This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Supreme Court Strikes Down DOMA
In what is likely to cause a storm of controversy, the Supreme Court ruled against the 17-year-old anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act:
- *DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT PROVISION STRUCK DOWN BY TOP U.S. COURT
- *SUPREME COURT VOTES 5-4 ON U.S. DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
- *COURT SAYS MARRIAGE LAW VIOLATES EQUAL PROTECTION GUARANTEE
Kennedy: DOMA "humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples"
Scalia: "By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition,"
"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment."
Full Timeline of Gay Marriage (via Global Post):
Following is a timeline of important events in the history of gay marriage in the United States.
1969
- The modern gay liberation movement unofficially kicks off with the Stonewall Riots, demonstrations by gays in response to a police raid in New York City.
1972
- The U.S. Supreme Court lets stand a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that the law does not allow for same-sex marriage, and that the issue is different from interracial marriage.
1973
- Maryland becomes the first state to pass a statute banning gay marriage.
1977
- Harvey Milk becomes the first openly gay elected official in San Francisco, winning a seat on the Board of Supervisors. He later appeals to gays to come out and run for office, saying "for invisible, we remain in limbo." Milk was shot and killed in 1978.
1986
- The U.S. Supreme Court says "we are quite unwilling" to find a fundamental right to sodomy, even in the privacy of one's home, in Bowers v. Hardwick ruling.
1996
- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy writes an opinion striking down a Colorado ban on protections for gays, saying the ban "seems inexplicable by anything but animus."
- President Bill Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as between a man and a woman for federal purposes.
1997
- Comedian Ellen DeGeneres reveals she is gay. Shortly afterward, her TV situation comedy character says "I'm gay" - inadvertently speaking into an airport public address system.
1998
- Debut of television show "Will and Grace" about a gay man and his best friend, a straight woman.
2000
- Vermont becomes the first U.S. state to allow civil unions for same-sex couples.
- Republican vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney, who has a lesbian daughter, indicates he supports gay marriage, saying "freedom means freedom for everybody" and "people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into." He said states should regulate the matter, not the federal government. Cheney serves as vice president for eight years.
2003
- The U.S. Supreme Court, in another decision written by Kennedy, strikes down Texas anti-sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas case and reverses the 1986 Bowers ruling. Kennedy writes that this does not mean the government must recognize gay relationships. "Do not believe it," Justice Antonin Scalia dissents, saying the logic of the opinion points to allowing same-sex marriage.
- The Massachusetts Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, and gay weddings begin in 2004.
2004
- San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom directs the county to allow same-sex marriages, arguing the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage, Proposition 22, is unconstitutional. The state Supreme Court stops the weddings on grounds unrelated to the constitutionality of marriage.
2005
- U.S. northern neighbor Canada allows gay marriage.
2008
- California gay marriages become legal when the California Supreme Court strikes down the Proposition 22 ban. That November, voters add a ban to the state constitution - Proposition 8 - ending a summer of gay marriage.
2009
- Iowa state Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage.
- Federal court challenge to Proposition 8 filed, days before California Supreme Court lets Proposition 8 stand as a valid change to the state constitution. Eventually, federal district and appeals courts agree to strike down the ban, which heads to the U.S. Supreme Court.
2010
- The U.S. Congress passes legislation to end a policy put in place in 1993 called "don't ask don't tell" that had barred gays from serving openly in the U.S. military. President Barack Obama signs the measure. The policy officially ends in 2011.
2012
- Obama becomes the first U.S. president to endorse gay marriage, acknowledging that his views on the matter had evolved.
- North Carolina approves a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in May. In November, Maine, Maryland and Washington become the first states where voters approve same-sex marriage, and Minnesota rejects a new ban.
2013
- The U.S. Supreme Court in March hears oral arguments on the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
- The Boy Scouts of America organization votes in May to lift a century-old ban on openly gay scouts in a victory for gay rights activists. A prohibition on openly gay adult leaders remains in place.
- Minnesota, Rhode Island and Delaware in May become the latest U.S. states to allow same-sex couples to marry, bringing to 12 the number of states permitting it. The other states allowing same sex marriage are: Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington state, as well as the District of Columbia.
- Supreme Court Strikes down DOMA...
Full opinion below:
»
- 28088 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Oh, go away, and stop pretending it's Wikipedia. Your kind always denies science:
Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (AMZN)
Sodomite propaganda doesn't count. The Russians clearly recognize that.
Homosexual Monkey Blowjob (Not actually NSFW, but it's pretty suggestive)
Bonobos (NSFW - but yeah, Bonobos are fucking kinky as shit)
More Bonobos (NSFW - includes 69 action)
Couple of Homosexual Lions (SFW - please do note that only males have manes, and they're not selfish, they swap top/bottom very nobly)
And so on, and so forth. They're all videos, you don't even have to read them. I guess all these must be staged by "ZE GAYS", right?
Your vast ignorance done yet, or you want to spend more time with your brain not engaged?
Homosexual Monkey Blowjob (Not actually NSFW, but it's pretty suggestive)
Bonobos (NSFW - but yeah, Bonobos are fucking kinky as shit)
More Bonobos (NSFW - includes 69 action)
Couple of Homosexual Lions (SFW - please do note that only males have manes, and they're not selfish, they swap top/bottom very nobly)
And so on, and so forth. They're all videos, you don't even have to read them. I guess all these must be staged by "ZE GAYS", right?
Your vast ignorance done yet, or you want to spend more time with your brain not engaged?
I know this was not to me, but you OMIT a major difference here, MAN is not the same as the Beasts.Animals know no better, nor are accountable.Med do, and are accountable.
That's not what I was arguing against, although I obviously agree with you. The specific claim this fool is making is that "homosexuality in the natural world doesn't exist and is all Marxist / Homosexual propaganda". The videos obviously disprove this. The humor is that watching mammals "do the gay naughty" is probably "too sinful" for him to watch and will break his tiny mind; so he won't, and he'll continue to pollute the world with his copy/paste rosary beads about the "EVIL MARXIST JEW".
