There's a newspaper (sic) in the UK where I was born and used to live called The Sun. It is owned by News Corp (prop R Murdoch) It loves to market itself as a family newspaper. On the front page if there was a killing spree or a sex scandal involving two consenting adults it would feature the sex scandal. And upon opening said paper, on page 3 it has the feature, "news in briefs" You don't have to be a genius to figure out what that means... That and the porn ads just before the sports section.
All Bullshit taking crap to the Extreme and out of proportions and taking things way too far all political bullshit To be a true american all you have to do is love and believe in your country and people that is the complete truth.
If you wanna marry a porn star. Go ahead. I honestly see no reason why it's wrong. If he gets jealous and divorces her then it's no different than any other divorce in my opinion. The only thing i can see is it'd be hard determining who's at fault for the divorce.
Well, if they wanted to be damn consistent about it and base their definitions on marriage on the Bible, Jesus says in Matthew 19 that adultery is the only sin warranting a divorce, thus one of the ways in which the Pope can grant annulment. He says that any man that marries after a divorce commits fornication, a mortal sin. Paul, the rock and most neurotic of the disciples writes in his letter to the Corinthians that virginity is preferable to marriage too.
In our world today a 'right' seems to also require some sort of license or permission slip to engage in the lawful activity & I would never ask for government permission to get married.
There is no need for a 'constitutional right to marry', it exists under common law & anyone who would apply (re: beg) for permission (re: licences) to exercise their common law rights is a moron
Come on! I can't even believe this is an issue! Sure she's a pornstar, so what? Why should that affect this guy's position? I say this is BS! And should there be a constitutional right to marry? HELL YES! And that includes EVERYBODY, including pornstars. ;)
Throughout history & many religious cultures, Marriage is between a man & a women. If you believe in the separation of church & state, then what right does the state have to redefine marriage to "allow" for same sex?
Whats wrong with a civil union if equal rights is what you want? You want to enforce a government mandate of acceptance of a radically new definition of marriage that includes same sex. Forced compliance is not acceptance, never will be no matter how many legal games you play.
@mjs48130 what right does it have to define it as anything. from now on im defining marriage as that brown stuff that comes out my dogs arse. and you nor no government can stop me from redifining marriage. and if you try i will rub your face in a big fresh, smelly steaming pile of marriage
@wetdream09 with a handle like wetdream (how old are you? 14? 13?) it's understandable that you would think that blond equals stupid. These are highly attractive and fairly smart women who have whored themselves out to a propaganda machine.
I don't understand the point of this video? No where did these corespondents agree that the firing of Mr. Janke was acceptable! O'Reilly only has an hour long show, he can't spend forty five minutes talking about one single subject, giving examples of everything that may be contested.
The right to marriage comment is untrue! Otherwise polygamists and gay's would have the unquestionable right to marriage. And as a RIGHT would not be CONTINUALLY shot down in court!
@shortwavecolt Where has right to gay marriage lost in court? It's a lot easier appealing to the majority of Americans who spend a small amount of time on a subject and usually base their opinion on emotion. It's a lot harder to lie to judges who tend to understand the constitution pretty better than the average person.
Then tell all your gay friends to go out and get married! I guess it is just my imagination that this country has waisted ridiculous amounts of money and time on endless court appeals! Even when they put it to A VOTE, it lost!
While we are at it, why don't we let the polygamist do there thing. I really don't see how a man or woman CAN'T love more than one person. At the end of the day, a man and his three wives hold more of an ability to rear children then two MEN!
This is a ridiculous way to look at it Liberal Viewer. I am a democrat and to suggest that republicans don't think that the right to marry is an actual right based on two videos is ridiculous. I'm afraid we liberals are becoming to extreme, like conservatives, and are lumping a party together.
i think that it's good ammo to attack someone that have a lot of power . forces fighting for a place. I don't give a shit if he married with a porn star. here in Brazil we don't have this city manager function. this is a good idea to excecute projects till the end.
Doncha love how they whined and bitched about the constitutional right to marry, yet all 3 of those douchecunt conservatives dont support the legalization of gay marriage. fucking hypocrites.
@Jarut195 because marriage is between a man and woman. man w/ man or woman w/ woman is both wrong morally or evolutionarily/scientifically either way you look at it. you can't change that no matter which way you wanna spin it champ.
@mecher3k i'm not arguing people don't have the freedom of choice to choose the sexual practices. I'm saying that homos don't have a right to recieve govt. benefits, tax breaks, or a right to raise children just because you claim that sodomy is normal and acceptable. I also realize that feelings of homosexuality is not a choice however that does not justify the behavior. people are born with genes that drives them to anger easily, steal etc. but that doesn't make it ok.
@mecher3k yes people's genetics affect those things that I listed, including homosexual tendencies. Homosexuality will harm people. It is a violation and assault against the natural family of man. It is unnatural no matter how much you want to justify it. It is a perversion from a moral/ethical viewpoint or a scientific one.
@mecher3k "you cannot control love". you have a choice whether to sodomize another man. it is wrong. i think it's funny how you try to justify practiced homosexuality. it's really funny. i already named how it harms people. you should reread my last post. family is a natural and evolutionary aspect of mankind. you cannot deny these cold, hard facts but nice try. "homosexuality found in nature"animals also eat their own shit. does it make it ok?
@mecher3k Owned me? haha...the fact that you said that proves you're retarded. You didn't prove anything...you just call me a fascist (despite the fact that you have no idea what that word means) and I disprove all your silly justifications with facts and logic. Maybe next time champ.
there is way to much goverment with way to many laws... why does everyone have to make things so complecated... and sure everyone has rights altho porn stars are looked down uhpond for obvieous reasons and i see why they fired him, it looks bad end of story... kinda lol
I think people should be able to marry who they want. I am for gay rights, I am pro choice, and, no, Ann Coulter, I am, in fact, NOT a traitor to our country. Why are so many people so intollerant? Is that REALLY the message of freedom we want to be proclaiming to the world? "Yeah, you have rights, and you're free, but only if you're straight, christian, and marry who society tells you to." Great message, FOX. Of all dumbass conservative associations, you guys are the stupidest. Congrats.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Unfortunately the majority doesn't agree with you and since we live in a democracy, your opinion matters less. If your opinion becomes the majority, then maybe things will change. Until then, boo hoo for you.
