To end HUMAN ENSLAVEMENT, an institution which
- although part of human civilization for 5000 years, was already on its last legs worldwide
- already viewed as abhorrent an evil by the majority of the civilized world
- had, in essence, already been put down physically and legally in these United States at the cost of 4 years of war and at least half a million men
But the ability to end the tradition of marriage requiring at least one male and one female, which
- as part of human civilization for 5000 years, remains a strong and positive tradition among the vast majority of nations and cultures worldwide
- is only viewed as evil by the nitwitted deviants screaming to be allowed to copy it word-for-word
- has never been directly approved by the electorate when brought to a vote or referendum
apparently already existed in the Constitution if you looked hard enough.
The hubris involved in pretzeling oneself into those crazy pants boggles my mind.
It's your world now, fuckoes, and you're welcome to it.
Posts
1 comments:
Slavery was written into the Constitution (see, the Three-Fifths Compromise), so it had to be amended out.
"the tradition of marriage requiring at least one male and one female, which as part of human civilization for 5000 years, remains a strong and positive tradition among the vast majority of nations and cultures worldwide"
Of course, in most civilizations for most of that 5000 years, if a man could afford more, he could have as many women as he wanted. And the women had no say in the matter, since they were essentially property (or, after slavery was ended, "part of" the husband with no rights of her own).
"But the ability to end the tradition of marriage requiring at least one male and one female [...] apparently already existed in the Constitution if you looked hard enough."
I direct your attention to Amendment Nine: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Post a Comment