Which begs the question why he's on the fucking internet, and not on his knees under a cross flagellating his back in penance, since he's fuck all use to anyone rational.
And I've not even posted dolphin rape caves yet... (NSFW, satire alert. Spoiler: dolphins aren't cute).
not to harp on what the good book says; but just to remind those who are interested in the human thread :
Da Vinci, BOtticelli and probably (undoubtedly, imo) Michelangelo were all homosexual and active male lovers.
Now that is some hit list for those who hate man on man sandwiches.
As for putinland, they hate femen boobs, male on male perfumes and even chess masters. What else needs be said on that account.
You're reciting sodomite propaganda as though it's somehow magically true.
The fact of the matter is that a propensity for sodomy has been considered a symptom of serious mental illness for the vast majority of mankind's history.
The other fact of the matter is that there's no history of, by, or for sodomites and atheists prior to Karl Marx.
The atheist movement and the sodomite movement are artificial movements conjured up for the sole purpose of continuing Karl Marx's personal milchama against Western civilization.
you're reciting the word "propoganda" as if you had patented it.
Don't be so dogmatic. You ain't God's rep on earth assuming he exists.
True. I do, however, believe in vigorously defending Western civilization against those who continue Karl Marx's milchama against it.
Julius Caesar was accused in his youth of having a "passive" homosexual relationship with a local satrap. His legionaries only said one thing to reproach his course of conduct : you were passive in that relationship, not active. It marked his desire to right wrong of disastrous image of himself as leader, by becoming the conqueror later on. Cause and effect, par excellence, before Freud wrote his treatise; like Agememnon and sacrifice of daughter Iphigenie : very freudian act. Human nature is very repetitive on the sexual theme.
That just shows how homosexual conduct was perceived in those days in ROme. Provided you were active and manly that was ok!
Fukking an ass was no different to fukking a kunt.
Learn your history and prechristian mores; western civilization existed before christianity; in fact it was invented BEFORE christianity, which now has become what it truly is : a minor trend in western thinking and mores.
wikipedia is more than 99.999% accurate - it counts more than all posts on zerohedge and comments combined.
Are there any other animal traits that humans share you would like to lay on us? My dog chases down and kills everything he sees and I've seen some humans like that too. Animals seldom exhibit a concept of consequences to their actions, other than their direct desire for survival, and have little awareness of future. They fuck because they want to or need to, not because they desire offspring. Homosexuality is exclusively about that need as no reproduction through natural means is possible. Heterosexuals can lay claim to their sexual drives being about reproduction, but we know that is mostly false, otherwise porn would not be the multi billion dollar industry it is. Marriage was a social construct for the benefit of reproduction and by rights still should be, regardless of the liberal cries of the beauty of single parenthood. Heterosexuals have killed marriage and homosexuals are simply picking up the abandoned carcass to claim as their own seeking some sense of normalcy in an abnormal world. But to your point, I don't think you are strengthening your point by connecting homosexuality with animal traits. Just sayin...
I'm merely showing the fallacy of claiming that homosexuality "doesn't exist in nature" or "it's unnatural", both of which have featured in this thread. Since we've now disproven that, you're attempting to move the goal posts. IF you want to up the stakes, and get into cognitive theory of mind, and what love is, you're going to lose. And you're going to lose badly.
Hint: Reproduction has nothing to do with marriage. And if marriage is about love, and cultural / societal stability, then God really doesn't give a monkey's tail if both sides are the same sex. Nor should the Law / State.
Trust me, just walk away. Your time has long past, and your ignorance is grating. Just agree to disagree, and get over it (and do something better with your time than obsess about other people's sex lives).
Nothing has been proven as you claim. Marriage is a legal contract and sealed with a consumation. Gays cannot consumate. This is about mans laws, not Gods Law. But you prefer to conquer Gods Law over mans law? Good luck with that one!
No Legal law includes "consumation", that's a Catholic rule (originally - ask Henry VIII about it sometime).
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. [USC]
How is marriage defined in the United States? Currently 37 states have passed laws which define marriage as limited to a union between one man and one woman: 33 state legislatures have passed statutes to that effect, and 4 states (Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada) have, by popular vote, passed Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs) as constitutional amendments; the Ohio state legislature is currently debating a Defense of Marriage Act. Thirteen states, therefore, do not currently have laws on their books which limit marriage to a union between one man and one woman. [List of 37 State's Laws, no mention of "consumation"]
So, what were you saying? Oh, right, just proved it. You're full of shit.
Annulment is what you were going for, and only includes (under US Law) New York State and Nevada:
Annulment in New York State
The cause of action for annulment in New York State is generally fraud (DRL §140 (e)). There are other arguments; see the Statute.
Annulment in the state of Nevada
In Nevada, the qualifications for annulment[2] include: a marriage that was void at the time performed (such as blood relatives, bigamy), lacked consent (such as, underage, intoxication, insanity), or is based on some kind of dishonesty. See also Nevada Annulment Statutes. To file actions based on fraud, you must have separated from your spouse as soon as you learned of the fraud.
Annulments in Nevada require a residency of at least 6 weeks, including a signed witness statement of having been living in Nevada for that amount of time. [wiki]
We done yet? Muppet. Junk & run, fool, junk & run.
looks proven to me. What looks disproven: any notion that god is real. god is a fiction. There can be no god so there can be no "god's law".
God is a lie. The use of the god-lie is to harm other humans. It is a weapon. it must be dismissed as evil.
>>>>Gays cannot consumate.
Really? I know one with 2 biological daughters.
Trying to conform just didn't work for him. After the fact of course.
I had little doubt but that we would disagree, I just thought you might be capable of a coherent argument. I never said anything about love and you have no counter to my claim that marriage has always principly been about reproduction. I assume you were the product of sexual consumation between a man and a women. Of course if you were one of those early test tube babies it could explain a lot. Marriage was lost forty or more years ago when it became disposable. I have worked directly with the homosexual design trade for decades but until the last few years never heard any of them refer to marriage in anything but disparaging terms, on a level right up there with "breeders". Homosexuallity has typically had much more to do with sexual freedom than any desire for the monogamous relationship that marriage would infer. Most of this is politics and another means to divide people. And from your perspective divide them based on intelligence, smart on your freedom loving liberal side and dumb as rocks conservatives on the other who want everyone working in Christian slave camps, printing bibles. As with Obama's gun hating, your diatribes do nothing more than make the bible lovers grasp them even more tightly. Tolerance works both ways, or least it is supposed to.