Though I can understand why you might be confused since the idea that "Only people like me have rights" is common in practice for a lot of cons, even if they aren't always honest about it. They really do think only some people get rights.
finerbiner, then you should either fight to reduce government intrusion into everyday American's lives, and let it build roads, defend with military force, and protect the borders like it is supposed to, or you can move to one of those cheery 3rd world countries...i hear Sudan is fun this time of year
@shadowhacker27 Yes that is a good question. I think there is a simple and obvious answer to it though. It's a dated document that was probably established long ago when woman rights were less established and was never updated or, the are referring to the whole human race as "man" instead of "people".
Does Fox News only hire legal experts who couldn't graduate from weather girl school? Seriously, how any of these so-called lawyers landed a J.D. is a mystery for the ages. And on a related note, I thought Fox News, which promoted the Tea Parties, was against this sort of government intrusion, or is that only when it comes to the almighty dollar and the needs of big business?
Obviously this is just to avoid giving gay marriages any ground. So, let me get this straight (pun?)... Megyn Kelly is willing to deny that *she* has a fundamental right to marry whomever she chooses so that she can deny gays that same right? Really? I'm glad to live in a free country where I can marry anyone that Fox News approves.
the fact of the matter is that if you visit most third world countries, the people there will possess much more freedom in their day to day lives than we do in the US. We have gotten to a place here where every little thing you do(for example -walking your dog) has a whole host of rules you must follow. in other places the people would ask if you were really that crazy, stupid,bored that you had to make up such mundane laws.
In Sudan, Mauritania, Somaliland, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iran one may be killed for having sex with another consenting adult. In Saudi Arabia, one may be killed for being raped. In Afghanistan, one may be killed for converting away from religion: this is under the new government. To be honest, I'd rather have my basic amenities as well as my civil liberties and pay the fine for my dog crapping on the sidewalk.
@gamerunknown You are cherry picking countries. i will use Costa Rica as my example of people who have true freedom. Their govt is not spying on them. Ours does.
Well Costa Rica has a GDP per capita above that of the rest of the world, along with being democratic and in the upper half of the human development index. That doesn't mean the country isn't without systematic problems such as disappearance of tourists: which would probably be resolved with increased enforcement of the law. But highly developed secular democratic countries protect civil liberties: I only mentioned the countries that execute for, not prosecute homosexuality.
The only legally solid precedent I (admittedly dimly) recall regarding a marriage impacting employment status involved someone holding a security clearance marrying someone who turned out to be an agent of a foreign power. Given that (and the fact that James Carville and Mary Matalin's marriage hasn't caused anyone to break out the pitchforks and torches), I'm thinking "porn star" doesn't qualify.
I guess ONLY in America a citizen can get fired from his job/position for marrying someone,which is a personal matter.....
Here is my question - how is stuff like that legal in the USA and how is it that tv personal,such as fox news even defand that idea and like it...I always thought USA is a FREE country,fairness,equal rights,right to be happy....
How can people get fired from their job,just because their spouse's job is not liked by others?
(part 1) People who complain about constitutional rights being invented are either ignorant or lying. They need to read the Anti-Federalist Papers. We don't need any court or judge to make up a "right to privacy" or a "right to marry." Why not?
(part 2) Because every conceivable human right NOT specifically delegated to the central government is constitutionally reserved to the states and/or the people. The Bill of Rights was written just to emphasize CERTAIN rights that some of the Founders felt were especially important. It was NOT meant to restrict our rights in any way. People who complain about "constitutional rights created out of whole cloth" or whatever are ignoramuses.
the only point in favor for firing their city manager would be that it can be seen as morally inappropriate. You can impose by contract on government employees not to take part in certain acts. This is mainly because these people have to be an example for there community. In this case, even if it would have been written in his contract, firing him interferes with a constitutional law.
so i can see where they got the idea from but in court they dont make a chance at all.
Yes I belive in both rights. Its utter hypocrisy esp when one acknowledges that porn is indeed a multibazillion dollar biz. Who are they to judge someone's love?
Much the same as Letterman, I live in France, and the notion that he participated in premarital sex, which is what it comes down to, as so 'scandilous' would be utterly laughable. Live and live, the happier people are in their relationships the better they serve imo.
Seriously? Nobody told the guy that he didn't have the right to marry her, they told him that he couldn't work the job because he was married to her, therefore the problem/issue at hand is the guys association with the porn star, not whether or not he has the right to marry her. I think you should leave legal issues up to the lawyers because you obviously don't get it
yes its his chioce i am outrage of what i just seen. gay,stright, left,right,anal,reguler it shouldnt matter what, as long its a senceable age limit and your marrying a human. fuck that shit scott janke should had told them to bent ake that middle finger and fuck themselfs
this implies that the government can actually choose who you marry FOR you. were not talking about wether voters like his wife or not, the GOVERNMENT didnt like his wife, so they fired him. how does that sound to you, lol.
ANY lawyer ANYwhere ANYtime would without question win a wrongful termination by a landslide. What bothers me is that seemingly compitent ppl would even try to argue justifyably for termination. I myself am a bit jealous. Seriously, Fox is claiming to have a right to fire employees if they dont like what your spouse does legally for a living? That just cant be for real, Ima have to do more research, there has to be more to it. Thats just to bold and wrong even 4 fox news!!
As you say in the video the supreme court already established that we have a right to marry. As BigusGeekus said, that is a right of the people and so doesn't need to be directly written into the constitution.
Fox news, as usual, is simply doing backflips to support their completely untenable positions.
First of all it isn't a right to marry issue to begin with. You can marry who ever you want. The reporting on Fox is correct, It's covered under the first amendment as right to privacy. You making an argument out of thin air. If I were that man I would sue and win.
wow, Megyn Kelly is a moron... Anyone should be allowed to get married to any other person, no matter who that person is or what they have done or do as a job. What really pisses me off is that they allow idiots on TV to discuss stuff like this because they are pretty.
Uh , Its a debate between 2 attorney's and a host regarding the legal issue in question, and Mrs. W, who is sitting on the left is no conservative by any strecth, This is a format where 2 different legal opionions were presented and the viewers of this program can come to there own conclusion on what they believe, On another note, you are obviously someone who has failed in your attemp to become a relevant journalist, maybe you should think about a career change, Mr. Orielly will handle this.
