not have a "church wedding" because they didn't meet certain criteria.

He didn't convert. She didn't convert. They failed pre-nup classes. One of them was divorced. They didn't pay the fee to get their previous marriage annulled. The priest / minister doesn't know them well enough. The list goes on.

Who is telling churches that they have to change their criteria?quote>

Nobody.... yet.

The problem is one of the "thin edge of the wedge", "slippery slope", "give them an inch and they'll take a mile", etc. variety.

If the state says that marriage may not be denied to a couple based on sexual orientation, it gives a gay couple grounds to bring a discrimination lawsuit against the church for refusing to marry them. Which could then lead to the court ruling that in order for the state to license an institution to marry people, they have to marry same sex as well as opposite sex couples.

Sounds crazy, but there's already legal precedent for it, at least in Connecticut - where the state supreme court ruled that hositals had to have the morning after pill available for rape victims after a woman sued a Chrisitan hospital for not providing it to her. (The hospital, of course, did not have it available because it's considered abortion which the church opposes).

There's also concern that, through the courts, schools could be forced to read stories involving gay couples, teach about homosexuality in health classes, discuss its history in history classes, etc.

And while I agree that those things are going to far, at the same time I do not think it proper to prevent something from going too far by preventing it from going anywhere at all. It's best. of course, to allow it to go far enough and no further... although, the problem then is who gets to define what "far enough" is.

There's this uncanny tendency for allowing something to move at all to be considered precedent for allowing it to continue to its logical extreme, which it really shouldn't be. There are many numbers between zero and infinity. The trouble is that, as caps on things, they're arbitrary. And people (and the law) don't handle arbitrary positions too well, we tend to want to work in absolutes.

...which is flawed because in reality there are no absolutes except in math.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: hym

It was Christianity that imposed religious ceremony as we know it onto marital unions. The Romans didn't, the Greeks most certainly didn't and both ancient China and Japan also has same sex unions.quote>

Ancient Judaism had marriage as a religious institution before the existence of either the Roman or Greek Empires.

quote>

Yes but the religion and religious structures in Europe were Christian and it was those that were exported to the colonies, not Judaism.

[NYM1980 3]

The bible can be interpreted in many different ways depending on who reads it. And the point isnt the tax breaks, its the basic human desire to be EQUAL. A civil union may bring the benefits of marriage, but it is still segregation. Its like allowing the African Americans to ride the bus, but only at the back. Its not the same.

Everyone has the right to be who they are, no matter how unpopular it may be at the time. This seems to be a terrible circle the US and alot of the world is stuck in. There is always some group fighting for the right to be equal. Its very sad.

We have Laws that are against Hate Crimes, but we allow churches to teach intolerance.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Originally posted by: hym

It was Christianity that imposed religious ceremony as we know it onto marital unions. The Romans didn't, the Greeks most certainly didn't and both ancient China and Japan also has same sex unions.quote>

Ancient Judaism had marriage as a religious institution before the existence of either the Roman or Greek Empires.

quote>

Yes but the religion and religious structures in Europe were Christian and it was those that were exported to the colonies, not Judaism.

quote>

And Christianity directly evolved out of...

[Odainsaker 2,136]

Originally posted by: hym

The only other option would then be the US Supreme Court, which has given hints that it feels the issue of same-sex marriage "lacks significant federal question."

quote>

It will be interesting to see what happens when one state refuses to recognize gay marriages legally performed in another state. More specifically, if they refuse to provide the same legal rights and benefits usually accorded to married couples regardless of where marriages are performed. Then there is what happens when a gay couple legally married by their state approaches the Federal bureaucracy for the rights and benefits typically accorded to married couples. How does the IRS or the tax code, which offer different rules and formulas for married households versus single individuals, handle the filings of a legally married gay couple? It will ultimately rise to the Federal level.