Historically, marriage has always been principally about Power and Economics ("love" in marriage is an entirely modern invention, you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise; Lancelot, Guinevere and King Arthur was re-written as a Romantic tale, the origins are probably a little darker and kinkier), and ensuring 100% that any offspring were genetically yours. That's why virginity and closeting females away from the world was so important to primitive cultures, as the only way you could be sure of this outcome. Humans have grown beyond that (well... at least parts of the world have), and science has provided you with DNA testing kits, so the entire structure no longer fulfills this role (in certain cultures). Smart bears will see that this is one of those "Ohhh, that's why they're total malicious bastards to women" epiphanies (and why it needs pruning).
I'm happy to continue a civilized debate, as long as you acknowledge this basic starting point. I'll admit, I mis-spoke above when I said "reproduction has nothing to do with marriage" - I meant this in modern American Society, at least post the invention of female contraception (which is why it's so important). Greened for being civil btw.
As for my origins? You obviously don't consider me normal, so we'll leave that one well alone.
And what, exactly, does that prove?
Marriage is a legal contract and sealed with a consumation.
It disproves that claim. Do you need it in smaller words?
Aurora Ex Machina said....
List of mammals observed to exhibit homosexual behavior, all with links to science (this is going to flood the server, it's quite long, so do junk if it's annoying):
ROTFLMAO !!!!
Wow.....that GED really paid off my friend.....you cut and paste like a champ.
So let me get this straight. The Universe came into being (let's forget about God for a moment...this is just Newtonian Physics....Quantum Mechanics....Genetics and Darwinian Evolution) about 13 billion years ago with all the basic building blocks for life to spring up somewhere....in this case, as far as we know, Earth.
The Solar System is approximately 4.5 Billion years old. Between the Sun and the Comets 99.99% of everything needed for life to begin was seeded on our planet as it formed from molten rock and gas.
All life came from some Primordial Ooze once things calmed down and cooled off on the Earth.
And all through the course of this 13 billion year episode from the Big Bang on until today....with the exception of the asexual reproductive habits of bacteria and single cell organisms.....life begat life from the union of a male member of a species and a female.
There is not one shred of paleological, historical, medical, biological, zoological or any other "logical" evidence to show that life begat life from a homosexual union. Asexual...sure all the time. Heterosexual....of course....that's quite silly to even mention but just for the sake of argument.
But not homosexual. HHmmm....I wonder why that is. Well.....I'm not smart enough to figure that out....but here is what EVERYBODY knows either from 13 billion years of evdence if not intuitively. Life begets life. It has too. It has no choice. It's hard coded in the RNA and DNA of the Primordial Ooze organisms that evolved to us walking around in our Gucci loafers and our Armani suits to this very day.
Evolution has dictated that homosexuality is a non-starter to promote and continue the Prime Directive of Life and that is simply this......CONTINUE LIFE !!!!!!!!!!!
So you have a mighty impressive list of animals who just so happened to be caught getting a little strange love on the down low. Good for your junior. I think you missed a couple of hundred thousand species....but I digress.
But here is the undeniable truth. Every single animal listed that was observed doing the nasty with another of its own sex came from a union between a male and a female......through a heterosexual union. Because THAT is natural. Because THAT and THAT alone (of course with the exception of the afore mentioned asexual reproduction of simple organisms) satisfies the 13 billion year old time tested and perfectly honed directive of LIFE BEGETTNG LIFE.
What is so powerfully ironic and funny is......the smartest homosexual Darwinist on the planet....no matter where he or she is right now.....has to, by default, reject Darwinist truth and the evidence of 13 billion years lest they confront the fact that they are a freak of nature. No shame of course.....nature produces a lot of freaks. But humans are the only ones who have been blessed with knowing a concept called the truth. Yet....it is the hardest thing to accept because for most people...if they know the truth deep down and STILL try to fight it they end up insane. That's the case for probably 99% of the entire planet and the source of most of its ills.....now and through the course of human history.
But the truth remains.....homosexuals of any specie are freaks of nature and nature has a way of keeping their numbers down.....most prominately by disease and death lest their genetic abberation affect the larger gene pool and hinder if not destroy the 13 billion year old Prime Directive of life....which once again is......
Life is to beget Life at all cost.
Now....Constitutionally speaking....sure. I may not like it, but homosexuals have the right to marry and enjoy all the corporate and state sponsored benefits that are afforded their heterosexual collegues.
But once again.....forgetting God for a moment.....Social Sciences has pretty convincing evidence that societies operate very much like living organisms and have the same kind of reproductive and health issues as a biological entity they mimic. And although Homosexuality has never and will never be the cause of any society's downfall....it is a VERY signficant symptom and a historically proven marker showing a society's decline and collapse.
But hey.....enjoy that ass and gag that shag while you can folks. Nature is a bitch.....and she will not be denied her imperative. Namely.....making sure life continues ......at all costs.
That was an obscenely long winded rant to prove you don't understand modern science.
Look up Kin Altruism for just a single way homosexuality is perfectly in line with Darwin. I happen to not be a fan 100%, because of assumptions it makes about the concept of "altruism" (since, as a concept, it's perfectly possible to Will into effect) but it remains a convincing case.
See? Mine was much shorter?
And, apparently, a desirable attribute for a politician. Makes them more, how you say, malleable.
well it looks like the age of the 1% in all domains!
Nonsense.
Show me one history book written about the history of the sodomites. Similarly, show me one history book regarding the history of atheism, before Karl Marx.
The sodomites and the atheists have no history before Karl Marx and, today, simply continue Karl Marx's personal milchama against Western civilization.
"History of the sodomites". You're really not getting this whole "it's a sexuality, not a race, culture or creed" are you?