Hey LiberalViewer, when will you tackle the slanted left-wing bias of MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN??? Oh that's right, they're what you would call "responsible news agencies," who would never mislead viewers by slanting/omitting news. Only Fox does this. Got it!!! (only 35 minutes to Olberman!!!)
I notice that ALLEN will not give his last name or a picture. I also notice his freeze frame editing with a slow zoom - trying to add more emotion - Allen, that's an old ABC NBC and CBS trick.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's interesting how the Liberal Viewer explains how you can find dozens and dozens of examples of Fox News bias on My Fox News Playlist on YouTube. Let's be thankful that there is no Liberal bias news on CNN, NBC, CBS or ABC. What hypocrisy by the Liberal Viewer. Your credibility rating is 0.
I totally agree that it appeared that no laws were violated, and that the city manager should not have been fired.
But equating it to gay marriage is a bit of a stretch isn't it?
Gay marriage would violate federal law. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed by Clinton, defines marriage as between a man and a woman for purposes of all federal laws.
Now it is certainly being challenged, but until and if it is overturned/changed - marrying a porn star is legal. Two men is not.
So, ..... this video is bagging on the Oreilly factor for supporting this persons right to marry and saying that it was wrong? What kind of a liberal ass hat are you? Even when Oreilly is fighting for someone like this you are hating?
marriage has symbolic value. it only has value as long as there are people to value it. when a law specifically protects heterosexual monogamy as a prerequisite of marriage we have legislation in favor of subjective value which necessarily means alienation towards those who value a different marital structure. so instead of having a beurocratic quagmire over the definition of marriage it should be left to non governmental institutions formed voluntarily by people united by what they value.
So they said he should be allowed to be married to a porn star but him losing his job ISN'T prejudicial because the first amendment only protects... What? Controversial views of a political sort? And of course gays can't get married just because.
DUMBASS, the word "marriage" appears NOWHERE in the Constitution, while the freedom of association SPECIFICALLY IS, and they were specifically addressing the Constitutional protections IN THE CONSTITUTION, and not an "opinion" by SCOTUS.
o3shooter "the word marriage appears NOWHERE in the Constitution while the freedom of association SPECIFICALLY IS and they were specifically addressing the Constitutional protections IN THE CONSTITUTION"
2 big errors
1) The "freedom of association" like the right to marry is NOT explicitly enumerated and
2) The Constitution DOES explicitly say "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others"
It's good to know that Liberals will always swallow the bait. In your commentary YOU are the ones that claimed that "freedom of association" was in the FIrst Amendment to the Constitution, so by your own admission you just shot yourself in the foot! If you had made the 9th Amendment arguement in the first place, I wouldn't have disagreed.
o3shooter "YOU are the ones that claimed that 'freedom of association' was in the FIrst Amendment to the Constitution"
The Supreme Court has said "While the freedom of association is not explicitly set out in the [1st] Amendment, it has long been held to be implicit in the freedoms of speech, assembly, and petition"
So, what I said was accurate. YOU erroneously claimed "the word marriage appears NOWHERE in the Constitution while the freedom of association SPECIFICALLY IS"
i tihnk its ridiculous that we have to hae a "right" to do this and a "right" to do that. lol..it seems like were letting ourselelves be controlled becuse we cant control our own animal self.
Chills down my spine when she said the porn star had no freedom to make porn because it was not "political." That is JACKBOOT territory.
Keep your ears open EVERYONE and be ready to refute people when they say "Freedom of speech as guaranteed in our constitution extends only to political speech." Because that is messed up. Even if you hate porno, freedom is freedom.
Your argument could just as easily be considered as "ideological" as is what you're accusing their argument to be. What a stretch. Your ability to spin and misdirect is as impressive as it is disturbing.
LOL that's probably what happened here. Some uptight religious nut recognized her but couldn't explain how without confessing to that terrible, evil sin of lust. haha
to answer the first question, since the SUPREME court ruled that the freedom to marry is essential to the pursuit of happiness of free men, and since according to the 13th and 14th amendments, all natural born or naturalized citizens are cannot be denied rights without due process, then yes, the freedom to marry should be constitutionally protected (SOOOO glad i took AP gov last year.)
Meh, people need to stay out of everyones love life. If he was able to love her and her him despite the job then thats a strength I respect. I'm not sure I could do it.
Having said that, even if they are together for completely selfish superficial reasons then its still their right.. isn't it?
And about the constitution, it hardly seems to exists anymore. Look at the 10th amendment and cali if nothing else. Parts, like the commerce clause, have been twisted beyond recognition
I'm sorry but this could only happen in the US or possibly the UK (where I'm from). The fact that someone could be fired for their partners legal pastime/occupation is disgusting. Does it affect his ability to do his job? No, so fuck off.
In addition, the Supreme Court case you are quoting is one from the Warren Court, a Court largely regarded as the most Activist court in the History of the U.S.
And they say the Russian Federation is corrupt ... what a load of crap!
234jari234 3 weeks ago
There's a newspaper (sic) in the UK where I was born and used to live called The Sun. It is owned by News Corp (prop R Murdoch) It loves to market itself as a family newspaper. On the front page if there was a killing spree or a sex scandal involving two consenting adults it would feature the sex scandal. And upon opening said paper, on page 3 it has the feature, "news in briefs" You don't have to be a genius to figure out what that means... That and the porn ads just before the sports section.
Sou1defiler 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That should have nothing to do with marriage.
judgmentdragon14 2 months ago
All Bullshit taking crap to the Extreme and out of proportions and taking things way too far all political bullshit To be a true american all you have to do is love and believe in your country and people that is the complete truth.
judgmentdragon14 2 months ago
Comment removed
judgmentdragon14 2 months ago
America, home of bullshit. Take me away!
AlinaXekri 2 months ago
If you wanna marry a porn star. Go ahead. I honestly see no reason why it's wrong. If he gets jealous and divorces her then it's no different than any other divorce in my opinion. The only thing i can see is it'd be hard determining who's at fault for the divorce.
musicmanz15 5 months ago
@musicmanz15
Well, if they wanted to be damn consistent about it and base their definitions on marriage on the Bible, Jesus says in Matthew 19 that adultery is the only sin warranting a divorce, thus one of the ways in which the Pope can grant annulment. He says that any man that marries after a divorce commits fornication, a mortal sin. Paul, the rock and most neurotic of the disciples writes in his letter to the Corinthians that virginity is preferable to marriage too.
gamerunknown 3 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
In our world today a 'right' seems to also require some sort of license or permission slip to engage in the lawful activity & I would never ask for government permission to get married.
