Cadet Chapel, the landmark Gothic church that is a center for spiritual life at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, hosted its first same-sex wedding Saturday.

Penelope Gnesin and Brenda Sue Fulton, a West Point graduate, exchanged vows in the regal church in an afternoon ceremony, attended by about 250 guests and conducted by a senior Army chaplain.

The two have been together for 17 years. They had a civil commitment ceremony that didn’t carry any legal force in 1999 and had long hoped to formally tie the knot. The way was cleared last year, when New York legalized same-sex marriage and President Barack Obama lifted the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy prohibiting openly gay people from serving in the military.

The brides both live in New Jersey and would have preferred to have the wedding there, but the state doesn’t allow gay marriage…

The NJ legislature passed a law allowing same-sex marriage. Republican Governor Christie vetoed it.

“It has a tremendous history, and it is beautiful. That’s where I first heard and said the cadet prayer,” Fulton said, referring to the invocation that says, “Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to be content with a half-truth when the whole can be won.”

The ceremony was the second same-sex wedding at West Point. Last weekend, two of Fulton’s friends, a young lieutenant and her partner, were married in another campus landmark, the small Old Cadet Chapel in West Point’s cemetery.

Fulton has campaigned against the ban on gays in the military as a member of two groups representing gay and lesbian servicemen and servicewomen. She graduated from West Point in 1980, a member of the first class to include women.

She served with the Army Signal Corps in Germany and rose to the rank of captain, but left the service in 1986 partly because she wanted to be open about her sexual orientation. President Obama appointed her last year to the U.S. Military Academy’s Board of Visitors.

Nice to see the US Military continue to march into the 21st Century at a faster pace than some political chickenhawks. For those of us who lived through the end of Jim Crow in our military, the result isn’t a complete surprise. Unlike some politicians, the Pentagon accepts the law of the land – instead of trying to slink back into the past.

  1. noname says:

    This seems less a marriage of “luv” and more about making a statement. How sad…

    • WmDE says:

      After 17 years?

      • McCullough says:

        My wife and I lived together for 18 years before we married. The piece of paper was really just a formality to keep the government from screwing us taxwise. Otherwise we probably would never have married.

        Like the constitution…it’s just a piece of paper.

        • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

          What say you about polygamy? Why is that illegal, and homosexual marriage not….when neither fits the Christian view of marriage.

          • jim g says:

            depends on how good your special intrest lobbyists are

          • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

            I object to changing the global and historic meaning of the word “marriage” to include same sex couples…

            And I don’t agree with polygamy…Christ taught monogamy as the ideal and his apostles taught that, but allowed some time for transition for those in polygamous marriages for it would be morally wrong to divorce those wives who would also likely starve with no financial support.

            So the question remains, its a “slippery slope argument” that is sound because you have removed the word “marriage” from any defining context.

            Word have meaning, same sex union is historically, over 6,000 throughout the earth….NOT meant by the word “marriage.”

            If its meaning is changed, by fiat….because religious definitions no longer are considered…then why not change it to include polygamous marriage….or trans species unions? etc.

            As 6000 years of human history world wide didn’t prevent “marriage” from applying to what it once was in contrast too, what else is not covered by the term? Why can’t the word “marriage” become a word that can meaning anything “united”?

          • RR1 says:

            That is funny, the christian church you speak of allowed same sex marriages between men all through the 14 and 15 centuries. Of course it was for other reasons, not the fact they the two men were gay.

          • Charliej says:

            Who cares what the “Christian” view of marriage is? The US is a secular country. Religion has no place in public life. Practice your superstition in private.

          • McCullough says:

            Polygamy? As long as all parties are agreeable, I don’t care. Just call it open marriage, which as far as I know, is not illegal.

          • eighthnote says:

            The only people who should be concerned with the “christian” view of marriage, are christians. Nothing is stopping them from pursuing a “christian” marriage. Nothing should stop a gay couple from pursuing a marriage either.

          • What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

            Marriage between consenting adults, no matter the number, is fine with me.

            Why should I care what other adults do in the privacy of their house? Unless I’m a pervert, I see nothing of interest.