You also no nothing about Greek history, that you're SO PROUD OF:
Theodorus (Greek: ????????; c. 340-c. 250 BCE[1]) the Atheist, of Cyrene, was a philosopher of the Cyrenaic school. He lived in both Greece and Alexandria, before ending his days in his native city of Cyrene. As a Cyrenaic philosopher, he taught that the goal of life was to obtain joy and avoid grief, and that the former resulted from knowledge, and the latter from ignorance. But his principal claim to fame was his alleged atheism. He was usually designated by ancient writers Atheus (Greek: ? ?????), the Atheist. [wiki]
Diagoras "the Atheist" of Melos (???????? ? ??????) was a Greek poet and sophist of the 5th century BCE. Throughout Antiquity he was regarded as an atheist. With the exception of this one point, there is little information concerning his life and beliefs. He spoke out against the Greek religion, and criticized the Eleusinian Mysteries. The Athenians accused him of impiety, and he was forced to flee the city. He died in Corinth.[Wiki]
Euhemerus, also spelled Euemeros, or Evemerus (Ancient Greek: ???????? [Euh?meros], "happy; prosperous") (late 4th century BC) was a Greek mythographer at the court of Cassander, the king of Macedon. Euhemerus' birthplace is disputed, with Messina in Sicily as the most probable location, while others champion Chios or Tegea.
The term euhemerism is derived from his name, and is the philosophy attributed to Euhemerus which holds that many mythological tales can be attributed to historical persons and events, the accounts of which have become altered and exaggerated over time.
Euhemerus’s work combined elements of fiction, political utopianism, and theology. In the ancient world he was considered an atheist. Early Christian writers, such as Lactantius, used the principles of Euhemerus to assert that, because the ancient gods were originally human, they were necessarily inferior to the Christian god. [wiki]
Anyhow, bored of you now. You're an illiterate, hateful anathema to Christianity and the Logos, and may God have mercy on your tiny shriveled soul.
Wikipedia isn't an authoritative source. Never has been, never will be. Three paragraphs conjured up on Wikipedia doth not a history make.
A simple fact, really.
History of Western Philosophy - Bertrand Russell.
Early Greek Philosophy - Jonathon Barnes
They're easy primers, and cover all three. Stop pretending it's only wikipedia saying these things, you're just making yourself look like a spotty teenager. For someone so proud of "WESTERN CIVILISATION" you're fucking ignorant of it.
As I've noted numerous times - the sodomite movement and the atheist movement are simply continuations of Karl Marx's personal milchama against Western civilization.
There aren't any books of, for, or about sodomites and atheism before Karl Marx.
Yeah, you're just trolling now, and not in an original way. Your sources ("savageleft") were total garbage as well - StormFront trash. At least Francis is honest & funny, you're just boring.
ZZZzzzz.
p.s. If you're going to attempt to use Hebrew, at least spell it right, you gibbering fool: be-tachbulot ta`aseh lekha milchamah. Proverbs 24:6, I think is where you stole your fancy word from, isn't it? Couldn't even get it right. Unless, of course, you're claiming to be MOSSAD. (ZH doesn't parse the accents, here's the original).
Maybe it's a "figure of speech" thing...
[baby take your teeth out..]
"Similarly, there's no history of atheism before Karl Marx conjured it up as part of his personal milchama against Western civilization and Christianity."
Apparently you're not familiar with Democritus, Socrates, and then later on Baruch Spinoza, Christopher Marlowe, Denis Diderot, and Percy Shelley, to name just a few.
Provide some sources. Conjuring up a couple of names doesn't count.
The fact of the matter is that the sodomite movement and the atheist movement are nothing more than artificial movements conjured up to continue Karl Marx's personal milchama against Western civilization.
There is no history of, for, or by sodomites, or atheists, prior to Karl Marx's stated goals of abolishing private property, abolishing the family, and abolishing Christianity.
Look, if you're going to just copy/paste the same drivel, please update your spelling, it's pitiful: milchamah. H - there's an "h" on the end. Please change your copy/paste file.
p.s. Spamming? Non das ist sehr nicht gut.
conjuring up names for sources is precisely what counts: they are authors of many works that pre-date Christianity and are clearly atheist.
I would counter with Keynes, but that only supports your homophobic bias.
A student of what ???
You're an autocratic clown with a liberal-sounding nick who wants to boss others around.
Greece.
Are you out of your fking mind?! That is absolute bullshit!
Did you know that in the Roman army, "Beating to death was the punishment for several other offences, such as giving false evidence, stealing, homosexual practice, and committing the same fault three times. "
So this ABSURD idea that the Romans promoted homosexual behavior is absolute garbage. Let me guess, your ancient history professor told you it was so....READ A BOOK YOU IGNORANT SHEEPLE.
The Lex Scantinia (less often Scatinia) is a poorly documented[1] ancient Roman law that penalized a sex crime (stuprum) against a freeborn male minor (ingenuus or praetextatus).[2] The law may also have been used to prosecute adult male citizens who willingly took a passive role in having sex with other men. It was thus aimed at protecting the citizen's body from sexual abuse (stuprum), but did not prohibit homosexual behavior as such, as long as the passive partner was not a citizen in good standing. The primary use of the Lex Scantinia seems to have been harassing political opponents whose lifestyles opened them to criticism as passive homosexuals or pederasts in the Hellenistic manner. [Wiki]
Learn a bit more: no-one cared in Rome if you fucked your slaves up the arse. Might want to view some Greek and Roman mosaics sometime. The military rules were there to prevent discipline breaking down, nothing more.
The stupid in this thread is reaching Biblical proportions. The "Pink Pound" is lucrative, and you're a muppet if you ignore it.
Yes. And what happened to Rome, exactly?
Oh yeah, they collapsed into complete moral degeneracy and debauchery.
Hey Eisenhorn, lookup this link and figure out who is the “IGNORANT SHEEPLE”…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty
Oh good. You found wikipedia. Well, it must be true.
Roman Military Law by C. E. Brand, Charles L. Decker
The Emperor and the Roman Army by J. B. Campbell
You don't get how this works, do you? If you make stupid claims about things, YOU have to provide the citation. I expect a quotation, a page number and preferably a primary source in Latin, but I understand if you can't provide that part.