There is no need for a 'constitutional right to marry', it exists under common law & anyone who would apply (re: beg) for permission (re: licences) to exercise their common law rights is a moron
rooftopeagle 6 months ago
@rooftopeagle
Sup hospital visiting hours, tax reductions, adoption, inheritance, to name a few things desired by morons that actually appreciate the constitution.
gamerunknown 3 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
yes i am ready
rebok4me 10 months ago
I'd actually rather marry Megyn Kelly. She's fucking hot.
thecraziestkyle 10 months ago
@thecraziestkyle Well, it's not like anyone's going to marry her for her personality.
havvyweponsman 8 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
Comment removed
thecraziestkyle 10 months ago
Q#1 Yes
Q#2 Yes
anzuki 1 year ago
marriage is a patriarichal institution, nobody should marry.
singdawg 1 year ago
@singdawg Lol funny
LighterOfDewbies 9 months ago
This is exactly why I became a libertarian.
IPawnt 1 year ago
Come on! I can't even believe this is an issue! Sure she's a pornstar, so what? Why should that affect this guy's position? I say this is BS! And should there be a constitutional right to marry? HELL YES! And that includes EVERYBODY, including pornstars. ;)
njintau 1 year ago 7
so, is it ok for the proles to marry a pornstar but not members of the party?
robertwc82 1 year ago
i thought in the constitution it says anyone has the right to marry anyone of their choosing
SargentandGreenLeaf 1 year ago
@djrinpoche
whored themselves out?? okay you said it! not me! lol
blonde does not = stupid, i'm saying THOSE blondes in THIS video, are idiots dear.
i'm 16 =P
wetdream09 1 year ago
im cute
supersexytammra 1 year ago
Throughout history & many religious cultures, Marriage is between a man & a women. If you believe in the separation of church & state, then what right does the state have to redefine marriage to "allow" for same sex?
Whats wrong with a civil union if equal rights is what you want? You want to enforce a government mandate of acceptance of a radically new definition of marriage that includes same sex. Forced compliance is not acceptance, never will be no matter how many legal games you play.
mjs48130 1 year ago
@mjs48130 Doesnt the first part of your second sentence contradict your point in the second half?
grendelee 1 year ago
@mjs48130 what right does it have to define it as anything. from now on im defining marriage as that brown stuff that comes out my dogs arse. and you nor no government can stop me from redifining marriage. and if you try i will rub your face in a big fresh, smelly steaming pile of marriage
robertwc82 1 year ago
maybe...but marriage should only be between a man and a woman...because that is the definition of marriage.
OmarThePug 1 year ago
@LiberalViewer
God damn you I used to like your videos now you show this and I find myself agreeing with Bill O'Reilly.
I feel so sick and dirty.
Tyjohnable 1 year ago
yes i am ready
made4u99999@yahoo.co.in
rebok4me 1 year ago
why does fox news always have idiot blonde females on O.o
wetdream09 1 year ago
@wetdream09 with a handle like wetdream (how old are you? 14? 13?) it's understandable that you would think that blond equals stupid. These are highly attractive and fairly smart women who have whored themselves out to a propaganda machine.
djrinpoche 1 year ago
Awesome Lady Gaga's rep is dismissing reports that the singer subsists on baby food in order to stay slim - Naked Lady Gaga. C000M -
encouragingdinn 1 year ago
hush hush people this outrage was so that his wife's movie ratings and popularity would go up in the porn industry....
mr8bally 1 year ago
hahahahahaha
FloodPower 1 year ago
I don't understand the point of this video? No where did these corespondents agree that the firing of Mr. Janke was acceptable! O'Reilly only has an hour long show, he can't spend forty five minutes talking about one single subject, giving examples of everything that may be contested.
The right to marriage comment is untrue! Otherwise polygamists and gay's would have the unquestionable right to marriage. And as a RIGHT would not be CONTINUALLY shot down in court!
shortwavecolt 1 year ago
@shortwavecolt Where has right to gay marriage lost in court? It's a lot easier appealing to the majority of Americans who spend a small amount of time on a subject and usually base their opinion on emotion. It's a lot harder to lie to judges who tend to understand the constitution pretty better than the average person.
ErikBarmon 1 year ago
Then tell all your gay friends to go out and get married! I guess it is just my imagination that this country has waisted ridiculous amounts of money and time on endless court appeals! Even when they put it to A VOTE, it lost!
While we are at it, why don't we let the polygamist do there thing. I really don't see how a man or woman CAN'T love more than one person. At the end of the day, a man and his three wives hold more of an ability to rear children then two MEN!
shortwavecolt 1 year ago
yes !
terrancelueckgen 1 year ago
who gives a crap if he married a porn star typical liberals all you do is dig dirt and shove socialism down our throughts
7475flyersfan 1 year ago
I'd rather watch the two pundits fuck.
JanusChristIsRisen 1 year ago
I actually think fox is not really in the wrong here. They handled this pretty well
rhfyr91 1 year ago
definitely, both of them
adamkyler 1 year ago
This is a ridiculous way to look at it Liberal Viewer. I am a democrat and to suggest that republicans don't think that the right to marry is an actual right based on two videos is ridiculous. I'm afraid we liberals are becoming to extreme, like conservatives, and are lumping a party together.
ThePoliticist 1 year ago
The right to have families is a natural right.
Marriage is legal recognition and protection of said union. Thus marriage is not a natural right but our govts means of protecting a natural right.
Bestman1177 1 year ago
Yes on both accounts
scorpionkings 1 year ago
i think that it's good ammo to attack someone that have a lot of power . forces fighting for a place. I don't give a shit if he married with a porn star. here in Brazil we don't have this city manager function. this is a good idea to excecute projects till the end.
alanaguinaga 1 year ago
this is confusing
jungleman68 1 year ago
You only have the rights that you are prepared to defend. Magna Carta 1218,
SuperBengunn 1 year ago
Doncha love how they whined and bitched about the constitutional right to marry, yet all 3 of those douchecunt conservatives dont support the legalization of gay marriage. fucking hypocrites.
