When we first heard of this Matt Bevin guy who's running against Mitch McConnell in the Kentucky Republican primary, the only thing we knew about him was that he was a millionaire, a tea partier, and the sort of person who calls Mitch Goddamn McConnell a big-government liberal. Well, now we have a deeper understanding of Mr. Bevin, and what we now understand is that Matt Bevin is kind of loony. He is apparently concerned that if same sex marriage is legalized, the next thing that could happen just might be
The specter of parents marrying their children for tax purposes has been conjured up at least twice before, by <a href="http:\/\/gawker.com\/5993713\/jeremy-irons-thinks-gay-marriage-will-cause-fathers-to-marry-their-sons" target="_blank">Jeremy Irons</a> and <a href="http:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/society\/2013\/may\/21\/tebbit-gay-marriage-lesbian-queen" target="_blank"> Norman Tebbit</a>. Is this a thing amongst wingnuts?
More like &quot;If only you lazy reporters had anticipated the negative fallout from Mr. Bevin&#039;s words and taken corrective measures by writing something less accurate and more acceptable, none of this confusion would have occured&quot;.
&quot;<i>. . . to press for what men have always historically wanted but were rarely allowed . . . </i> Well that certainly is revealing.
Given the kinds of mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers who vote in Republican primaries here, I think McYertle should actually be concerned about Bevin. It could be a tight two-way, which of course they will both immediately come out as opposed to.
&quot;so that they can then in fact pass on certain things to that child financially and otherwise,Bevin said.&quot; We have already got that covered. It&#039;s called a Will, dipshit.
The specter of parents marrying their children for tax purposes has been conjured up at least twice before, by <a href="http:\/\/gawker.com\/5993713\/jeremy-irons-thinks-gay-marriage-will-cause-fathers-to-marry-their-sons" target="_blank">Jeremy Irons</a> and <a href="http:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/society\/2013\/may\/21\/tebbit-gay-marriage-lesbian-queen" target="_blank"> Norman Tebbit</a>. Is this a thing amongst wingnuts?
More like &quot;If only you lazy reporters had anticipated the negative fallout from Mr. Bevin&#039;s words and taken corrective measures by writing something less accurate and more acceptable, none of this confusion would have occured&quot;.
&quot;<i>. . . to press for what men have always historically wanted but were rarely allowed . . . </i> Well that certainly is revealing.
This is the test site for Hallmark&#039;s proposed line of &quot;Happy Birthday, Uncle Daddy!&quot; Cards.
Given the kinds of mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers who vote in Republican primaries here, I think McYertle should actually be concerned about Bevin. It could be a tight two-way, which of course they will both immediately come out as opposed to.
I don&#039;t know about demanding anal sex, but a lot of men do ask nicely about that option. <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/dat..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf">http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/dat... Should we send Mark Regnerus a copy ?
&quot;so that they can then in fact pass on certain things to that child financially and otherwise,Bevin said.&quot; We have already got that covered. It&#039;s called a Will, dipshit.
He seems to be a natural at making incomprehensible and ridiculous statements. So that&#039;s something.
I give my upfist for using the word clowder.
Odd how adultery is never brought up as a threat to traditional marriage.
Or no-fault divorce.
Too late to save Oedipus.
Or the adultery leads to divorce and a second, traditional marriage. Newt and his ilk are simply being uebertraditional.
Those lying videocameras have a liberal bias.
He lost Woody Allen&#039;s vote.
It would add an interesting twist to that eternal Kentucky/Arkansas/West Virginia conundrum: If a man gets a divorce, is she still his sister?