# suck it you hateful bigoted degenerate whore-mothered goat-fucking trash(gay marriage ban overturned **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 5, 2010, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214 "2010-08-05T02:00:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/201 "2010-08-10T00:49:13Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > [QUOTE=Bricker] > (Said some stuff that doesn’t matter to me. I am replying direclty to his post to get his attention) Giving you the benefit of the doubt here and asking one more time that you reply to the following: Why intermdeiated scrutiny for sexual orientation? Why is sexual orientation more like gender than race? Put differently, what is the rationale behind subjecting race to strict scrutiny and gender to intermediate scrutiny, and why should the latter apply to sexual orientation? Does the rationale have something to do with the fact that sometimes it’s approppriate to discriminate between genders/sexes (no dudes in the ladies’ room; there’s a presumption that young children belong with their moms) whereas it’s hard to think of a reason it would be appropriate to discriminate on race/ethnicity/nationality (happened once, right?)? If so, when is it appropriate to discrimnate based on sexual orientation? [/QUOTE] Race was the directly intended target of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gender was not – indeed, if it were, why was the Nineteenth Amendment even necessary? Because gender has had an area carved out for it by judicial action already, it seems the least violent approach is to analogize sexual orientation to gender. I don’t analogize it to race because there’s no historical or textual support for that view. I fully admit this is not a textualist answer. But the texualist answer can’t always be applied when the backdrop of controlling precedent is itself not textually-based. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/202 "2010-08-10T00:59:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Race was the directly intended target of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gender was not – indeed, if it were, why was the Nineteenth Amendment even necessary? Just to point out, though, that the Nineteenth Amendment isn’t analogous to the Fourteenth Amendment, but to the Fifteenth Amendment. One could make the argument that the existence of the Fifteenth Amendment merely shows that the protections of the Fourteenth don’t apply to voting. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/203 "2010-08-10T13:52:01Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > I’m not a lawyer so can someone explain to me why the 14th amendment has to be strictly restricted to racial discrimination? If it was originally only intended for Blacks, how can we even extend it to other races? Perhaps someone can define “protected class” and what’s required to pass a certain “level of scrutiny”. The 15th Amendment speaks directly to racial discrimination. As for the 13th and the 14th – I guess they’re limited to racial-discrimination cases because of some subtle penumbral emanation, cause darned if I can find any relevant mention of race in the text (unless there’s some way to stretch the “Indians not taxed” thing far enough to cover it): > [@](#): > > **Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.** > > 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. > > 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. > > **Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.** > > 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. > > 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. > > 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. > > 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. > > 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. > > **Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870.** > > 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. > > 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/204 "2010-08-10T14:05:36Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Blondness is not an immutable characteristic I’m not sure where “immutability” comes into it; religion, for example, is clearly not an immutable characteristic. (As for race, let’s just say that the obvious Michael Jackson jokes have been made and move on.) ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/205 "2010-08-10T14:17:44Z")
Immutability comes into it as one of the factors established by the Supreme Court for determination of suspect class status. Their word, not mine. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/206 "2010-08-10T14:21:09Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > I’m not sure where “immutability” comes into it; religion, for example, is clearly not an immutable characteristic. (As for race, let’s just say that the obvious Michael Jackson jokes have been made and move on.) Religion is explicitly protected in the Constitution by the First Amendment, though. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/207 "2010-08-10T17:06:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@whole\_bean](#): > > > > Giving you the benefit of the doubt here and asking one more time that you reply to the following: > > Why intermdeiated scrutiny for sexual orientation? Why is sexual orientation more like gender than race? Put differently, what is the rationale behind subjecting race to strict scrutiny and gender to intermediate scrutiny, and why should the latter apply to sexual orientation? Does the rationale have something to do with the fact that sometimes it’s approppriate to discriminate between genders/sexes (no dudes in the ladies’ room; there’s a presumption that young children belong with their moms) whereas it’s hard to think of a reason it would be appropriate to discriminate on race/ethnicity/nationality (happened once, right?)