Jarut195 1 year ago
@Jarut195 because marriage is between a man and woman. man w/ man or woman w/ woman is both wrong morally or evolutionarily/scientifically either way you look at it. you can't change that no matter which way you wanna spin it champ.
nomopoly 1 year ago
@nomopoly
"both wrong morally or evolutionarily/scientifically"
Denying someone rights the vast majority of the population gets is IMMORAL!
And no, homosexual acts have been observed in nature all the time.
But guess what, MARRIAGE NEVER HAS. Fucking piece of shit retard.
mecher3k 1 year ago
@mecher3k i'm not arguing people don't have the freedom of choice to choose the sexual practices. I'm saying that homos don't have a right to recieve govt. benefits, tax breaks, or a right to raise children just because you claim that sodomy is normal and acceptable. I also realize that feelings of homosexuality is not a choice however that does not justify the behavior. people are born with genes that drives them to anger easily, steal etc. but that doesn't make it ok.
nomopoly 1 year ago
@nomopoly
"I'm saying that homos don't have a right to recieve govt. benefits, tax breaks, or a right to raise children"
So you are a fascist then. Good job Nazi, good job.
"you claim that sodomy is normal and acceptable."
It is, so your telling me you don't have oral sex? Also how is it wrong in anyway? If two consenting adults do it then fuck off and let them do it.
Again, FASCIST!
mecher3k 1 year ago
@nomopoly
". people are born with genes that drives them to anger easily, steal etc."
Nope, none a single gene does that. But keep on talking FASCIST.
"that does not justify the behavior."
Yes it does, it does not harm any one. Unlike the anger easily which tends to lead to fights and murders and stealing.
So all you have is bullshit to support your FASCISM.
mecher3k 1 year ago
@mecher3k yes people's genetics affect those things that I listed, including homosexual tendencies. Homosexuality will harm people. It is a violation and assault against the natural family of man. It is unnatural no matter how much you want to justify it. It is a perversion from a moral/ethical viewpoint or a scientific one.
nomopoly 1 year ago
@nomopoly
"affect those things that I listed"
Barely, you still have a choice. However you can not control your feelings about love, you either love someone or you don't.
"Homosexuality will harm people"
Name one way, oh wait you can't.
"It is a violation and assault against the natural family of man"
You do realize the modern concept of a family is found no where in nature right?
Also homosexuality is found a lot in nature, stop being a fucking fascist bigot.
mecher3k 1 year ago
@mecher3k "you cannot control love". you have a choice whether to sodomize another man. it is wrong. i think it's funny how you try to justify practiced homosexuality. it's really funny. i already named how it harms people. you should reread my last post. family is a natural and evolutionary aspect of mankind. you cannot deny these cold, hard facts but nice try. "homosexuality found in nature"animals also eat their own shit. does it make it ok?
you don't even know what fascist means
nomopoly 1 year ago
@nomopoly
"you have a choice whether to sodomize another man."
Yet it still doesn't cause any harm. So you again have no point and are just a bigot denying the rights of others.
"it is wrong."
Do your bigoted mind.
"i already named how it harms people"
No you didn't.
"family is a natural and evolutionary aspect of mankind."
No it's not, the modern concept of family is not at all natural and has nothing to do with evolution.
mecher3k 1 year ago
@nomopoly
"animals also eat their own shit. does it make it ok?"
Sure, eat your shit why should I give a fuck? It's not like it harms me.
But keep on talking bigoted fascist.
mecher3k 1 year ago
@mecher3k lol you don't even know what fascitst means
nomopoly 1 year ago
@nomopoly
That's all you have to say?
Figures just ignore everything I said. But it's not like you could even reply to that as I completely owned you.
mecher3k 1 year ago
@mecher3k Owned me? haha...the fact that you said that proves you're retarded. You didn't prove anything...you just call me a fascist (despite the fact that you have no idea what that word means) and I disprove all your silly justifications with facts and logic. Maybe next time champ.
nomopoly 1 year ago
@nomopoly
And again you ignore everything I said.
You do realize that in a defense mechanism right? One of the more childish ones as well.
mecher3k 1 year ago
he should take it too court....u cant lose your job becasue of your wifes/husbands profession
jhernandez2007 1 year ago
Keith Olbermann asked out porn star Mary Carey. Teh creeper.
goodbadugly16 1 year ago
1 yes
2 yes and it could be a violation of the 14th Amendments 'equal protection of the laws.'
john6380 2 years ago
1 yes
2 yes
all marriage should be legal, unfortunately bigots tend to disagree
cloud4an 2 years ago 3
I thought our rights were protected. they are not?
truth3712 2 years ago
i no smart ;(
truth3712 2 years ago
omg thats weird all humands and more should be aloud to marrie over no resane to fire him for that tis his life wow the worlds weird
nlkrazycat 2 years ago
They should not have fired this man.
MrBlackfish011 2 years ago
He should have gotten rewarded for marrying the porn star LOL
MUNCHINMAN 2 years ago 15
there is way to much goverment with way to many laws... why does everyone have to make things so complecated... and sure everyone has rights altho porn stars are looked down uhpond for obvieous reasons and i see why they fired him, it looks bad end of story... kinda lol
TheLordofwar91 2 years ago
i got ONE thing to say to this, Gov. Arnold S. DID GAY PORN! Its a FACT! He did gay porn, he posed for PAY Porno photos!
twiztidsidfreak13 2 years ago
bring up the topic of gay marriage and they will bear fangs
fredthedark 2 years ago
is it also possible that megyn kelly is just an idiot who doesn't bother looking anything up and just assumes that they're just making stuff up?
CrystalEye736 2 years ago 2
I think people should be able to marry who they want. I am for gay rights, I am pro choice, and, no, Ann Coulter, I am, in fact, NOT a traitor to our country. Why are so many people so intollerant? Is that REALLY the message of freedom we want to be proclaiming to the world? "Yeah, you have rights, and you're free, but only if you're straight, christian, and marry who society tells you to." Great message, FOX. Of all dumbass conservative associations, you guys are the stupidest. Congrats.
darknut79 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Unfortunately the majority doesn't agree with you and since we live in a democracy, your opinion matters less. If your opinion becomes the majority, then maybe things will change. Until then, boo hoo for you.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
new law just passed; no one allowed to be happy. thank the evangelicals.
mattybock 2 years ago 3
If I had one of them 2 women defend me for a parking ticket id probably get 15 years at hard labour?? man are they stupid or what???