            I saw that somewhat tongue-in-cheek because I used to live next door to a quorum of lesbians, some of whom where prettier than ANY woman on TV or film.

  2. US says:

    Why is the US military involved with marriage at all? As far as I’m concerned, Westpoint shouldn’t have been used for any wedding, gay or not. I wonder if they had to pay a rental few for the facility?

    • spsffan says:

      For that matter, why is there a ” Gothic church that is a center for spiritual life at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point” ?

      We need to get religion out of government.

      And, why, again, is government in the business of selling marriage licenses?

      • US says:

        Make marriage just like any other business or personal contract. You hire a lawyer to draft the agreement, both sign it and use existing civil procedures for dissolving if needed. Marriage shouldn’t any special status legally speaking, make it a partnership agreement and end all this arguing.

        • noname says:

          Contracts are for adults; contracts are something children don’t understand, nor should they.

          The relationship commitment is needed to best raise healthy offspring. However, in today’s modern society we have “dumbed” down what children need and mass-produced what we adult conveniently believe will provide for them. Divorce is more the norm today; whereas, couple generations ago (3), pre baby boon it was rare.

          Granted all traditional marriages weren’t perfect then; but I bet the byproduct, children where in general much more emotionally secure, health, happy, productive and self reliant!

          We now have changed our view, to fit with a selfish disposable trend, me first and me must feel good society.

          Children are not much more then a status symbol of convenience now then something couples are committed too!

          Have kids and send them to day care. Have kids and wonder why your kids start acting badly.

          Today, it takes almost more then two full-time working spouses to afford a house. That wasn’t the case 40-60yrs ago.

          It used to be, generations ago, America invested and built itself up for the next generation. Now Americans only can care about today’s entertainment and maybe tomorrow’s.

          And, I am not talking about having a large budget deficit that’s necessary to keep the economy going. I am talking about investing wisely in infrastructure, I am talking about business not off-shoring manufacturing, I am talking about not having unnecessary wars, I am talking about wise investing in R&D, and I am talking about affordable education….

          • noname says:

            pp(poor dimwitted pedro), are you always so dense?

            Yes, I voted for the best choice! I voted for Obama.

            Sorry for your loss, but you need to get over it. Own your loss and use it to grow up!

          • noname says:

            pp(poor pedro), what is it I am complaining about?

            Maybe it’s your constant high pitch whining everyone finds really really annoying!

            But, because mentally your basically a child, being adults we deal with it.

          • noname says:

            pp(poor pedro) you actually think your imaginary friends are real!

            What else do those voices tell you?

            Time to take the pills again!

  3. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Unlike some politicians, the Pentagon accepts the law of the land – instead of trying to slink back into the past. /// And what is that?

    Seems to me luv is about luv. Marriage is about a host of related and unrelated legal rights and obligations.

    Anybody that “cares” about this issue is by definition: an asshole.

    FREEEEEEEEDOM: leaving other people alone.

    Silly Hoomans.

  4. MikeN says:

    >passed a law allowing same-sex marriage

    People are focusing on what is allowed and what is banned without asking if it is possible. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and thus a same-sex marriage is impossible.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Say Mikey–why do you think it is called “SAME SEX” marriage? As in: NOT your traditional western catholic marriage?

      Silly to argue that a word or concept touching on hooman affairs can mean only one thing.

      Know what I mean?

      • McCullough says:

        So why do YOU care? (see above).

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          Why do I care?====about what?

          Because I am for FREEEEEEEEEDOM===which is mostly just having the good grace to leave people alone ESPECIALLY when they aren’t bothering you at all.

          But I may not be responding to your imagined questioned. Ambiguity is like that.

          • McCullough says:

            “Because I am for FREEEEEEEEEDOM===which is mostly just having the good grace to leave people alone ESPECIALLY when they aren’t bothering you at all.”

            BS, that’s Libertarian ideology. You are a Liberal which is the EXACT opposite.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            More importantly, in your evident view, neither a liberal or a libertarian but rather a ……. LIAR?

