Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 comments on the NBC Chicago story from Jan 7, 2013, titled Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes. In it, NBC Chicago reports that:

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC Chicago.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10478 Sep 26, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how ALL THAT didn't stop SCOTUS from ruling against both the DOMA and Prop 8 cases.
Funny how five justices didn't impose SSM nationwide.
Sure, there's "A" connection between marriage and procreation, but it isn't the ONLY connection, and it isn't a REQUIRED connection.
Grazie mi amico....a flash of honesty. Finally someone on the SSM side acknowledging the link.
The implications of the connection are not enough to prevent same-sex couples from enjoying marriage, as several states have already proven.
Or having their relationship designated marriage by the state. That's sounds about right.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10479 Sep 26, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Do any of these cases you cite (one when slavery was still legal) put forth the notion that procreation is the 'ONLY' function of marriage?
Again with the slavery reference. Still bizarre. Not only, but "PRIMARY", "FIRST PURPOSE".... Which would imply, the other functions are secondary, would to exist if not for the PRIMARY purpose.
No! And that's your problem.
Procreation may be ONE OF THE REASONS for marriage, but it cannot be the only one.
Oh Madone! C'mon Dave, will you just admit, you're wrong on this one. It's not "may be", IT IS one of, if not the primary reason, marriage is recognized by the state. Reread some of those citations again.
As you have clearly stated, states allow infertile male-female couples to marry. States allow couples with no intention of procreating to marry.
Yes....yes they do...because marriage is SURPRISE a male female union.....sexual and emotional. If sex between men and women didn't make babies, would marriage as we know it even exist?
And so long as any state allows even one of these infertile, child adverse couples to marry, procreation can not then be used as a reason to deny same-sex couples the ability to marry.
Sure it can.....it been accepted in every culture that has had conjugal marriage, that not every couple can or will bear offspring. The fact that this is accepted in American marital jurisprudence, doesn't change the marriage procreation link, or procreation as a function of marriage. The marriage form, male female, is still the form that produces the next generation. 100% of same sex union are by composition, sterile, thus, NO same sex marriage will produce offspring, not to mention, no man will become pregnant.
THAT is the different standard that you want applied that the state cannot legally use; equal application of the law being an important constitutional principle.
The difference is in the form itself. Not a single same sex union will bear offspring that is the biological product of both participants. That's a fact. Some male female couples cannot, nor will not. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you're here because your Mom and Dad had sex, coitus, to quote Sheldon Cooper, Ph.D.

You wish to change the standard, male female, upon which marriage is based, and then argue the state cannot impose a different standard. That defies logic. Why not just ask the state to treat one of you like a woman, a male wife. Maybe that's the right approach, argue its discriminatory to exclude men from the legal title of wife, or a woman from the legal title of husband. Yeah...that's the ticket.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10480 Sep 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
He missed it.
<quoted text>
With all due respect, no different, essentially? Really? Did I miss something in high school biology. The emotional connections may be similar, but beyond that, there's a difference.
All the married couples in my immediate family are still on their first marriages, 4 of who are going on 20 plus years, the other 2, ten plus years, all with children. Parents married just shy of 40 years, father passed away before they hit that mark. Both sets of grandparents, born in Italy, also married until death did them part.
Sorry, but YOU missed it......that's the point......both marriage and procreation have been made FUNDAMENTAL rights......that DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE TO GO TOGETHER!!!

I don't give a damn about your family history or how long they have been married......my aunt and uncle have been married over 35 years, my stepmother has been married over 25 years.......both have been married longer this time than previously........and guess what, they both see my marriage as being NO DIFFERENT than theirs!!!

Sorry, but YOU don't get it and NEVER will.......today in the 21st century.....MARRIAGE DOES INVOLVE SAME-SEX COUPLES and sooner than later it will be like that in ALL 50 states!!!

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#10481 Sep 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Funny how five justices didn't impose SSM nationwide.
Not at all. They weren't asked to.

But they sure didn't see any "connection" which prevented same-sex couples from marrying.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Grazie mi amico....a flash of honesty. Finally someone on the SSM side acknowledging the link.
It just isn't a REQUIREMENT. It may be completely absent, and marriage stands up just fine.