Royalhighlander 2 years ago
i totally agree xD
mrcoxa 2 years ago
Well of course marriage is a right.
But only for ones with a man and a woman.
Isn't that how right's work? Only some of us get to have them?
Yeah the gov is interfering in the personal freedoms and pursuit of happiness. but only with people who aren't like me. so it doesn't count.
booley 2 years ago
"booley"
Please. For fuck's sake, tell me you're being sarcastic.
Dethenger 2 years ago
Uhh yeah, very sarcastic.
Though I can understand why you might be confused since the idea that "Only people like me have rights" is common in practice for a lot of cons, even if they aren't always honest about it. They really do think only some people get rights.
booley 2 years ago
the right to marry sholud be protected...absolutely, as long as its bewtween a man and a woman. IMHO
SgtSMOKE78 2 years ago
I think your gripes against Fox here are silly. Whether they got the law right or not they got they outage right.
I hope that council gets sued lol.
truevoiceofsanity 2 years ago
What a waste of web space!
conmess 2 years ago
too bad I sat and watched this whole thing
ovalportrait 2 years ago
Of course marriage is defined by the union of one man and one woman. That's a nice detail left out in your arguement liberal viewer.
I'm guessing you're ignoring the emails that discredit man made climate change as well.
This is all about seeing what you want to see and picking and choosing your reality.
This channel is a joke.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
You can bury your head in the sand all you like, but everyone has rights. Welcome to America. If you don't like it, leave.
darknut79 2 years ago
That is simply the dumbest response in the history of dumb responses.
Who said anything about people not having rights?
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
LiberalViewer...you sound like Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons...
CurdlingUrGrooveMilk 2 years ago
Megan Kelly, Is making it all up as she goes along ! Megan, must have been thrown out on her ear from the Law firm in which she work for !
And the answer to #1 & #2 YES
luchpockets 2 years ago
finerbiner, then you should either fight to reduce government intrusion into everyday American's lives, and let it build roads, defend with military force, and protect the borders like it is supposed to, or you can move to one of those cheery 3rd world countries...i hear Sudan is fun this time of year
ArtistTyrant 2 years ago
Are women allowed to marry too? Or do they count as "free men" nowadays? ;)
prowokator 2 years ago
good question. I thought they were "Women" not "Men" which means they are not constitutionally protected.
shadowhacker27 2 years ago
@shadowhacker27 Yes that is a good question. I think there is a simple and obvious answer to it though. It's a dated document that was probably established long ago when woman rights were less established and was never updated or, the are referring to the whole human race as "man" instead of "people".
neongodinhell 2 years ago
Does Fox News only hire legal experts who couldn't graduate from weather girl school? Seriously, how any of these so-called lawyers landed a J.D. is a mystery for the ages. And on a related note, I thought Fox News, which promoted the Tea Parties, was against this sort of government intrusion, or is that only when it comes to the almighty dollar and the needs of big business?
pedestrian28 2 years ago
Obviously this is just to avoid giving gay marriages any ground. So, let me get this straight (pun?)... Megyn Kelly is willing to deny that *she* has a fundamental right to marry whomever she chooses so that she can deny gays that same right? Really? I'm glad to live in a free country where I can marry anyone that Fox News approves.
EnigmicIdentity 2 years ago 3
the fact of the matter is that if you visit most third world countries, the people there will possess much more freedom in their day to day lives than we do in the US. We have gotten to a place here where every little thing you do(for example -walking your dog) has a whole host of rules you must follow. in other places the people would ask if you were really that crazy, stupid,bored that you had to make up such mundane laws.
finerbiner 2 years ago 21
so true. I don't even think there is such thing as Freedom in the U.S.
shadowhacker27 2 years ago
@finerbiner Yup, thats right. If someone has the right to hold a gun to your head and dig in a mine, they can totally do that! Thats AWESOME!
grendelee 1 year ago
@grendelee I have no idea what you are even talking about, and I am pretty sure you don't either.
finerbiner 1 year ago
@finerbiner
In Sudan, Mauritania, Somaliland, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iran one may be killed for having sex with another consenting adult. In Saudi Arabia, one may be killed for being raped. In Afghanistan, one may be killed for converting away from religion: this is under the new government. To be honest, I'd rather have my basic amenities as well as my civil liberties and pay the fine for my dog crapping on the sidewalk.
gamerunknown 3 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
@gamerunknown You are cherry picking countries. i will use Costa Rica as my example of people who have true freedom. Their govt is not spying on them. Ours does.
finerbiner 3 months ago
@finerbiner
Well Costa Rica has a GDP per capita above that of the rest of the world, along with being democratic and in the upper half of the human development index. That doesn't mean the country isn't without systematic problems such as disappearance of tourists: which would probably be resolved with increased enforcement of the law. But highly developed secular democratic countries protect civil liberties: I only mentioned the countries that execute for, not prosecute homosexuality.
gamerunknown 3 months ago
The only legally solid precedent I (admittedly dimly) recall regarding a marriage impacting employment status involved someone holding a security clearance marrying someone who turned out to be an agent of a foreign power. Given that (and the fact that James Carville and Mary Matalin's marriage hasn't caused anyone to break out the pitchforks and torches), I'm thinking "porn star" doesn't qualify.
stealthbadger 2 years ago
I guess ONLY in America a citizen can get fired from his job/position for marrying someone,which is a personal matter.....
Here is my question - how is stuff like that legal in the USA and how is it that tv personal,such as fox news even defand that idea and like it...I always thought USA is a FREE country,fairness,equal rights,right to be happy....
How can people get fired from their job,just because their spouse's job is not liked by others?
This amazes me...this happens in the US!
muratshawn 2 years ago
(part 1) People who complain about constitutional rights being invented are either ignorant or lying. They need to read the Anti-Federalist Papers. We don't need any court or judge to make up a "right to privacy" or a "right to marry." Why not?
TheIronWebRocks 2 years ago
(part 2) Because every conceivable human right NOT specifically delegated to the central government is constitutionally reserved to the states and/or the people. The Bill of Rights was written just to emphasize CERTAIN rights that some of the Founders felt were especially important. It was NOT meant to restrict our rights in any way. People who complain about "constitutional rights created out of whole cloth" or whatever are ignoramuses.
