Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Bbbreaking!

How far we've come from sodomy being punishable by castration.

Progress.

Dude. You're getting worse than D1B and his Catholic bashing threads....

AZGrizFan wrote:Dude. You're getting worse than D1B and his Catholic bashing threads....

Which still leaves him in the upper third of threads.

AZGrizFan wrote:Dude. You're getting worse than D1B and his Catholic bashing threads....

They rule. I post

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Dude. You're getting worse than D1B and his Catholic bashing threads....

They rule. I post

You're like the African Americans with their "he's the 14th African American QB to ever win the XXXXXXX"....after 15 or 20, is it really even NEWS?

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote: They rule. I post

You're like the African Americans with their "he's the 14th African American QB to ever win the XXXXXXX"....after 15 or 20, is it really even NEWS?

I was more posting this for BDKJMU and the rest of the Virginians


And until it is legal in every state, I will post.

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
You're like the African Americans with their "he's the 14th African American QB to ever win the XXXXXXX"....after 15 or 20, is it really even NEWS?

I was more posting this for BDKJMU and the rest of the Virginians


And until it is legal in every state, I will post.

Fine. But what will be the next issue?

CAA Flagship wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

I was more posting this for BDKJMU and the rest of the Virginians


And until it is legal in every state, I will post.

Fine. But what will be the next issue?

Whales.

dbackjon wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: Fine. But what will be the next issue?

Whales.

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
You're like the African Americans with their "he's the 14th African American QB to ever win the XXXXXXX"....after 15 or 20, is it really even NEWS?

I was more posting this for BDKJMU and the rest of the Virginians


And until it is legal in every state, I will post.

Decision was stayed until fed appeals court hears this, so it's not like homos can get married in VA tomorrow. Just like the OK & UT judges, lib donk appointees.

This isn't surprising. They're going to continue to find lib donk fed judges in every circuit to overturn state laws. The SCOTUS will decide this in 2015 or 2016.

BDKJMU wrote:The SCOTUS will decide this in 2015 or 2016.

Can't wait.

Fundy tears will be delicious.

BDKJMU wrote:Decision was stayed until fed appeals court hears this, so it's not like homos can get married in VA tomorrow. Just like the OK & UT judges, lib donk appointees.

This isn't surprising. They're going to continue to find lib donk fed judges in every circuit to overturn state laws. The SCOTUS will decide this in 2015 or 2016.

And the judge in Kentucky? Appointed by Bush on McConnell's recommendation

Here's a clue any judge that's worth being a judge is going to rule in favor of gay marriage it is so clearly unconstitutional to bandit that any judgment rules against it should be impeached

dbackjon wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:Decision was stayed until fed appeals court hears this, so it's not like homos can get married in VA tomorrow. Just like the OK & UT judges, lib donk appointees.

This isn't surprising. They're going to continue to find lib donk fed judges in every circuit to overturn state laws. The SCOTUS will decide this in 2015 or 2016.

And the judge in Kentucky? Appointed by Bush on McConnell's recommendation

Here's a clue any judge that's worth being a judge is going to rule in favor of gay marriage it is so clearly unconstitutional to bandit that any judgment rules against it should be impeached

If he disagrees with BigDicKJaMmedUpmyass, he must be a lib activist judge.

dbackjon wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:Decision was stayed until fed appeals court hears this, so it's not like homos can get married in VA tomorrow. Just like the OK & UT judges, lib donk appointees.

This isn't surprising. They're going to continue to find lib donk fed judges in every circuit to overturn state laws. The SCOTUS will decide this in 2015 or 2016.

And the judge in Kentucky? Appointed by Bush on McConnell's recommendation

Here's a clue any liberal judge that's worth being a liberal judge is going to rule in favor of gay marriage it is so clearly unconstitutional to liberals that any judgment rules against it should be impeached

FIFY

All 3 judges that have ruled against state laws, in UT, OK, and VA, were donk appointed judges. All 3 rulings have been stayed while appealed though fed courts.

The 1 conk appointed that ruled on KY didn't overturn the KY law saying marriage was between a man & woman, but that they had to accept gay marriages performed in other states where it was legal.