The source is Polybius. Rise of the Roman Empire, Book VI: The Roman Military System.
While the soldiers are subject to the tribune, the latter are subject to the consuls. 8 A tribune, and in the case of the allies a praefect, has the right of inflicting fines, of demanding sureties, and of punishing by flogging. 9 The bastinado is also inflicted on those who steal anything from the camp; on those who give false evidence; on young men who have abused their persons; and finally on anyone who has been punished thrice for the same fault. Those are the offences which are punished as crimes, the following being treated as unmanly acts and disgraceful in a soldier — when a man boasts falsely to the tribune of his valour in the field in order to gain distinction; 11 when any men who have been placed in a covering force leave the station assigned to them from fear; likewise when anyone throws away from fear any of his arms in the actual battle.[source section 37]
"It is sometimes thought that homosexuality incurred this punishment, but Polybius limits potential offenders to "young men who have abused their persons", that is, who have willingly submitted to penetration". A Roman man could engage in same-sexual relations without loss to his status or perceived masculinity, as long as he took the dominant or penetrative role, but making sexual use of a fellow citizen's body was a violation of the principle of liberty. Acceptable male partners had to be of lower status, in the military typically slaves. A soldier who chose to be penetrated "abused his person" by violating the sexual hierarchy, especially since Romans equated sexual and military dominance. [Fustuarium]
So, that would meet exactly the Roman Law I posted, wouldn't it? i.e. No-one cared if a young man was buggering the camp slaves. Want to admit that the Romans weren't anti-homosexuality yet?
FOR FUCKS SAKE, they didn't even have the same concept of it, they did NOT define their identity by their sexuality, nor were they binary about the choices - that's an entirely Christian invention, a Roman Male would be totally confounded by this thread, and would laugh at the concepts in it. Higher Status Male = fucks what he wants, as long as he's "giving", not "taking". If you wanted to insult a Roman male, you'd accuse him of giving ORAL sex to males or females. That was a HUGE insult!
"Cocksucker" or "Muff Diver" would start a fight: accusing him of gay sex would raise a raised eyebrow and a disbelieving "And?".
Guess I was right, after all. And yes, I did just read the entire of Polybius; I remember now why it wasn't something I'd kept in memory. Terrible historian. Greened you anyhow for providing a source, if not a link. Oh, and anyone in this thread who has been anti-homosexuality needs to fucking educate themselves. Shameful display of ignorance all around.
Oh, and since we all need a joke after that, +10 to anyone who recognised their local Football Team heroes in all of this. It's not accidental. Same thing goes for the Etons of old.
In fact, a propensity for sodomy has been considered a symptom of serious mental illness for more than 99% of mankind's known history.
6000*.99 = 5940
OMFG, for 60 years a "propensity for sodomy" has NOT been "considered a symptom of serious mental illness" !!!
What a time we live in.
A rare flash of brilliance.
do you partake in any form of sexual activity that isn't solely for reproductive purposes?
if you do, then you're a sodomist.
Faggotry has no virtue.
You have to be trolling...
It's the only explanation that makes sense...
A troll accusing someone else of being a troll.
You ain't trolling if you are correct....
Bastiat, unfortunately, is so full of shit his eyes have turned brown....
You haven't disputed a single fact I've presented.
You have not presented a single empirical fact, conjecture is not fact....
It's an undeniable fact that sodomy offers no virtue.
It's also an undeniable fact that there's no history of, by, or for sodomites prior to Karl Marx. Same for atheists - there's no history by, for, or of atheists prior to Karl Marx.
A reasonable conclusion, to draw from those two facts, is that the athesist movement and the sodomite movement are simply artificial "classes" conjured up to continue Karl Marx's personal milchama against Western civilization.
MilchamaH - IT HAS AN H AT THE END.
Here's a video explaining how to change your copy/paste.
I drive this conversation; you're simply along for the ride.
Yes, you're such an expert.
Seriously: Nietsche would have been proud of you, really. Masterful mind at work. We're enthralled by your copy/paste skills.
Found your H yet? Seen the dolphin rape cave video yet?
it's almost becoming pathetic watching this "exchange" between you and this bastiat chap...
do you think it's a bot or just a 1st grade troll?
Certainly, Nietzsche played an important role in the counter-Christian religion of German National Socialism. Examples include: "Turn evil! ... Evil life must be lived in an evil way. Christians will never subdue the Jew and his empire".
Oh boy. Do you know what's depressing?
a) You made up a Nietzsche quotation - what are you, 12?
b) Searching it leads only to your pathetic little hate site - 3 hits only on the entire web
c) Nietzsche was in no way anti-Semitic (he was, of course, against religions) ~ might want to learn about his sister, and her creative editing
Way to paint a target on your head there, Mr. Man.
"To be incapable of taking one's enemies, one's accidents, even one's misdeeds seriously for very long—that is the sign of strong, full natures in whom there is an excess of the power to form, to mold, to recuperate and to forget (a good example of this in modem times is Mirabeau, who had no memory for insults and vile actions done him and was unable to forgive simply because he—forgot). Such a man shakes off with a single shrug many vermin that eat deep into others; here alone genuine 'love of one's enemies' is possible—supposing it to be possible at all on earth. How much reverence has a noble man for his enemies!—and such reverence is a bridge to love.—For he desires his enemy for himself, as his mark of distinction; he can endure no other enemy than one in whom there is nothing to despise and very much to honor! In contrast to this, picture 'the enemy' as the man of ressentiment conceives him—and here precisely is his deed, his creation: he has conceived 'the evil enemy,' 'the Evil One,' and this in fact is his basic concept, from which he then evolves, as an afterthought and pendant, a 'good one'—himself!” Nietzsche
You're a little man of ressentiment, nothing more. Don't even dare to quote Nietzsche, he'd have nothing but contempt for you.
it's completely deniable.
Even women have said they want anal sex. And enjoy it.
I have no idea why and I refuse to do it but if they want it, let them go find it.