TheIronWebRocks 2 years ago
It's so wonderful that you support people's right to marry....
If only you also supported people's right to liberty and property I'd be your friend, maybe
Sam26100 2 years ago
thank you
hamonio 2 years ago
did they make this make mistake because they are biased or because they are ignorant
thesparitan 2 years ago
I'm gunna have to say both...like honestly-I think it's both of those combined. Happens all the time on fox.
EnzoFirrari2k6 2 years ago
the only point in favor for firing their city manager would be that it can be seen as morally inappropriate. You can impose by contract on government employees not to take part in certain acts. This is mainly because these people have to be an example for there community. In this case, even if it would have been written in his contract, firing him interferes with a constitutional law.
so i can see where they got the idea from but in court they dont make a chance at all.
voykal 2 years ago
Yes I belive in both rights. Its utter hypocrisy esp when one acknowledges that porn is indeed a multibazillion dollar biz. Who are they to judge someone's love?
Much the same as Letterman, I live in France, and the notion that he participated in premarital sex, which is what it comes down to, as so 'scandilous' would be utterly laughable. Live and live, the happier people are in their relationships the better they serve imo.
bbwvelvet 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your Right to Marry Porn Star Missed by Fox News? is very awesome!!
flirtycams, org is free by the way
Enjoisk8err 2 years ago
Yes, but you failed to mention (lol) that a right is something you don't need "permission" for, in the form of a marriage license.
I hate FOX too, but this is getting carried away. Saying something is "certainly legal" 00:45 implies a personal belief in constitiutionality.
HEREclickPlease 2 years ago
Seriously? Nobody told the guy that he didn't have the right to marry her, they told him that he couldn't work the job because he was married to her, therefore the problem/issue at hand is the guys association with the porn star, not whether or not he has the right to marry her. I think you should leave legal issues up to the lawyers because you obviously don't get it
jaygatsbylive 2 years ago
yes its his chioce i am outrage of what i just seen. gay,stright, left,right,anal,reguler it shouldnt matter what, as long its a senceable age limit and your marrying a human. fuck that shit scott janke should had told them to bent ake that middle finger and fuck themselfs
druchane 2 years ago
this implies that the government can actually choose who you marry FOR you. were not talking about wether voters like his wife or not, the GOVERNMENT didnt like his wife, so they fired him. how does that sound to you, lol.
grendelee 2 years ago
ANY lawyer ANYwhere ANYtime would without question win a wrongful termination by a landslide. What bothers me is that seemingly compitent ppl would even try to argue justifyably for termination. I myself am a bit jealous. Seriously, Fox is claiming to have a right to fire employees if they dont like what your spouse does legally for a living? That just cant be for real, Ima have to do more research, there has to be more to it. Thats just to bold and wrong even 4 fox news!!
religionOFFENDSme 2 years ago
As you say in the video the supreme court already established that we have a right to marry. As BigusGeekus said, that is a right of the people and so doesn't need to be directly written into the constitution.
Fox news, as usual, is simply doing backflips to support their completely untenable positions.
Viperzka 2 years ago
First of all it isn't a right to marry issue to begin with. You can marry who ever you want. The reporting on Fox is correct, It's covered under the first amendment as right to privacy. You making an argument out of thin air. If I were that man I would sue and win.
Panchoroy 2 years ago 2
I. Hate. Fox.
JohnKimberland 2 years ago 2
wow, Megyn Kelly is a moron... Anyone should be allowed to get married to any other person, no matter who that person is or what they have done or do as a job. What really pisses me off is that they allow idiots on TV to discuss stuff like this because they are pretty.
VeronicaVaughn40G 2 years ago 3
Fox News are a bunch of dickheads.. They're easy targets.
leolasi 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Very freaking HOT, I've already seen her on amateursex (dot) tk .
she has some really great videos.
MsXchik 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For the best adult Videos online
SeekingSexy{.}com
nowaytuber 2 years ago
meghan is never accurate
EdugeBDroN 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, guys check out these girl ON xvporn,com,they are pretty HOT!!
yamadieify 2 years ago
I saw similar girls on xvporn,com
yamadie1 2 years ago
From the pictures I've seen, it's far from triple x.
MorioKun1 2 years ago
I fail to see how marrying a porn star is grounds for firing someone.
Symos 2 years ago
They will lose the lawsuit in a major way if it goes to court.
Digitalbumpin 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For FREE XXX video collection visit:
PAY-SITES-4-FREE [dot] TK
aranyaso77 2 years ago
it says "free men" and doesn't even mention women.HA!
thanksforthemessdick 2 years ago
i dont understand how marrying a porn star is violating a law.
77Grim77 2 years ago 2
It's not.
Digitalbumpin 2 years ago
Uh , Its a debate between 2 attorney's and a host regarding the legal issue in question, and Mrs. W, who is sitting on the left is no conservative by any strecth, This is a format where 2 different legal opionions were presented and the viewers of this program can come to there own conclusion on what they believe, On another note, you are obviously someone who has failed in your attemp to become a relevant journalist, maybe you should think about a career change, Mr. Orielly will handle this.
SCOTTCBR1000FL 2 years ago
Hey LiberalViewer, when will you tackle the slanted left-wing bias of MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN??? Oh that's right, they're what you would call "responsible news agencies," who would never mislead viewers by slanting/omitting news. Only Fox does this. Got it!!! (only 35 minutes to Olberman!!!)
TPBass1224 2 years ago
I notice that ALLEN will not give his last name or a picture. I also notice his freeze frame editing with a slow zoom - trying to add more emotion - Allen, that's an old ABC NBC and CBS trick.
tubefilmvideo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's interesting how the Liberal Viewer explains how you can find dozens and dozens of examples of Fox News bias on My Fox News Playlist on YouTube. Let's be thankful that there is no Liberal bias news on CNN, NBC, CBS or ABC. What hypocrisy by the Liberal Viewer. Your credibility rating is 0.
Tutone66 2 years ago
Why should he have to watch 5 news stations and look for bias... seriously. there are other people who do that. There's no hypocrisy.
celach 2 years ago
Two consenting adults should have the ability to marry, regardless of sex.