            But, I am no Politician.

            Another definitional straight jacket you have chosen to clothe yourself in–from head to foot?

            I have been championing FREEEEEEEEEEDOM on this forum for years now.

            Tell us McCullough–what do you think FREEEEEEEEEEEEDOM is and how would it be different for a liberal than for a libertarian, from a cow in the fields?

          • MikeN says:

            >Because I am for FREEEEEEEEEDOM

            Says the fan of Michael Bloomberg.

          • Mextli says:

            I wish you had never watched Braveheart.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Painting my left butt cheek Blue is what really sucks. I thought it was latex.

          • What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

            Freedom is shackling other people until they do what you want, huh?

            McCullough, were you born that way, or did your parents drop you repeatedly?

          • MikeN says:

            Maybe it’s the Blues Brothers he watched.

  5. deowll says:

    Looks like a couple of near corpses hauled in from the senior citizens center.

    If they want to do a civil union for what ever reason that makes them happy that’s their business.

    Why people want to use a theoretically religious building of the Jewish/Christian/Islamic faith for this escapes me. The texts of all three faiths say you are going to hell and the topic of stoning does come up. All three faiths celebrate marriage and the children they produce. I’m not sure that Buddha signs of on this either in fact I don’t know of a traditional faith that does.

    Sure Herod had a bunch of male/eunuch slaves in his harem along with a bunch of females but they weren’t wives. Tiberius was into guys as well though it isn’t clear that his lovers wanted anything to do with him. What he did to his minnows was sick beyond words and his heir was one of the sickest pukes to ever run any government.

  6. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Why people want to use a theoretically religious building of the Jewish/Christian/Islamic faith for this escapes me. /// Location? View? Cost? To feel they fit in? Family Tradition? To stick it to god? Really, there are all kinds of reasons.

    Escapes you? ==== BWHAHAHAHAHA! That is a funny.

    Make the longest list you can of that which does NOT escape you?

    FREEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM: leaving other people alone. Something that escapes most religious types including their Fuhrer.

    Silly hypocritical Hoomans…….. well, they’d be hypocrites if they actually though anything in the first place…… speaking of what escapes them.

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      That was an excellent point, why can’t those who disagree with Bible teaching about homosexuality leave us alone…do their nasty somewhere else?

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Well demonstrated Dud: “If religion could be reasoned with, it wouldn’t exist.”

        Hee, hee!

      • Grey Bird says:

        Um, maybe because the Bible doesn’t have a single view on homosexuality. It contradicts itself if you actually read the whole thing and don’t gloss over the parts you disagree with.

  7. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    Its their right to do as they please.

    Its God’s right to punish them for doing as they please, against his Law:

    9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
    10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
    11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1Co 6:9-11 NKJ)

    As a libertarian, I don’t want government imposing its will on people, but as a libertarian, neither should they impose silence upon me when I, in Christian love, tell these they will not inherit God’s kingdom practicing what God declared is sin.

    • Charliej says:

      There is no god. God was made up to control weak minded people (such as yourself), and see how well it works.

    • What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

      You love nothing but your perverted ideas that someone else spoke to you.

      God has forsaken you for the vile lust you have in your heart for hate.

      Heaven hath no room for the hatemongers, for they forsake heavenly love to embrace Satan’s lust.

  8. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    Now that gay marriage ok, U.S. when will the US Military Academy at West Point host a trans species marriage:

    • noname says:

      Probably once we find a species that will have you!

    • spsffan says:

      Without even looking at the video. We have already had trans species marriages. Just ask Ivanka Trump!

    • Likes2LOL says:

      Humans got AIDS from monkeys after some heated man-monkey lovin’, so maybe the trans species thing isn’t such a good idea?

      Just wondering…

  9. The0ne says:

    Screw this, I’m going for cross-species and if at all likely cross-alien marriage.

  10. msbpodcast says:

    TEAD and the rest of you lot, you do know that when Sir William Wallace (played so, hum, eloquently by Mel Gibson) was screaming Freeeedom! at the end of the movie, he was getting him balls ripped off, just before they drew and quartered him.