I see a MUCH more prominent link between SEX and procreation, yet no one suggests preventing gay people from legally doing THAT (anymore). Marriage is even LESS connected than sex is. You can be married without procreating, you can procreate without marrying, both without any punishment or reward.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Or having their relationship designated marriage by the state. That's sounds about right.
Which is all that's necessary. The state regulates marriage. The state administers marriage benefits. The state gets to decide which relationships may be so designated (along constitutional guidelines).

You aren't describing a REQUIREMENT, not at any time. A state may DECIDE not to allow same-sex couples to be designated as "marriage", but that's not because of a pre-existing, objective necessity. If it were, then NO state would be able to do it. It's simply a barrier, that some states have arbitrarily chosen to impose. It can be removed with the flick of a pen, proving its impermanence.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10482 Sep 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes....yes they do...because marriage is SURPRISE a male female union.....sexual and emotional. If sex between men and women didn't make babies, would marriage as we know it even exist?
Yes, marriage as we know it would STILL exist regardless of whether babies are being born.......that's evident in the reasoning behind the ruling of Judge Walker!!!

It is also evident in 2nd marriages, as well as first marriages where the opposite-sex couple is incapable of having children for medical reasons!!!

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10483 Sep 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh....huh...well humans are all virtually, either male or female....and it just so happens marriage in both American jurisprudence, and its predecessor, English common law, viewed marriage as a union of the female human, and the male human, from that we get little humans. Even you Nye, are a product of the male female union.
<quoted text>
Both genders are equally present.
<quoted text>
As it is legally defined by the state.
<quoted text>
A history of distinguishing, of privileging the male female union does justifying its continued distinction.
<quoted text>
Your excuses for not distinguishing relationships are yours, not a legitimate government interest.
<quoted text>
Still no imposition of same sex marriage nationwide.
Still no law that treats couples differently based on gender in the states where the gender restriction has been removed.

You are still operating under the false belief fundamental rights come from lawmakers rather than our Creator. Marriage is a fundamental right of all persons. It need provide nothing to the government.

While marriage has always provided protections for procreation, it has never required it in the US. The Supreme Court has clarified earlier rulings, affirming that marriage remains a fundamental right of the individual, even when procreation and even sex are impossible. Your procreation requirement is yours, not a requirement of the law.

The Windsor decision did not address state laws that restrict marriage based on gender. They found DOMA unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment.

They also said those opposed to the Ca. state law had no case. The Ca. law is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.

How will they rule if and when a prop 8 type state law allows them to address a 14th amendment challenge remains unanswered, but....

"The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from the Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved." (Windsor)

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10484 Sep 26, 2013
Part 1 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Mixed orientation" /opposite sex couples do exist.
Which still makes then part of the opposite sex couples implied when using the term "heterosexual couples".
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes they do.
Sure it does, not every aspect of American marital jurisprudence applies to same sex marriage. Presumption of paternity, consummation, failure to consummate as grounds for an annulment, consortium, or loss of it as grounds a lawsuit, etc
Presumption of paternity would apply to same sex couples if such circumstances were applicable. The fact remains, same sex couples are no differently situated than opposite sex couples that are infertile or beyond child bearing years opposite sex couples; presumption of paternity has no applicable to such couples either.

Whether you wish to acknowledge reality or not, consummation refers to sexual intercourse and sexual intercourse is defined as genital contact, which is certainly within the capabilities of gays and lesbians:

sexual intercourse
noun

genital contact, especially the insertion of the penis into the vagina followed by orgasm; coitus; copulation.

link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexual...

Be sure to note use of the word "especially" in the definition does not mean "always" or "exclusively". Which means other types of genital contact also qualify as sexual intercourse.

And despite the fact no state requires consummation of a marriage and only some states offer non-consummation as grounds for annulment of a marriage, gays and lesbians are likewise no differently situated than heterosexuals in this regard.

The also applies with consortium and loss of consortium; its meaning is equally applicable to gays and lesbians.