It has downsides too: I think that hole's a dirty hole and has e.coli bacteria in it.
No thanks.
As for atheists there's thousands of years of non-believers being tortured by fundies, executed for being "heathens". We have a proud history of resistance to religious evil and we will NOT BACK DOWN.
Well, then there must be a vast collection of grand illustrious books about atheists, sodomites, and their indelible contributions to Western civilization. I mean, if the contributions of the sodomites and the atheists are so profound, someone must have written about them. Someone, somewhere, must have written something.
The fact is - there are no books about the sodomites and the atheists because both are artificial classes/tribes conjured up for the sole purpose of continuing Karl Marx's milchama against Western civilization.
you're presenting zero facts.
It's an undeniable fact that sodomy offers no virtue.
Looks like the states can ban gay marriage if they want to. Prop 8 likely to be upheld.
Allow me to rephrase. If ever considered on the merits, Prop 8 likely to be upheld.
But will they be able to deny rights to same-sex couples married in other states under the full faith and credit clause?
No longer settling for a domestic nanny/concubine, echoing Scalia, under this rulling, we will be courting a spouse soon enough.
We've come to the conclusion that economic SHTF will drive most gregarious people into a group living situation that may be poly. I'm in the process of developing an Excel calculator for savings resulting from adding N people to a household based on ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiri2010.txt . Of course, all sorts of personal and intangible issues will compete with the economic ones in these decisions, but as the economy tanks, the relative importance of economic issues will weigh in more.For example, each additional person only adds ~5% to the cost of air conditioning (BTU requirements) for a family of 4. Heating costs may actually decline. Each component of the CPI will scale differently with household size, and your mileage may vary and depend upon your flexibility (can you time share your computer and internet connection?), but the US population has in general been the most over-housed in terms of ft2/person in the world. Reduction in consumption does not necessarily bring with it a reduction in quality of life if we are free to explore alternative lifestyles.
We expect to take in a nanny/concubine/wife-to-be, when the crisis deepens and reduced Government benefits can no longer support independent living for those dependent on them. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/julias-mother-why-a-single-mom-is-better-off-on-welfare-than-taking-a-69000-a-year-job/
What is the point of having laws anymore? No matter what the will of the peolpe, the privilaged jagg-offs will still direct society to their whims and wishes. I'm really starting to HATE (that deep down to your core hate that defines you as a person) what my country has become.
I already hate what my country has become. I'm no longer interested in being united with a bunch of asswipes. If Al-Qaeda pays a visit to said asswipes, say Bloomberg/NYC, don't come crying to me. You rat bastards are on your own.
At first I was a patriotic diligent prepper, resigned to fight those who are destroying this country, then I gave up that passion and planned to go into the wilderness and wait out the destruction when I realized the true scope of power that the Stupids had come to amass and figured I could hunker down till they kill themselves off in the next major social upheaval. Now, as I grasp the totality of National Retardification: If I see mushroom clouds or FEMA busses coming, I'm just gonna hop on a boat and burn the dock behind me. This country is finished and its people beyond redemption; not worth fighting for anymore.
I agree; the 64,000 question is this: How do we identify and preserve the like minded?
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 - And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28- And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 - Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 - Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
RELEASE THE SMOTENATOR!!
Oh, believe me, we're all gonna get smoted. It's happening right now, and it's just gonna get worse.
It's exciting!
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
It was me. Now give me a kiss...with tongue.
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie"
It always was a lie.
Wake the fuck up.
There is no sky fairy.
All I know is, me and my blow-up girlfriend can finally tie the knot.
She was cranking the other day and said "You never take me anywhere"
And I said, "bitch, you never shut your mouth!" I almost stuck her with a hat pin but thought better of it.
She's a gud gurl.
Get her a credit card, put "Sarah Conax" on the application. Shove it in her in-animate hand so she's happy. I'mma get my dog one, "Boots Thomas" gettin a gold card.
If marriage doesn't get you, the "seven year itch" will.
There's a cream for that...
And an app too, probably.
I was referring to 'community property laws' ass wipe.
I wasn't, buttplug.
Now Reggie and Barry can Marry!
Good thing I don't have TV, 'cause you know EVERYTHING will get preempted for that, er.. spectacle.
Three times, in statewide elections, California voters said "NO". But that don't matter, California is now officially "the land of Fruits and Nuts"!
No, apparently, does not mean no.
It's not over in California. And the Supreme Court has said two potentially conflicting things in the DOMA case: 1) states get to decide what marriage is, and 2) it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment (for the federal government) to ban gay marriage. This result is going to cause the Supreme Court some massive constitutional headaches in the future.
Not really - all they have to say is CA is within its rights to define marriage as a civil union between man and women only - but CA also has to recognize same-sex unions ratified in any of the 12 states that authorize it.
Easy-peasy.
The whole thing is a farce "NOTHING DONE" Its still up to the states to determine "GAY" marrage. So to get federal benefits you have to move to a gay marrage state and watch when the states are cutting benefits because the fed is cutting benefits and the paperwork and laws to determine "GAY MARRAGE" are fully written and the dust settles this will be a minus for "GAY MARRAGE".
This sort of crazy is why our real rights are more secure when even the ability to define rights is a decentralized and dispersed power. When you say "right" then the opinion of the majority does not matter anymore, it is not subject to a vote, and that's a good thing. What is a bad thing is that the rights-granting machinery amounts to dictatorial powers, thus the bad guys are highly incentivized to seize control of it by any means necessary.
The members of the Supreme Court don't even seem to know what "equal protection" means. It USED to mean, before statists started re-defining all words, that even disfavored groups would have the protection of the law from private vioations of their rights. It had nothing to do with what was or was not legal, but rather that whatever the law was, all groups would be protected by it. The KKK could not burn a cross in your yard with impugnity nor could the gay mafia vandalize your church. Now they say equal protection means that all FAVORED behaviors have to be treated the same.