? If so, when is it appropriate to discrimnate based on sexual orientation? > > Race was the directly intended target of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gender was not – indeed, if it were, why was the Nineteenth Amendment even necessary? > > Because gender has had an area carved out for it by judicial action already, it seems the least violent approach is to analogize sexual orientation to gender. I don’t analogize it to race because there’s no historical or textual support for that view. > > I fully admit this is not a textualist answer. But the texualist answer can’t always be applied when the backdrop of controlling precedent is itself not textually-based. The 14th, unlike the 15th and 19th, has nothing to do with voting rights. That’s why we needed a 15th and, later, a 19th. So, when interpereting the EPC and applying it to laws, what are the reasons given for applying strict scrutiny to those laws that discriminate on the basis of race? Are you saying the sole consideration is that the 14th was targetted at race discrimination, even though the 14th (unlike, say the 15th) makes no mention of race? Have courts not focussed on any other aspect of race and the nature of discrimination based on race? If courts have expanded the inquiry beyond what was “targeted” by the 14th, then how would that analysis apply to discrimnation based on sexual orientation? It seems to me like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. Boldly proclaim the standard should be intermediate scrutiny (with no anaylsis) so you don’t seem unenlightened, yet offer no real protection to the victims of sexual orientation based discrimination. Am I the only one who reads it this way? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/208 "2010-08-10T17:11:44Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > > [@Steve\_MB](#): > > > > I’m not sure where “immutability” comes into it; religion, for example, is clearly not an immutable characteristic. (As for race, let’s just say that the obvious Michael Jackson jokes have been made and move on.) > > Religion is explicitly protected in the Constitution by the First Amendment, though. By the first amendment, yes. Not necessarily by the Equal Protection clause, though. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/209 "2010-08-11T20:58:29Z")
> [@3trew](#): > > That must be some list of reasons same sex marriage will be bad for society, if it’s taking this long to compile. It must be a humongous list. Four days, and still waiting. ---
**Author:** ![3trew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/13edae/32.png) [@3trew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/3trew)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/210 "2010-08-12T03:55:40Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > > [@3trew](#): > > > > That must be some list of reasons same sex marriage will be bad for society, if it’s taking this long to compile. > > It must be a humongous list. Four days, and still waiting. In all fairness, the plagues of locusts, civil unrest, coup attempts, meteor strikes, and complete breakdown of civilization in Canada since we legalized it does make it hard to come up with examples, what with having to send heavily armed raiding parties into the radioactive rubble to find the few remaining records of the Last Times. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/211 "2010-08-12T04:39:43Z")
> [@3trew](#): > > > [@SteveG1](#): > > > > It must be a humongous list. Four days, and still waiting. > > In all fairness, the plagues of locusts, civil unrest, coup attempts, meteor strikes, and complete breakdown of civilization in Canada since we legalized it does make it hard to come up with examples, what with having to send heavily armed raiding parties into the radioactive rubble to find the few remaining records of the Last Times. Maybe one side effect is the inability to create lists. Think of the havoc! ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/212 "2010-08-12T13:30:13Z")
> [@3trew](#): > > > [@SteveG1](#): > > > > It must be a humongous list. Four days, and still waiting. > > In all fairness, the plagues of locusts, civil unrest, coup attempts, meteor strikes, and complete breakdown of civilization in Canada since we legalized it does make it hard to come up with examples, what with having to send heavily armed raiding parties into the radioactive rubble to find the few remaining records of the Last Times. “Gather 'round, children, as I tell you of the Before Times, when there was peace and joy in the land and we threw rocks at the faggots.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/213 "2010-08-12T13:36:42Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > Race was the directly intended target of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gender was not – indeed, if it were, why was the Nineteenth Amendment even necessary? > > > > Because gender has had an area carved out for it by judicial action already, it seems the least violent approach is to analogize sexual orientation to gender. I don’t analogize it to race because there’s no historical or textual support for that view. > > > > I fully admit this is not a textualist answer. But the texualist answer can’t always be applied when the backdrop of controlling precedent is itself not textually-based. > > The 14th, unlike the 15th and 19th, has nothing to do with voting rights. That’s why we needed a 15th and, later, a 19th. > > So, when interpereting the EPC and applying it to laws, what are the reasons given for applying strict scrutiny to those laws that discriminate on the basis of race? Are you saying the sole consideration is that the 14th was targetted at race discrimination, even though the 14th (unlike, say the 15th) makes no mention of race? Have courts not focussed on any other aspect of race and the nature of discrimination based on race? If