    That was the most short lived cry of freedom, rapidly morphing into a little girl scream.

    • spsffan says:

      Wait a GD minute! Mel Gibson gets his balls ripped off in that movie?????!!!!???

      It couldn’t happen to a nicer prick!

      Now I DO have a reason to see it.

  11. Guyver says:

    I’m just surprised the liberals aren’t griping about how there’s a church on government land and whining about their version of separation of church and state.

  12. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    Unlike liberals, I don’t consider law “living and breathing”, words have legal meaning that can’t be changed just because someone wants to change it.

    Otherwise there is no law, there is only whim.

    As a libertarian, I don’t want Government invovled in the private lives of people…if they want same sex, or multiple sex “unions”…that shouldn’t be illegal.

    I object to changing by fiat the word “marriage” for WHAT then prevents them from changing the word “freedom” or “rights” by fiat?

    In other words, invent a new word for same sex unions…that precisely refers to that and not to “marriage as defined by 6,000+ years of human history.”

    • Guyver says:

      I don’t want Government invovled in the private lives of people…if they want same sex, or multiple sex “unions”…that shouldn’t be illegal.

      Government initially got into the business of marriage when they wanted to outlaw interracial marriage between blacks and white. Now it’s redefining it to allow for the union of people of the same gender. Sounds like great examples of how government should get out of peoples’ lives.

      In other words, invent a new word for same sex unions…that precisely refers to that and not to “marriage as defined by 6,000+ years of human history.”

      They already have that but it isn’t good enough for them. It’s called “civil union”.

    • So what says:

      Alfie I want you to make this completely clear, you said and I quote

      ” I don’t consider law “living and breathing”, words have legal meaning that can’t be changed just because someone wants to change it.”

      Do you really and truly believe that that the law once written cannot be changed because someone defines a word a specific way and someone else “wants” to change it?

      • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

        Your objection is a straw man, I never said a law cannot be changed…

        I meant the text of a law has only one correct (parsimonous) or “origninalist” interpretation.

        When interpreting a document to gain the AUTHOR’S intent, you must define words as the author intended.

        You cannot change the meaning of words IN A DOCUMENT ALREADY WRITTEN, to have meaning unintended by the author.

        Originalism is a principle of interpretation that tries to discover the original meaning or intent of the constitution.[1] It is based on the principle that the judiciary is not supposed to create, amend or repeal laws (which is the realm of the legislative branch) but only to uphold them.[1] The term originated in the 1980s [2] but the concept is a formalist theory of law and a corollary of textualism.

        Critical exegetes of scripture have the same goal.

        Its the only “honest” thing to do with the words of another.

        If words can mean what the author did not intend, then your question can be changed into a statement, one you likely would not like:

        Do you really and truly believe that that the law once written cannot be changed because someone defines a word a specific way and someone else “wants” to change it?

        “WE really and truly believe that the law once written can be changed because government defines words in a specific way and to no one else wants to change it.”

        If words can be changed contrary to the author’s wishes, then everything you say can be twisted to teach the opposite of what you believe.

        If you want to change a law, then rewrite the law using words as you mean them…

        Change doesn’t happen legitimately by reinterpreting statements to whatever is desired…that is Pandora’s box our of which all sorts of evil will come.

        • So what says:

          As usual you miss the point. It was not an objection it was a question. It must suck to spend your entire life on the densive.

  13. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    If nothing informs the law regarding the definition of the word marriage, if 6000+ years usage throughout the earth doesn’t define the term….then what does?

    Is the sensibilities of gay in San Francisco that defines the word?

    What about those of Elmer Fudd on the farm, with his lambs? How is his opinion not protected by the law, equally to gays in San Francisco?

    And why limit marriage to a couple…what law of logic is mandates that…and outlaws multiple couples…

    IF marriage can be radically redefined without any reference to historical usage…what other terms can be redefined…how about “citizenship”…why not redefine that to include everyone on earth…the are all citizens…

    So lets allow Muslim countries follow Sharia law vote in the US, to determine the political makeup of our country…along with us…

    Being “citizenship” has no real reference to historical usage, why not?.