So another epic fail on your part in not offering any real differences in how the law treats same and opposite sex marriages differently in states that recognize both. You once again mistake your lack of education and poor vocabulary skills for real legal differences.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Adult adoption can establish kinship.
But the relationship established is that of parent and child. There is no provision in US adoption laws to adopt someone and create the marital relationship of "spouse".
Pietro Armando wrote:
Also first cousins who are kin, can marry in some states.
That's part of the consanguinity restriction upon marriage; some states have adopted a stricter standard than others. Nonetheless, States that prohibit first cousin marriages within their borders will recognize such marriages performed in other jurisdictions. So that difference amounts to an inconvenience, not a universal ban.
Pietro Armando wrote:
See above, little Terri
What you posted above didn't qualify as actual legal differences; they were simply your general stupidity tripping you up once again.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10485 Sep 26, 2013
Part 2 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
Of you finally accept them into the "marriage equality" clubhouse.
The door to the "marriage equality" clubhouse certainly isn't being blocked by gays. Anyone with a grievance against current marriage restrictions is free to knock on the door and ask admittance from either the courts or the legislature.
Pietro Armando wrote:
We both know, legal SSM has opened the door to legal polygamy in some form.
The door was never locked for polygamists; they simply gave up trying different keys to unlock the door after their initial constitutional arguments failed in court. They can certainly try to reapply the arguments made by gays but there's no guarantee the courts will accept those arguments in regards to polygamists because they're challenging a different restriction of marriage laws.
Pietro Armando wrote:
All the crying, "it's to the same", doesn't change that.
It's similar to the extent polygamists and gays are both challenging restrictions of marriage laws. It's different because each group is challenging a different restriction. Legal arguments that prevail in removing one restriction may not prevail in removing the other.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Both polygamy, and SSM represent significant changed in marriage, as it has been understood, a monogamous union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.

That's never been a universal definition of marriage. Nor have other changes, such as elimination of common law coverture, been any less significant.
Pietro Armando wrote:
SSM changes the nature, conjugal,
Conjugality results from marriage and is thus applicable to anyone legally contracting marriage.

Full Definition of CONJUGAL

of or relating to the married state or to married persons and their relations

link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/con...

Nothing in the definition limiting it to a male/female couple.
Pietro Armando wrote:
polygamy, the number.
At least you got one thing correct.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10486 Sep 26, 2013
Sean1030 wrote:
<quoted text> They don't believe in marriage..and the females don't require marriage before spreading their legs wider than the Grand Canyon
Then give them birth control and sex education right?

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10487 Sep 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
I've shown the difference in American marital jurisprudence, different expectations, presumptions, even grounds for annulments that do not apply to same sex couples. You can choose to ignore,them, or acknowledge them. However they do exist.
The concepts exist. However, your wishful thinking that they only apply to opposite sex couples is simply your usual stupidity and lack of education.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, you've shown you support the irrational notion that conjugality an be jettisoned and the relationship remain the same, the foundation the same. Utter nonsense.
The only "utter nonsense" here is yours with your uniformed and erroneous assertions that "conjugality is jettisoned" in same sex marriage.

Go back to school, small Peter, and relearn your vocabulary definitions.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, but it does indicate the difference.
Differences in wedding vows have no force of law.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It does support the understanding of marriage as a fundamental right based on the male female union. Consummation is the first act of sexual intercourse, coitus, by husband and wife.
The definition of sexual intercourse isn't limited penile-vaginal contact so consummation isn't limited to only male-female couples. Not that either is a requirement of marriage anyway.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sex is not a requirement, nor procreation, nor cohabitation, nor love, nor joint bank accounts. That does not change the fact that marriage, the legally recognized union of husband an wife, valid in all fifty states and recognized by them, is a fundamental right baed on the male female union. NOT, the male male, nor female female.
SCOTUS hasn't ruled opposite sex marriage to be a fundamental right or restricted the exercise of the fundamental right to only male-female couples. They've only ruled "marriage" a fundamental right.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No it is not the same legal construct, one is based on the long standing legal, historical, cultural, social, sexual, and/or religious understanding of marriage as a union of husband and wife. The other two, male ssm, and female ssm, are recent legal creations without a sustained historical foundation within both American jurisprudence, and Western Civilization.[/QUOTE"]

From the dissent of Conaway v. Deane:

"An asserted liberty interest is not to be characterized so narrowly as to make inevitable the conclusion that the claimed right could not be fundamental because historically it has been denied to those who now seek to exercise it"

[QUOTE who="Pietro Armando"]
Still no imposition of SSM on every state, nor declaration of same sex marriage as a fundamental right.
From the dissent of Conaway v. Deane:

“Fundamental rights once recognized cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights. Indeed, in recasting the plaintiffs' invocation of their fundamental right to marry as a request for recognition of a ‘new’ right to same-sex marriage, the Court misapprehends the nature of the liberty interest at stake.”