BlueHen86 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

And the judge in Kentucky? Appointed by Bush on McConnell's recommendation

Here's a clue any judge that's worth being a judge is going to rule in favor of gay marriage it is so clearly unconstitutional to bandit that any judgment rules against it should be impeached

If he disagrees with BigDicKJaMmedUpmyass, he must be a lib activist judge.

You're too to realize that most donk judges will rule against the states and most conk judges won't.

BDKJMU wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
If he disagrees with BigDicKJaMmedUpmyass, he must be a lib activist judge.

You're too to realize that most donk judges will rule against the states and most conk judges won't.

I don't know why you tilt at this windmill.

The minute government got involved in marriage 60 some odd years ago, this whole thing became inevitable.

If you don't think gays should be married, then fine. That's your prerogative. But the minute the state sanctions ANYTHING with a financial tag on it, there's no way under the Constitution that you can allow it for one person and deny it for another.

Now, if you're against gay marriage, then at most this could be pointed out as another adverse consequence of big government. But as long as the government is doling out largesse for married people, the only logical outcome is that eventually everyone is going to have to benefit.

CID1990 wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
You're too to realize that most donk judges will rule against the states and most conk judges won't.

I don't know why you tilt at this windmill.

The minute government got involved in marriage 60 some odd years ago, this whole thing became inevitable.

If you don't think gays should be married, then fine. That's your prerogative. But the minute the state sanctions ANYTHING with a financial tag on it, there's no way under the Constitution that you can allow it for one person and deny it for another.

Now, if you're against gay marriage, then at most this could be pointed out as another adverse consequence of big government. But as long as the government is doling out largesse for married people, the only logical outcome is that eventually everyone is going to have to benefit.

Great post.

BlueHen86 wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I don't know why you tilt at this windmill.

The minute government got involved in marriage 60 some odd years ago, this whole thing became inevitable.

If you don't think gays should be married, then fine. That's your prerogative. But the minute the state sanctions ANYTHING with a financial tag on it, there's no way under the Constitution that you can allow it for one person and deny it for another.

Now, if you're against gay marriage, then at most this could be pointed out as another adverse consequence of big government. But as long as the government is doling out largesse for married people, the only logical outcome is that eventually everyone is going to have to benefit.

Great post.

Ditto!

CID1990 wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
You're too to realize that most donk judges will rule against the states and most conk judges won't.

I don't know why you tilt at this windmill.

The minute government got involved in marriage 60 some odd years ago, this whole thing became inevitable.

If you don't think gays should be married, then fine. That's your prerogative. But the minute the state sanctions ANYTHING with a financial tag on it, there's no way under the Constitution that you can allow it for one person and deny it for another.

Now, if you're against gay marriage, then at most this could be pointed out as another adverse consequence of big government. But as long as the government is doling out largesse for married people, the only logical outcome is that eventually everyone is going to have to benefit.

Does it stop there?

Can't wait.

Fundy tears will be delicious.

Best South Park episode.

You're like the African Americans with their "he's the 14th African American QB to ever win the XXXXXXX"....after 15 or 20, is it really even NEWS?

It's going to be news until all 50 states adopt same sex marriage laws. And it's going to be the same with pot legalization too.

Seahawks08 wrote:

Can't wait.

Fundy tears will be delicious.

Best South Park episode.

You're like the African Americans with their "he's the 14th African American QB to ever win the XXXXXXX"....after 15 or 20, is it really even NEWS?

It's going to be news until all 50 states adopt same sex marriage laws. And it's going to be the same with pot legalization too.

We don't need more laws making it legal. We just need to get rid of the laws making it illegal. I mean, dear God, don't we have enough laws already?

In other news... Ellen Page came out and I'd hit it.

BDKJMU wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I don't know why you tilt at this windmill.

The minute government got involved in marriage 60 some odd years ago, this whole thing became inevitable.

If you don't think gays should be married, then fine. That's your prerogative. But the minute the state sanctions ANYTHING with a financial tag on it, there's no way under the Constitution that you can allow it for one person and deny it for another.

Now, if you're against gay marriage, then at most this could be pointed out as another adverse consequence of big government. But as long as the government is doling out largesse for married people, the only logical outcome is that eventually everyone is going to have to benefit.

Does it stop there?

What, specifically, are you worried about?