    • Guyver says:

      IF marriage can be radically redefined without any reference to historical usage…what other terms can be redefined…how about “citizenship”…why not redefine that to include everyone on earth…the are all citizens…

      Liberals would have us all believe socialism and communism are actually pretty good forms of government.

  14. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    Why not redefine the word “poor” to mean “rich” end the war of “poverty” as its no longer necessary.

    There’s lots of words that could use some redefinition… We abort babies because they can’t defend themselves by voting….why not abort seniors who no longer vote…who are helpless?

    Why not abort any human who doesn’t think like the Elites do…because its indefensible they think differently….and they shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      In other words, redefine “human” to not apply to babies and seniors….or members of certain political persuasions…

      Or having certain defects.

      I can see lots of ways redefining words like marriage, can be a real boon….for government…

      You all trust and love government….don’t you?

      • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

        After all, “law” and the idea of precise definition of words, was set up to be a boon to Government, to protect the Government from the people….right?

        Government is “we the people,” and those outside of Government “them” and we all know what can be done to “them”.

        • Dallas says:

          That’s quite the conversation you got going there!

          Redefine ‘marriage’ leads to redefine ‘human’? Wow, that’s a steep slope!! I don’t see that happening until 2025 or later.

          • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

            Why so far in the future…Hitler did it with the Jews, Progressives with blacks as his forerunner, eugenics….look it up.

            Progressives have a proud history of redefining things to fit their current theories.

    • Guyver says:

      There’s lots of words that could use some redefinition… We abort babies because they can’t defend themselves by voting….why not abort seniors who no longer vote…who are helpless?

      Words that liberals are now redefining:

      “tolerance” now means “acceptance”

      “open-mindedness” now means “like-mindedness”

      “equal opportunity” now means “equal outcome”

  15. Dallas says:

    Awesome! This was item #12 (or maybe 13) on the Gay Agenda but I’m as excited since receiving Obama’s election gift.

  16. tcc3 says:

    I see alot of blather about “redefining words.” Marriage began as a legal agreement transferring property (a daughter) between one man (the father) and another (the husband).

    Polygamy used to be not just tolerated but encouraged.

    Feudal Lords used to have “first night” privileges with every newly wedded bride

    Interracial unions were once illegal. Inter-class unions were once illegal.

    Divorce used to be illegal.

    Marriage has been redefined countless times. For all the posturing about the “sanctity of marriage” I hear little about the sanctity of our government. Define marriage how you want, but its illegal for our government to discriminate against a group of people for no reason. One way or the other it has to change.

  17. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

    …. and without thinking about words, our ideas are but weeds.

    Psycholinguistics. Its all definitional and interactive. How do you “think” if you think words only mean one thing? Compare to what the same psycho would think if he applied the notion that words mean what they actively lead to concluding?

    Imagine that different people really don’t think the same.

    Its awesome!!!

    Tolerance for ambiguity—the difference between conservative and liberal mindsets, thinking, —-conclusions.

    ….. and thereby the world gets shaped.

    Silly Hoomans.

    Now, to google just why there is a Chapel on the Academy grounds. I’ll bet its “called” a place of quiet reflection completely supporting the notion of a gay wedding ceremony. Interesting how religion has its nose into the tent of Air Force command.

    Insidious. Can’t serve god AND country. Good thing for the military/society that hoomans are basically hypocrites otherwise rationality wouldn’t stand a chance.

  18. McCullough says:

    Just wondering if the commenters here would support Polyamorus marriage as well as same sex marriage.

    As a leaning Libertarian, I don’t care as long as all parties consent, but should we make this legal as well?

    Something to consider.

    • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

      consider? Yes, indeed.

      ….. and first: consider the guidelines by which you will consider the question. From what context?

      As an issue of individual rights?==as in why not as everything is consensual, or

      As an issue of societal benefit or harm to “all” those involved including those not polyentrenched. Yes—everything is connected to everything else. Everything having its chaotic butterfly effect on everything else.