As for the religious question...when two gay adult Buddhists want to marry, what place does any fundamentalist Christian church have in stepping into the matter and why should it get special trump power to overrule them? Crying about legislation from the judicial bench is sloganeering smokescreen...a real constitutional question has been brought up regarding freedom of religion and equal protection under the law, and the courts ruled accordingly. Spurious amendment efforts here should be seen for what they are...sledgehammer attempts to ignore fundamental parts of a constitution by introducing special exceptions and pet contradictions. It's a dangerous form that slowly whittles away constitutional government.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Everyone has the right to be who they are, no matter how unpopular it may be at the time. This seems to be a terrible circle the US and alot of the world is stuck in. There is always some group fighting for the right to be equal. Its very sad.quote>

There seems to be. Hopefully by the 22nd century there will be no more groups (homosexuals, children, etc.) which are considered to be an inferior class of citizen.

We have Laws that are against Hate Crimes, but we allow churches to teach intolerance.quote>

That's because Americans (and a lot of other countries) have something called freedom of expression. If I wish to say that all black people are idiots (which they are not), then I have the right to say that, and the government has no right to stop me from doing so. Is it teaching intolerance? Yes, if anyone is a student of that. Is it insulting to black people? Yes. Does the government have a right to silence me? No.

That is an inherent aspect of a free society. To silence churches or people preaching intolerance enables the creation of a totalitarian regime.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Hopefully by the 22nd century there will be no more groups (homosexuals, children, etc.) which are considered to be an inferior class of citizen. quote>

Call me cynical, but I doubt it.

And the reason why not is that human nature is that we're not satisfied being equal to everyone else. We want to be better than everyone else. Which means that inevitably, somone is going to be on the recieving end of belittling in some way or other.

It happens even within groups and subcultures. You hear the term "GLBT" thrown around a lot, reating them as all one group... but at the same time, there are some in the GLB part who would rather the T part be left off. It's a simple tendency of a lot of people who are stigmatized, put down, or made fun of to point to something else and say "Yeah? Well at least I'm not one of those!" It's a defense mechanism.

I know a lot of people would like to think that we as humans are somehow above or more enlightened than wild animals, but the fact of the matter is we are very much wild animals ourselves. We still all have that basic survival insinct, and are more than willing to gain at somone else's expense if it comes down to that.

So, I can't help but think that once society comes to accept homosexuality that we'll only collectively find something else to belittle. Because we all have that inherent need.

It only seems like an endless cycle because it is.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Hopefully by the 22nd century there will be no more groups (homosexuals, children, etc.) which are considered to be an inferior class of citizen. quote>

Call me cynical, but I doubt it.

And the reason why not is that human nature is that we're not satisfied being equal to everyone else. We want to be better than everyone else. Which means that inevitably, somone is going to be on the recieving end of belittling in some way or other.

quote>

Yes, we are not satisfied being equal to everyone else. That is the fundamental failure of communism. I was speaking of the right to be equal under the law, which does not necessarily correlate to other forms of equality, such as economic equality or being considered equal by their fellow citizens. Also notice that I said "inferior class of citizen", which I thought would be understood as a statement of equality under the law.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Everyone has the right to be who they are, no matter how unpopular it may be at the time. This seems to be a terrible circle the US and alot of the world is stuck in. There is always some group fighting for the right to be equal. Its very sad.quote>

There seems to be. Hopefully by the 22nd century there will be no more groups (homosexuals, children, etc.) which are considered to be an inferior class of citizen.

We have Laws that are against Hate Crimes, but we allow churches to teach intolerance.quote>

That's because Americans (and a lot of other countries) have something called freedom of expression. If I wish to say that all black people are idiots (which they are not), then I have the right to say that, and the government has no right to stop me from doing so. Is it teaching intolerance? Yes, if anyone is a student of that. Is it insulting to black people? Yes. Does the government have a right to silence me? No.

That is an inherent aspect of a free society. To silence churches or people preaching intolerance enables the creation of a totalitarian regime.

quote>

You have to always remember that your rights stop were mine ( and every one else's ) begin. You can say all you want that "Insert Group Here" are all Idiots. But i have the right to tell you to shut the heck up. or to not belive what you say. ( my perfered method )

[ErikMesa 5]

There are two seperate issues here.... Marriage and Legal Rights.

I personally believe marriage today is a religious union. If that was the end of it I have no problem with churches only marrying people who believe what they believe. The problem is there are over 1000+ special "rights" that married couples have that non-married individuals don't.