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10488 Sep 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The state allows infertile opposite sex couples to marry. Sorry liddie....nothing new there, I'm gonna let in on a little secret.
Of course, this is what I have always held.
Pietro Armando wrote:
They always been able to marry, because marriage is an opposite sex union intrinsically linked to procreation.
Dear stupid person. Will an infertile couple ever be able to procreate?

I can wait, I know this will be a difficult question for you to wrestle with.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Couples who cannot, nor will not procreate have always been allowed to marry without severing that link, nor the common acceptance of it.
It seems that you are conceding that you have no point.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Proving your ignorance of history. Do think allowing infertile OPPOSITE SEX couples to marry is something new, somehow just allowed to oppose ssm?
I think both prove that the state has no interest in procreation relative to marriage. I also think you are an idiot.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes divorce is allowed. Not every couple can, or should stay together. A necessary "evil".
Simply put, your argument is utterly irrational.
Sorry, wonder-puppy, it is your argument that falls slightly short of rational.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why should any man, or woman, provide they meet the other basic requirements set forth by the state, be denied their fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states? That certainly isn't constitutional.
Because you have yet to offer any state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. On the whole, you don't portray yourself as being terribly intelligent.

“Equality for ALL”

Level 2

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#10489 Sep 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Again with the slavery reference. Still bizarre. Not only, but "PRIMARY", "FIRST PURPOSE".... Which would imply, the other functions are secondary, would to exist if not for the PRIMARY purpose.
<quoted text>
Oh Madone! C'mon Dave, will you just admit, you're wrong on this one. It's not "may be", IT IS one of, if not the primary reason, marriage is recognized by the state. Reread some of those citations again.
<quoted text>
Yes....yes they do...because marriage is SURPRISE a male female union.....sexual and emotional. If sex between men and women didn't make babies, would marriage as we know it even exist?
<quoted text>
Sure it can.....it been accepted in every culture that has had conjugal marriage, that not every couple can or will bear offspring. The fact that this is accepted in American marital jurisprudence, doesn't change the marriage procreation link, or procreation as a function of marriage. The marriage form, male female, is still the form that produces the next generation. 100% of same sex union are by composition, sterile, thus, NO same sex marriage will produce offspring, not to mention, no man will become pregnant.
<quoted text>
The difference is in the form itself. Not a single same sex union will bear offspring that is the biological product of both participants. That's a fact. Some male female couples cannot, nor will not. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you're here because your Mom and Dad had sex, coitus, to quote Sheldon Cooper, Ph.D.
You wish to change the standard, male female, upon which marriage is based, and then argue the state cannot impose a different standard. That defies logic. Why not just ask the state to treat one of you like a woman, a male wife. Maybe that's the right approach, argue its discriminatory to exclude men from the legal title of wife, or a woman from the legal title of husband. Yeah...that's the ticket.
Then, if you believe your husband-wife, conjugal marriage, procreation theory is the fundamental foundation definition of marriage, did the Supreme Court not uphold DOMA's federal definition of marriage as 1 man and 1 woman?

Wouldn't that have been enough of a justification for congress to enact such a definition?

Windsor 2013.

Level 1

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#10490 Sep 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah...that's the ticket.
Your mother was lying to you Pietro Armando.

“Equality for ALL”