      Pros and Cons to all we do, oft times REVERSED when we change the context as suggested above.

      Hmmmm. Rich Criminal Liars getting as many spouses as they wish while the poor unable to afford more than one?

      Can I have my cheese now?

      • McCullough says:

        I don’t think you understand what the term Polyamorus means. How does rich enter into it? It might be 2 men and one woman, 3 men, 3 women, etc. Get the point?

        No cheese for you.

        • Dallas says:

          I think we should go with two people marriages (max) for a while. After, in say 25 years, the government should just stop selling marriage licenses.

          How do the Mormons deal with this situation today ? I really don’t know.

        • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

          Polyamorus: Polyamory (from Greek p??? [poly], meaning “many” or “several”, and Latin amor, “love”) is the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. /// You are right, I did not fixate on the emPHAsis you apparently find controlling, but as referenced even in this thread==the context is marriage arrangements?

          Sorry to remain so close to the posted topic.

          • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

            crap===and the efficacy of $MONEY$ to polyamory is not definitional, just OH SO pragmatic. The more poly bucks you have, the more everything else comes to you as well.

            RICH = POLY (whether criminal activities or love relations)

        • MikeN says:

          He thinks the term refers to InTrade. It cost him a large return. Hopefully others on this board cashed in.

  19. silver price says:

    6/7/2010 5:11:13 AM ETHomosexuals are proudly serving now across the Armed Forces. If memory serves me correctly there isn’t a question asking individuals their sexual orientation. So to say that homosexuals are not allowed in the military is an inaccurate statement. The issue boils down to whether this lifestyle should be accepted and it should not. The UCMJ would have to be changed to reflect this lifestyle. Contrary to popular belief, our laws were derived from the Bible. Where else is there in the world a book that outlines what is right and what is wrong not according to man’s standard of living. If some had their way, we would live in a wild wild west society where wrong is right and right is wrong.

    • So what says:

      “Contrary to popular belief, our laws were derived from the Bible.” I suspect the Romans the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Persians, and most lawyers would be very surprised to hear that.

    • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

      Define: derived other than the santorum of your fevered imagination?

      More laws, precepts, and commands of the Bible are rightfully IGNORED or actually ILLEGAL than any of the human universals that were followed by man before hoomans could even speak.

      What a silly turd of hooman you are.

    • Dallas says:

      In my religion, God set forth two simple rules :
      (1) Be cool
      (2) Don’t be an ass

      I don’t see how God decided that a 1,900 page owners manual was prudent. Then it was rewritten by some other guy. The current poop is also making edits . Seems hokey to me. Remember , these guys thought the earth was flat. You with me on this?

      • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

        The Bible clearly teaches the earth is round and hangs on nothing:

        22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. (Isa 40:22 NKJ)

        7 He hangs the earth on nothing. (Job 26:7 NKJ)

        Your religion requires another rule, and it should be #1

        Better to keep your mouth shut and let people suspect you are stupid, than to open it and remove all doubt.

  20. Jack O'Shyte says:

    How we love going on about what other people do in their bedrooms.

  21. Axl says:

    Good for them!

  22. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    The decadent corrupt empire has fallen, only the fiat currency remains.

    • noname says:

      Which country do you plan on immigrating too?

      • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

        I’ll pick my state when I see how the break up works out, likely Texas Free State.

        The Militia will need a few good men to keep folks like you out.

        • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

          That is, the “Republic of Texas”, might as well get it right.

          • noname says:

            Yes, America needs a tall and deep border fence on the Red River NOW!

            All Texans should be required to have a passport to travel north, south, east, west!

            America has to prevent Texans having anchor babies in Oklahoma, oh the horror!

          • Dallas says:

            We don’t want your loon ass here. Move to Nebraska

  23. orchidcup says:

    Those are evil women.

    You can tell by looking at them.

    They should be burned at the stake and their ashes trampled by donkeys.

    God told me to tell you this. Honest Injun.

    Would I lie?