Personally I'd like to see the government grant "civil union licenses" that bestow the legal rights and get out of the marriage business completely. Churches can marry who they want that's part of the Constitution and I would defend the right of any church to NOT marry gay couples or anyone else who is against their religious beliefs. Likewise though I wholely defend the equal protection clause of the constitution and believe everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

As for the people in Iowa and every other state who would "vote" on equal rights and who feel people should decide a "definition of marriage" I'd ask a couple of questions....

1. Do you think the citizens of Topeka, Kansas would've voted to keep segregated schools in 1952? Recall the US Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education striking down the seperate but equal policy of segregation.

2. Do you think the people of Virginia would've voted to allow interracial marriage in 1967? Recall the US Supreme Court ruled 9-0 to overturn a Viriginia State Law prohibiting interracial marriage (Racial Integrity Act of 1924).

3. Do you think the people of Alabama would've voted to integrate their schools at all in 1963? Recall George Wallace and US Marshalls escorting a handful of black students to the school.

There are many who would claim homosexuality is a choice and thus not equal to race. There are those who would say "you can change being gay but you can't change being black". I've heard people claim homosexuality occurs because our society allows it yet that hardly explains then why places like Iran have homosexuals (they sure don't accept it there). More recently I've heard even some religious people say "well it's not a choice HOWEVER the act is a sin" in their justification to outlaw acts and marriage and anything else.

Is it American to deny people equal rights because of who they are?

Freedom of Religion... Freedom FROM Religion. Religions are free to preach what they want and include or exclude who they want. They aren't allowed to force their religious beliefs on non-believers of their doctrine. While they claim courts are "forcing them to accept homosexuality" that's totally untrue. Allowing gay people to marry in no way affects a heterosexual married couple. They're not losing any rights, they're not losing "status", they're not losing anything. Denying a gay couple the equal right to marry DOES cost alot. Rights, taxes, survivor benefits, social security.... on and on for the 1000+ special rights married couples get.

Equal Protection.... Unanimous from the Iowa Supreme Court as well....

Equal.... what a concept.

ErikMesa

[Palpatine001 57]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

but forcing the church into accepting something it clearly does not is fascism on the states part. quote>

I agree. But where or how is that happening?

Last I heard, there were many man / woman couples who could not have a "church wedding" because they didn't meet certain criteria.

He didn't convert. She didn't convert. They failed pre-nup classes. One of them was divorced. They didn't pay the fee to get their previous marriage annulled. The priest / minister doesn't know them well enough. The list goes on.

Who is telling churches that they have to change their criteria?

Or have churches stopped giving engaged couples hoops to jump through? Maybe I'm just showing my age here . . .

quote>

No Ski they have not, I can from person experience tell you that my fiance and myself are going through those same hoops right now including all the pre-nup classes

However dare I say it being involved with politics long enough I have learnt the knack of throwing up smoke screens and are doing so with the current classes as I dont trust such an Institution as the Church

However back to the topic at hand

3 states down 47 to go!!!

---

Oh you want to see what a Pre Nub Questionare looks like let me know and Ill post it

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

You have to always remember that your rights stop were mine ( and every one else's ) begin. You can say all you want that "Insert Group Here" are all Idiots. But i have the right to tell you to shut the heck up. or to not belive what you say. ( my perfered method )

quote>

Yes, you do. Since we're all in relative agreement, there is not much point debating the issue.

Originally posted by: ErikMesa

There are two seperate issues here.... Marriage and Legal Rights.

I personally believe marriage today is a religious union. If that was the end of it I have no problem with churches only marrying people who believe what they believe. The problem is there are over 1000+ special "rights" that married couples have that non-married individuals don't.

Personally I'd like to see the government grant "civil union licenses" that bestow the legal rights and get out of the marriage business completely. Churches can marry who they want that's part of the Constitution and I would defend the right of any church to NOT marry gay couples or anyone else who is against their religious beliefs. Likewise though I wholely defend the equal protection clause of the constitution and believe everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. quote>

That option, for the government to issue civil unions for everyone, and leaving nominal "marriages" to the churches, I have always been leaning towards if we're discussing marriage. However, as long as the government gives out marriages, homosexuals should have the right to marry. If the government gives out civil unions, homosexuals (and heterosexuals) have the right to [i don't know what you'd call it] civilly unionize.