Level 2

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#10491 Sep 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Really....do you think infertile opposite sex couple marrying is something new? Just created to ban same sex marriage? They've ALWAYS been allowed to marry, no no question regarding the marriage procreation link. Court cases dating back over 150 yrs or say have linked marriage and procreation, and guess what? That's right infertile couples married without that link being severed.
And no, infertile couples marrying is not something new. They have always married. But because the state has always allowed them to marry with no expectation of procreation, works against your argument denying same-sex couples marriage rights. That you fail to realize this calls into question your ability to put forth any cogent argument.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10492 Sep 27, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but YOU missed it......that's the point......both marriage and procreation have been made FUNDAMENTAL rights......that DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE TO GO TOGETHER!!!
No, it doesn't mean they HAVE TO, it does mean, based on those court cases which date back over 150 years, they're expected to. As for marriage being a fundamental right, it is based on the monogamous conjugal view of
marriage, no other. Not ssm, not polygamy, not siblings.
I don't give a damn about your family history or how long they have been married.....
I sense some hostility....I was simply providing my family background as it relates to marriage as YOU DID YOURS!
.my aunt and uncle have been married over 35 years, my stepmother has been married over 25 years.......both have been married longer this time than previously........and guess what, they both see my marriage as being NO DIFFERENT than theirs!!!
That commendable.
Sorry, but YOU don't get it and NEVER will......
Sigh,...yes I do Nor....some states changed the rules, changed the foundation upon which marriage has been built upon since the birth of the Republic, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. So yeah...I get that.
.today in the 21st century.....MARRIAGE DOES INVOLVE SAME-SEX COUPLES
From a legal standpoint, yes, but in the larger cultural social sense? The collective mindset of marriage is that of a male female union. Why wouldn't it be? Even simply based on numbers, the percent of all marriages that are same sex is still very small, and female ones out number their male counter parts by a significant margin.
and sooner than later it will be like that in ALL 50 states!!!
Perhaps it will.....and perhaps it won't be the only significant change in marriage law . We might even see some form of plural marriage legalized.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10493 Sep 27, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
And no, infertile couples marrying is not something new. They have always married. But because the state has always allowed them to marry with no expectation of procreation,
No expectation of individual couples, yes, marriage as recognized union, no. The exceptions didn't, nor dom't invalidate the rule, or the expectation. Thanks for the honesty, though.
works against your argument denying same-sex couples marriage rights. That you fail to realize this calls into question your ability to put forth any cogent argument.
No it doesn't. ".....denying same sex couples marriage rights"?....a number of relationships are "denied marriage rights, what makes same sex relationships so special in that regard? They yell the loudest? Same sex marriage changes the rule. The exception now becomes the rule, marriage is reduced to nothing more than an emotional connection between two people, regardless of gender composition, and as as a means of acquiring "happiness" for said people. Don't be surprised if further changes are made.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10494 Sep 27, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Your mother was lying to you Pietro Armando.
About what? That the Reverend Al's Mom and Dad had sex, it WASN't the stork who brought babies? Or this no God that you acknowledge, that we pop into this physical existence with not rhyme or reason, and hit the dirt at the end and that's it? What did she lie to me about Rev Al?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10495 Sep 27, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Then, if you believe your husband-wife, conjugal marriage, procreation theory is the fundamental foundation definition of marriage, did the Supreme Court not uphold DOMA's federal definition of marriage as 1 man and 1 woman?
What theory? All those court cases based on theory? Still can't bring yourself to admit it, huh? S'okay. You will eventually, I have faith in you. As to SCOTUS, they simply confirmed what some individual states have done, redefine marriage. They didn't impose it nationwide.
Wouldn't that have been enough of a justification for congress to enact such a definition?
They did with that view of marriage in 1996, didn't they.
Windsor 2013.
Taxes, pure and simple, besides, no imposition of SSM, nationwide.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10496 Sep 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
No expectation of individual couples, yes, marriage as recognized union, no.
Were you attempting to articulate a thought, or was this merely an attempt to butcher the English language?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10497 Sep 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they are treated differently. Different foundation, male female vs as same sex. Presumptions, as in presumption of paternity do not apply....
You have been corrected on this falsehood multiple times. There is no longer any way to describe repeating this other than LYING! Does it not bother you that everyone knows what a big fat liar you are?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min JRB 1,579,418
Southerners memorialize war heroes San francisc... 3 min El Rey del Mundo 1
Primates ('whites') Seem to be Hiding A Big Big... 7 min The Righteous Axe 2
The Hegemony of the Western World & the USA Emp... 9 min White Power NOT T... 1
News Trump's lack of moral compass leaves America on... 2 hr UIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 22
What the 6,000 man White Nationalist rally mean... 2 hr SBT 58
Black males are Garbage men 2 hr SBT 1
Will people start destroying monuments to Liber... 5 hr Sadbuttrue 28
I have token white friends. 5 hr Sadbuttrue 65
News On Twitter, Trump accuses blacks of racism thre... 6 hr Sadbuttrue 89
Cavebeasts of Topix 8 hr Fun Facts 30
More from around the web