  24. Charles says:

    osama being reelected is a sign we are in The Last Days before Christ comes, osama Evolved just before he was reelected ( we all know why, osama wanted the votes, and will do whatever it takes to get them no matter the source. A Morally Corrupt administration was needed and wasn’t hard to find, at the Demonrat Convention they voted to leave out the Name of God, until the Decent Moral people in the convention ( who are in the Minority in the Demonrat party ) made such an uproar that they had to put Gods name back. Evil and Immorality are taking over the world. God says in the Bible that ( Homosexuality is an Abomination, ( Old Testament, Leviticus ) and is very Concise and Clear about this Ugly Sin in God’s eyes in the New Testament Romans ch. one, yet these ( People ) think that they can Revel and Celebrate their SIN and Throw it in GOD’S FACE EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THEIR LIVES AND THEY ARE GOING TO DIE AND GO TO HEAVEN, I WOULDN’T HOLD MY BREATH.

    God does Love them, but he doesn’t love their SIN, and he won’t overlook it, but if they REPENT OF THEIR SIN HE WILL FORGIVE THEM. You can’t have your SIN, and Live it t00!!!

    Ancient Rome The Greatest Nation in the World at that time in history. Became Corrupt Morally and Sexually as America is doing,
    Anything goes and is Gradually becoming Accepted here in America Too, but Thank God most of the world is not and will not accept this Repulsive and Disgusting Evil, they are just going To Hell in Different ways, such as their choice of CULTS ALSO KNOWN AS RELIGIONS. We will chose how we live, and THE ONE GOD WILL CHOSE HOW WE FACE ETERNITY. HAVE A NICE DAY.

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      Leftist progressive loons have much in common with the cults…they are just as crafty misdirecting from anything that detracts from the cult….

      And they twist the words of the opposition to lie about their positions, and slander them.

      But what is truly hilarious, these emotion led nutters often are bested by the straw men they set up….lacking the intellectual capital to critically defeat a premise….

      The evil spirit would be the Straw Man argument they thought would be easy to defeat to smear their opponents:

      15 And the evil spirit answered and said, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?”
      16 Then the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, overpowered them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. (Act 19:15-16 NKJ)

    • getintouch says:

      fuck you and your god…

      • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

        You illustrate and prove my point, lacking the intellectual tools required to critically discuss any issue, you curse, froth and stew…

        Cultists, and progressives are cultists, cannot argue points intelligently…they always resort to smear and name calling.

        Some vainly try to discuss an issue, but soon realize the facts don’t support their nutter theories…so they spew cursing…


    • orchidcup says:

      You religious fanatics have been saying exactly the same things for two thousand years.

      The world is coming to an end. The world is full of sin. The Bible says this. The Bible says that.

      Matthew 16:28 says “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

      Almost every religious sect has predicted the End of The World and The Second Coming.

      World War One was the end of the world in recent. Then World War Two became the end of the world. Then there were predictions the world would end in 1988 for some strange reason. Then the Y2K computer bug signaled the end of the world.

      The End Of The World has been just around the corner for two thousand years.

      Maybe one of these days the religious nutjobs that wish for an apocalypse will get their wish.

      I prefer to live my life one day at a time with a positive attitude. If Jesus returns, then we can talk about things.

      I am certain Jesus will forgive me if I am skeptical of religious wingnuts and their false predictions of an impending apocalypse.

      • orchidcup says:

        Now the Mayan calendar says The End Of The World will fall on December 21.

        Wonderful. Let’s have a party.

        • Deehexi says:

          @orchidcup… didn’t you hear? It was cancelled. So no afterparty… Oh well. But seriously … They found another mayan calendar that goes way beyond that date. And if you think about it…the one where people say the world will end on 21 Dec…the calendar ens a cycle, that’s all. So when one ends a new one will begin.
          Other than that I agree with you on what you said before!!! Let’s talk when the fairy tale comes true.

  25. Likes2LOL says:

    Just a thought: All these gay marriages include lots of money spent on wedding clothes, receptions, gifts, travel and hotel accommodations for the guests, etc. = good for the economy.

    Gay newlyweds are the new job creators!


Bad Behavior has blocked 13800 access attempts in the last 7 days.