As for the people in Iowa and every other state who would "vote" on equal rights and who feel people should decide a "definition of marriage" I'd ask a couple of questions....

1. Do you think the citizens of Topeka, Kansas would've voted to keep segregated schools in 1952? Recall the US Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education striking down the seperate but equal policy of segregation.

2. Do you think the people of Virginia would've voted to allow interracial marriage in 1967? Recall the US Supreme Court ruled 9-0 to overturn a Viriginia State Law prohibiting interracial marriage (Racial Integrity Act of 1924).

3. Do you think the people of Alabama would've voted to integrate their schools at all in 1963? Recall George Wallace and US Marshalls escorting a handful of black students to the school.quote>

No, in those particular instances, the people of those states, in that specific time, would not have voted for it. However, civil rights would have come anyway. It just would have taken longer to change all those minds at the voting booth.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[TheQuiltedLlama 34]

Vermont legalises same-sex marriage

US state's legislature overrides governor's veto to extend marital rights to same-sex couples

Vermont became the fourth state to legalise same-sex marriage today, overriding a governor's veto.

The state, which is one of the most liberal in the country, became the first state to pass a statute recognising same-sex marriage. In Connecticut, Iowa and Massachusetts, courts ruled that prohibitions on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. The vote comes nine years after Vermont became the first state to enact same-sex civil unions.

The state house and senate today achieved the required two-thirds majority to override the veto by Republican governor Jim Douglas.

Although Vermont is the second state in a week to legalise gay marriage (the Iowa supreme court did so on Friday) – the institution remains deeply controversial.

California voters in November enacted a state constitutional amendment overturning the state supreme court's decision legalising gay marriage. Thirty states have constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriages, and 39 have the ban on the statute books, according to Stateline.org, a website that tracks state laws.

Eight states, including California, allow same-sex civil unions that afford many or all of the legal rights and benefits extended to married couples.

In Vermont, one of the same-sex couples celebrating the new law was state representative Robert Dostis. In the lobby of the state legislation building in Montpelier, he and his partner of 25 years announced plans to wed.

"It's been a very long battle. It's been almost 20 years to get to this point," Dostis told the Associated Press.

"I think finally, most people in Vermont understand that we're a couple like any other couple. We're as good and as bad as any other group of people. And now I think we have a chance to prove ourselves here on forward that we're good members of our community."

quote>

 

 

 

 

[hailman 1]

Everything in the bible is open to interpretation. Your church interprets something one way, his church interprets it another way, and her church interprets it differently still. Because of this, very few groups see eye to eye on this. I think it's really a matter of personal opinion amongst higher-ups in both church and government. As far as I can see, none of them have addressed this issue from a relevant perspective. In MY personal opinion, this is a simple human rights issue. I don't see the harm in giving people--who care about each other and live together--the right to "get married." It doesn't have any effect on the sanctity of my marriage... And don't tell me it does, because it doesn't. My wife and I are the only ones who have influence on the sanctity of our marriage. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people and churches that preach otherwise, and they won't simply be silenced by Iowa's kind gesture this week. It's going to take a lot of patience and determination to win this civil rights battle.

[Kevin 101]

Originally posted by: TheQuiltedLlama

Vermont legalises same-sex marriage

quote>

Epic.

3/6 New England States down

[Duke87 1,070]

Well, we saw this one coming. We already knew once the legislature passed it that it would go through. They wouldn't have gone through with the bill if they didn't know they had enough votes to override the governor's certain veto.

And also considering that Vermont is known for being a blue state.

It was Iowa that came completely out of left field.

[Kevin 101]

Duke, who is next?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Cheese89

Duke, who is next?quote>

Hold on a sec, I just need to repair my flux capacitor and then I'll get back to you on that.

Seriously, I don't know. But the bluer the state, the more likely.

[Danlikebooks 6]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html

The bible also condones slavery.

Not that I agree with that, just saying this for everyone who wants to take the bible literally...

[duack 14]

Two states in one week . What are the odds!