If these concepts are a breath of fresh air and profound insight to you as they were me, here is where there is more about it : Localism, A Philosophy of Government http://www.amazon.com/Localism-A-Philosophy-Government-ebook/dp/B00B0GACAQ/ref=pd_rhf_pe_p_t_2_GB3H
yahoo. wants to marry my dog & three women & who knows anything that moves
Can't marry the dog - sorry, Fido doesn't have the legal capacity to give consent (just like minors).
Well they could not have planned the release to be on a better day. The economy is grinding to a stop and the mentally retarded here spout about lack of family values.
Please don't notice that hook in your mouth....
Can bi-sexuals now marry two people?
I have a friend who needs health insurance......
Joke:
Guy goes to the doctor and tells him that his wife suffers from multiple personality disorder.
The doctor asks what the problem is,
The guy replies that none of them gives a blow job.
rimshot
I'm really sick of gov't in everything--marriage is a moral commitment with the blessing of the family(or not) and the blessing of the church (satanic cult etc.)or not-- that you and yours involve your self in. The problem is state involvement in all things --so they need to know about the children, and what you do behind those doors and how your going to fit in the new tax bracket-- The court has no business with it. but to show just how fucked up people are they assume the court has a say-- The gov't should have no say about anything except what the supreme law provides--which states in the first " congress shall make no law---"
Why the fuck do we even worry about such a basic trivial thing in the first place??? Who the fuck cares if you are man, woman who you marry? Cmon...LET'S STOP PLAYING GAMES AND WORRY ABOUT WHAT IS IMPORTANT....
FOR CHRIST'S SAKE...PA-FUCKING-THEIC......LEGALIZE ALL MARRIAGES AND LET'S FOCUS ON OUR ECONOMY.....WTF??
We learned JACK FUCKING SHIT from the start of this fucked up nation....WE ARE TRUE FUCKING BIGOTS DESPITE WHAT THE CONSITUTION SAYS...SLAVES, WOMENS RIGHTS, IMMIGRATION (AND ARE WE ALLLLLLL NOT IMMIGRANTS FOR FUCKS SAKE???)
Focus on the fact that this country is MORE COMMUNISTIC THAN RUSSIA AND CHINA PUT TOGETHER AT THEIR PEAK....shameful bullshit.
legalize it and move on fuck holes....
what a well spoken intelligent person - not
Well, they're kind of right - it IS about the money.
Please only articulate liberal views from now on. You make conservatives look bad.
funny how the commenters on this site have shifted from libertarian to true head up their ass fucking conservatives.
all this hate on this thread over such a trivial issue. let these people live their lives. divorce rate in the US is over 50% anyway. where do people get off thinking they have the right to meddle in other's lives on such a personal level? gd fucking hypocrites if they ever complained about the NSA.
Virue > Liberty > Prosperity
The prosperity doesn't exist without the liberty and the liberty doesn't exist without the virtue.
define virtue
Definitions apply to simple words, not complex phenomena. Complex phenomena have tendencies and characteristics, rather than simple definitions.
Examples of virtue include the shalt nots:
- not stealing
- not lying
- not coveting thy neighbor's wife
And so on.
Along a similar line of reason - the three main characteristics of the counter-Christian religion of marxism include:
- Attacking the family
- Attacking private property
- Attacking Christianity
So virtues are biblical commandments eh?
Are you sure there's Marxists lurking about? Nobody even knows who he was. Marx wasn't even a Marxist.
I think YOU have invented the sodomite and athiest movements to pretend that there's some kind of global Marxist revolution going on.
We have changed the definition of money to include fiat. We have changed the definition of ally to include al Qaeda in Syria. We have changed the definition of journalist to exclude Greenwald. We have changed the definition of food to include Monsanto monstrousities. We have changed the definition of employed to include anyone working a handful of hours a week. We have changed the definition of a great many things and inevitably marriage was going to be one of them.
People should not live in fear because of their sexual preferences but at the same time they need to understand that "stealing" the definition of marriage from heterosexual people will not endear them to people who wished them no harm.
May God protect us all from our evil.
The issue is not the name of the contract (well, for the most part) but the "rights".
If they called it "arriagem" with the equivalent legal meaning, would you support it?.
(If the legalized "arriagem" then all laws that refer to marriage would have to be changed so that they refer to "marriage or arriagem", which is obviously a lot more work.)
You can call a union between two people of the same sex anything you want but it still will not be marriage. My sister in law served as a registrar at a large public hospital and was absolutely saddened by how many torn anuses she had to sew up and how many male homosexuals she had to deal with who had put objects up their behinds and were unable to remove them. But if that is what people want, let them have it. God gave us absolute freedom and absolute freedom has consequences whether you are heterosexual or homosexual.
Exactly fucking right
what's going to protected good people from the horrific nonsense of 'god' ?
Certainly not you.
First reasonable thing I've read all day. To the lads and ladies this helps. The marriage thing, it's over rated...meh...the adoption thing. Githerdone. Lots of good kids out there looking for good homes, love and guidance. Hopefully this helps some of them.
You must be nuts...can't you see that the end run of this is sanctioned in-house pedeophilia??? What could be better than having a renewable source of children with state financial support for their upkeep? I knew one of these guys for years, and never guessed...
ALL those kids all come from 'straight' homes that can't mind their own p's and q's OR hold any level of responsibility other than a crack pipe and a tome of religious rules.
So pointing out someone else is taking care of another's kids...there is a reason they are there in the first place. Because whatever sour patch they came from was so bad that someone had to intervene.
Once upon a time Grandparents would take the role, but since most grandparents are busy getting destroyed financially by the current system in place. You best hope someone is out there with a good heart to take care of the problem. Since the incentive is money, I don't believe that the person is the issue. It's the money.
An older inlaw of mine was placed in a similar situation, his mother was a drunk and his father would have murdered him eventually as his secondary preoccupation to drinking was misinterpreting the bible with a grade two education. It took his Grandmum and some very large band members to intervene and get him into somewhere safe. He was 8 then. He's one of the kindest men I know and good to his grandkids and anyone he meets. Without that step in, I probably never would have met the missus because he would have been yet another dead kid on the reserve, name filed accordingly and then forgetten. Probably even by his mother.
So...you were saying?