Notice:
Two consenting adults....
How is that difficult to understand?
druidsfoot 2 years ago
I totally agree that it appeared that no laws were violated, and that the city manager should not have been fired.
But equating it to gay marriage is a bit of a stretch isn't it?
Gay marriage would violate federal law. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed by Clinton, defines marriage as between a man and a woman for purposes of all federal laws.
Now it is certainly being challenged, but until and if it is overturned/changed - marrying a porn star is legal. Two men is not.
News4usall 2 years ago
excellently reasoned video.
luvdomus 2 years ago
David boreanaz married a porn star
internut101 2 years ago
So, ..... this video is bagging on the Oreilly factor for supporting this persons right to marry and saying that it was wrong? What kind of a liberal ass hat are you? Even when Oreilly is fighting for someone like this you are hating?
wolfinside 2 years ago
People should married who ever they want...Who are we to decide what is right and what is wrong for them?
EDGEN123 2 years ago
marriage has symbolic value. it only has value as long as there are people to value it. when a law specifically protects heterosexual monogamy as a prerequisite of marriage we have legislation in favor of subjective value which necessarily means alienation towards those who value a different marital structure. so instead of having a beurocratic quagmire over the definition of marriage it should be left to non governmental institutions formed voluntarily by people united by what they value.
fede2 2 years ago
That guy should be proud he bagged a pornstar.
Congratulations Scott Janke!!!
MrMustachMan 2 years ago
So they said he should be allowed to be married to a porn star but him losing his job ISN'T prejudicial because the first amendment only protects... What? Controversial views of a political sort? And of course gays can't get married just because.
nosferotica1 2 years ago
DUMBASS, the word "marriage" appears NOWHERE in the Constitution, while the freedom of association SPECIFICALLY IS, and they were specifically addressing the Constitutional protections IN THE CONSTITUTION, and not an "opinion" by SCOTUS.
o3shooter 2 years ago
o3shooter "the word marriage appears NOWHERE in the Constitution while the freedom of association SPECIFICALLY IS and they were specifically addressing the Constitutional protections IN THE CONSTITUTION"
2 big errors
1) The "freedom of association" like the right to marry is NOT explicitly enumerated and
2) The Constitution DOES explicitly say "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others"
I hope that helps and
thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 2 years ago
It's good to know that Liberals will always swallow the bait. In your commentary YOU are the ones that claimed that "freedom of association" was in the FIrst Amendment to the Constitution, so by your own admission you just shot yourself in the foot! If you had made the 9th Amendment arguement in the first place, I wouldn't have disagreed.
o3shooter 2 years ago
o3shooter "YOU are the ones that claimed that 'freedom of association' was in the FIrst Amendment to the Constitution"
The Supreme Court has said "While the freedom of association is not explicitly set out in the [1st] Amendment, it has long been held to be implicit in the freedoms of speech, assembly, and petition"
So, what I said was accurate. YOU erroneously claimed "the word marriage appears NOWHERE in the Constitution while the freedom of association SPECIFICALLY IS"
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 2 years ago
i tihnk its ridiculous that we have to hae a "right" to do this and a "right" to do that. lol..it seems like were letting ourselelves be controlled becuse we cant control our own animal self.
fersheeze 2 years ago
Chills down my spine when she said the porn star had no freedom to make porn because it was not "political." That is JACKBOOT territory.
Keep your ears open EVERYONE and be ready to refute people when they say "Freedom of speech as guaranteed in our constitution extends only to political speech." Because that is messed up. Even if you hate porno, freedom is freedom.
papalosopher 2 years ago
yes and yes.
TheCelticNinja 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out my amateur naked video, just made it on my webcam hope you guys like it... Oh and subscribe to my channel for more
sexyamy3314 2 years ago
Your argument could just as easily be considered as "ideological" as is what you're accusing their argument to be. What a stretch. Your ability to spin and misdirect is as impressive as it is disturbing.
leberluos 2 years ago
Is she still active in the biz?
What's the big deal?
We are all wanna have sex! She legally gets paid for it while acting poorly on film. Sort of like Sharon Stone back in the day
:-)
Is it crazy to MARRY a porn star?
OR is it just plain crazy to get MARRIED!
davethedrummercancun 2 years ago
Wow. This is the most epic O'Reilly joke ever. Nicely done.
thoth81 2 years ago
LOL that's probably what happened here. Some uptight religious nut recognized her but couldn't explain how without confessing to that terrible, evil sin of lust. haha
thoth81 2 years ago
How long have you been asleep? I'm 27 years old, and I think I was born in Jesus Land lol
thoth81 2 years ago
Bill never misses an opportunity to show pictures of scantily clad women on his show.
Of course he believes they're vile and unholy images, but if the guys in the control room can run that footage one more time...
Hypocrisy is one of the pillars Faux News was built on. Without it there's no way for them to overlook or project their side's shortcomings.
route99 2 years ago
to answer the first question, since the SUPREME court ruled that the freedom to marry is essential to the pursuit of happiness of free men, and since according to the 13th and 14th amendments, all natural born or naturalized citizens are cannot be denied rights without due process, then yes, the freedom to marry should be constitutionally protected (SOOOO glad i took AP gov last year.)
LordAmbitious 2 years ago
Meh, people need to stay out of everyones love life. If he was able to love her and her him despite the job then thats a strength I respect. I'm not sure I could do it.
Having said that, even if they are together for completely selfish superficial reasons then its still their right.. isn't it?
And about the constitution, it hardly seems to exists anymore. Look at the 10th amendment and cali if nothing else. Parts, like the commerce clause, have been twisted beyond recognition
sacralith 2 years ago
oh great another faggot commy ad
Rainsdad 2 years ago
I'm sorry but this could only happen in the US or possibly the UK (where I'm from). The fact that someone could be fired for their partners legal pastime/occupation is disgusting. Does it affect his ability to do his job? No, so fuck off.
heheallright56 2 years ago
yes and yesss
sickalice 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Want to See the best Adult Videos online? Check out SeekingSexy{.}com
starphazer 2 years ago
I fucking hate Faux news...
cidvisions 2 years ago 3
In addition, the Supreme Court case you are quoting is one from the Warren Court, a Court largely regarded as the most Activist court in the History of the U.S.
joejitsu26 2 years ago