courts have expanded the inquiry beyond what was “targeted” by the 14th, then how would that analysis apply to discrimnation based on sexual orientation? > > It seems to me like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. Boldly proclaim the standard should be intermediate scrutiny (with no anaylsis) so you don’t seem unenlightened, yet offer no real protection to the victims of sexual orientation based discrimination. Am I the only one who reads it this way? Well, you’ve certainly picked up one key fact: I do indeed craft all my posts with the goal of seeming enlightened to this community, as my frequent readers will undoubtedly attest. :rolleyes: Nor do I agree that my statement was borne of “no analysis.” To the contrary, I’ve noted that sexual orientation is related to gender, both because it’s a (generally) immutable characteristic and because gender and sexual desire are inextricably intertwined. It seems to me that your objections to intermediate scrutiny for sexual orientation apply with equal force to using intermediate scrutiny on matters of gender discrimination – don’t they? ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/214 "2010-08-12T14:47:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@whole\_bean](#): > > > > The 14th, unlike the 15th and 19th, has nothing to do with voting rights. That’s why we needed a 15th and, later, a 19th. > > > > So, when interpereting the EPC and applying it to laws, what are the reasons given for applying strict scrutiny to those laws that discriminate on the basis of race? Are you saying the sole consideration is that the 14th was targetted at race discrimination, even though the 14th (unlike, say the 15th) makes no mention of race? Have courts not focussed on any other aspect of race and the nature of discrimination based on race? If courts have expanded the inquiry beyond what was “targeted” by the 14th, then how would that analysis apply to discrimnation based on sexual orientation? > > > > It seems to me like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. Boldly proclaim the standard should be intermediate scrutiny (with no anaylsis) so you don’t seem unenlightened, yet offer no real protection to the victims of sexual orientation based discrimination. Am I the only one who reads it this way? > > Well, you’ve certainly picked up one key fact: I do indeed craft all my posts with the goal of seeming enlightened to this community, as my frequent readers will undoubtedly attest. :rolleyes: > > Nor do I agree that my statement was borne of “no analysis.” \*\*To the contrary, I’ve noted that sexual orientation is related to gender, both because it’s a (generally) immutable characteristic and because gender and sexual desire are inextricably intertwined. \*\* > > It seems to me that your objections to intermediate scrutiny for sexual orientation apply with equal force to using intermediate scrutiny on matters of gender discrimination – don’t they? (bolding mine). I’m sorry but I think that’s an extremely weak argument. Just because both gender and sexual orientation have some identifying characteristics involving sex organs, the basis of discrimination are completely different. The state may a legitimate interest in treating the sexes differently. Seems to me, the point is that it does not have any legitimate reason to treat homosexuals differently. In this regard, sexual orientation (as a class) is more like race than gender, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/215 "2010-08-12T16:10:28Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > > [@Steve\_MB](#): > > > > I’m not sure where “immutability” comes into it; religion, for example, is clearly not an immutable characteristic. (As for race, let’s just say that the obvious Michael Jackson jokes have been made and move on.) > > Religion is explicitly protected in the Constitution by the First Amendment, though. Freedom of it, and freedom FROM it - the freedom to believe whatever you want is explicitly protected. However, unlike the “christian america” types want, it is not officially sanctioned or enforced or supported. The flip side of that is, that laws shall not be enacted for religious reasons. God hates fags is not a valid legal argument. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/216 "2010-08-12T17:06:05Z")
God \*also _hates people who wear cotton-poly blends,_ but so far my efforts to get \*those \*outlawed have come to naught. ☹ \*Deuteronomy 22:11. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/217 "2010-08-12T17:29:08Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > God \*also _hates people who wear cotton-poly blends,_ but so far my efforts to get \*those \*outlawed have come to naught. ☹ > > \*Deuteronomy 22:11. Not to mention cheeseburgers. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/218 "2010-08-12T17:58:05Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > God \*also _hates people who wear cotton-poly blends,_ but so far my efforts to get \*those \*outlawed have come to naught. ☹ > > \*Deuteronomy 22:11. God hates rags. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/219 "2010-08-12T18:51:48Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Not to mention cheeseburgers. Well, \*all \*right-thinking people hate cheeseburgers. Throwing that nasty crap all over a delicious hunk of meat. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > God hates rags. Have you ever tried making a rag out of a piece of cotton-poly fabric? I wouldn’t. Even leaving aside the issue of eternal damnation. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/220 "2010-08-12T19:43:55Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > > [@Ludovic](#): > > > > Not to mention cheeseburgers. > > Well, \*all \*right-thinking people hate cheeseburgers. Good thing I’m a left winger! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214.md?page=12)