Otherwise if a gay couple moves into your neighbour with kids. Sheeet. Damn property value goes up. Neighbours are nice, maybe one's a little catty. But like everyone else in area, they pay bills, go bonkers when kids do what they do and kids all play together. It's only a big deal if you want it to be. Personally I stay out of people's bedrooms, they've got their own thing going on, just like you. Pants one leg at a time, etc, etc.
Government and media destroy the tradition family then use that as an excuse to push through a satanic homosexual agenda.
Government and media destroy the economy then use that as an excuse to push through a satanic one world currency and government.
See the pattern?
Dante put usurers and sodomites (bankers and wankers) in the lowest level of the Inferno for a reason.
I see the pattern all right.
Keep saying satanic and homsexual until someone picks up the talking points.
Isn't it illogical for the Supreme Court Majority to say that the Minority is the victor ?
I didn't know the Constitution was officially a minority.
Why are States rights overturned when liberals wish that,
and Why are States rights upheld when liberals wish that ?
No such thing as conservative States rights ?
Why is the US Constitution "Supremacy clause" upheld when SCOTUS wishes to overturn States rights,
and why is the "Supremacy clause" ignored when SCOTUS wishes to uphold States rights ?
As in this Liberal SCOTUS ruling that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act of Federal law is unconstitutional ?
As usual, Liberal Hypocracy.
Nine Supreme Court Justices majority overturn 535 member Congress majority,
or whatever number State Legislature majorities,
or millions of State referendum voters majority.
What do we have, rule by minority vote ?
Judges with lifetime appointments, almost like Kings ?
Are nine Justices more powerful than the majority of hundreds or millions of citizens ?
The supposed rights of the minority are more important than the rights of the Legislative majority ?
A mockery of the concept of Majority Democracy.
All powers not explicitly granted to the Federal Government are Constitutionally supposed to be reserved to the States and the People.
SCOTUS has long abandoned the idea of Majority Democracy and Majority Legislative rule of law.
More and more like a Black robe de facto dictatorship.
We the Sheeple being led to slaughter.
Such an important issue before the Supreme Court. /s
I don't care if they call it "gay marriage" or not, if two dudes say they are together, 98% of men are going to be thinking to themselves "EEEEEEEEEEEWWWW!!!!"
It's only because of the lack of fashion sense.
Ok let's all rant and rave for another hour or so then get back to our regularly scheduled economic collapse.
Does this mean Barry is gonna come out of the closet?
Only his NSA analyst knows for sure.
and now the Russians and Chinese.
Obama is meeting with Reggie to celebrate.
Obama and Reggie Love vacationing
http://theblacksphere.net/2013/02/obama-reggie-love-beach/
I understand that it is difficult to see nuance if one has no legal training, but first of all, only a portion of DOMA has been struck down. The headline is misleading.
Having said that, I see a common federalist element to these rulings. There appears to be 5 justices who are interested in allocating more power to the states by limiting federal power. While the liberals are happy that the gays have gotten something they like here, allocating more power to states is in general bad news for liberals. Not to get my hopes up too much, though. Still a court that is 49.99 percent liberal, with a swing vote that sometimes limits the seemingly limitless federal power over all facets of our lives.
"While the liberals are happy that the gays have gotten something they like here, allocating more power to states is in general bad news for liberals."
Dicker - as in bargain, parlay.
Agreed, but I fear I was placing hope over experience, as I indicate in my note below. On the average I find the supreme court to be an instrument of the Total State, free to do what they wish without any constraint beyond the need to cobble 5 votes together.
On further reflection, the majority here does appear to have discovered yet another constitional right that is not written into the constitution. I don't see the plain language of the constitution, and the means of amending it, as in any respect normative to supreme court implementation of the liberal utopia. In the unlikely event that a conservative president is ever elected again, and actually finds a conservative jurist, liberals will surely be singing a different tune if extra-constitutional tinkering contradicts their beliefs.
To call this constitutional interpretation is a sham, and its pointless to require legal training for justices. Its simply a 9 person dictator which intervenes in human affairs as it sees fit.
I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.
On further reflection, the majority here does appear to have discovered yet another constitional right that is not written into the constitution. I don't see the plain language of the constitution, and the means of amending it, as in any respect normative to supreme court implementation of the liberal utopia.
I have been screaming for a CON CON for years, we could stop ALL this nonsense, 38 Red states is all it takes,which appoint their own delegates(heheheheh), can slam the door on SO many of these abuses.
There is no defense of marriage. I've tried it three times and decided you can't fix it or defend it. You just have to live with it...or not. Now if we could just get all of those oppressed illegal immigrants legal status so they can pay taxes and feel better about themselves, we will all be able to sleep better at night, regardless if we are broke or unemployed. We shall succeed to supplant an economic victory with a supposed moral one. Its not about reality but about your perceptions of reality that matter.
This is a distraction at a crucial point in our history and will be reflected upon poorly in history books to come.
It's a non-issue, not a distraction.
Any freedom-loving human being would never even think of ordering others what kind of agreements they may make. The decision to partially end that form of fascism should never have become an issue and it's not at all distracting to me.
I welcome it simply because I want to see more similar decisions that tell the government to fuck off. How is that "distracting"?
"Gay", "Same-sex"... What's wrong with the proper word- HOMOSEXUAL? Why is the media so afraid of the word homosexual? "Homosexual" is nicer than the more accurate term: "degenerate", and much nicer than "faggot", "lawnmower", "ass-pirate", "rump raider", and "butt-blaster".
Too many syllables for the dumbed-down ADD masses to assimilate.
It's all propaganda.
The sodomite movement, like the atheist movement, has been mainly conjured up by communist ashkenazis who are simply continuing Karl Marx's personal milchama against Western civilization.
Pure fucking evil.
I didn't believe it the first 25 times you said it, but now I'm coming around.
BTW, I'm looking for the sodomite and athiest movement headquarters so I can join. Do you have addresses?
The sodomite movement's headquarters is in downtown DC - Rhode Island Avenue.
The atheist movement's headquarters is in Albuquerque, NM - the contact is a rabid ashkenazi marxist named Mikey Weinstein.