Supreme Court rules that police can take DNA samples when you're arrested

Grand Potentate

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Messages
38,967
What do you guys think about this? Harveybirdman This right up your alley. This is fucking bullshit IMO and just one further step in them creating a database file on every one of us.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/...tml?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=1&

Justices Allow Police to Take D.N.A. Samples After Arrests

By ADAM LIPTAK

Published: June 3, 2013

WASHINGTON — Police may take D.N.A. samples from people arrested for serious crimes, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 5-to-4 decision.
The federal government and 28 states authorize the practice, and law enforcement officials say it is a valuable tool for investigating unsolved crimes. But the court said the testing was justified by a different reason: to identify the suspect in custody.
“When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, “taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s D.N.A. is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”
Justice Antonin Scalia summarized his dissent from the bench, a rare move signaling deep disagreement. He accused the majority of an unsuccessful sleight of hand, one that “taxes the credulity of the credulous.” The point of D.N.A. testing as it is actually practiced, he said, is to solve cold cases, not to identify the suspect in custody.
But the Fourth Amendment forbids searches without reasonable suspicion to gather evidence about an unrelated crime, he said, a point the majority did not dispute.
“Make no mistake about it: because of today’s decision, your D.N.A. can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason,” Justice Scalia said from the bench.
The case featured an alignment of justices that scrambled the usual ideological alliances. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion while Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Justice Scalia’s dissent.
Justice Scalia has been a strong voice for Fourth Amendment rights this term. In recent months, he joined his three liberal allies from Monday’s decision, along with other justices, to form majorities that limited the use of drug sniffing dogs outside homes and the drawing of blood in drunken driving investigations.
Justice Breyer, who generally votes with the court’s liberal wing, was on the other side from his usual allies in all three of the recent Fourth Amendment decisions.
Monday’s ruling, Maryland v. King, No. 12-207, arose from the collection of D.N.A. in 2009 from Alonzo Jay King Jr. after his arrest on assault charges in Wicomico County, Md. His D.N.A. profile, obtained by swabbing his cheek, matched evidence in from a 2003 rape case, and he was convicted of that crime.
The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that a state law authorizing D.N.A. collection from people arrested but not yet convicted violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches.
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the “quick and painless” swabbing procedure was a search under the First Amendment, meaning it had to be justified as reasonable under the circumstances. The search was reasonable, he said, given “the need for law enforcement officers in a safe and accurate way to process and identify the persons and possessions they must take into custody.”
Such identification, he said, “is no different than matching an arrestee’s face to a wanted poster of a previously unidentified suspect; or matching tattoos to known gang members to reveal a criminal affiliation; or matching the arrestee’s fingerprints to those recovered from a crime scene.”
The information retrieved through DNA testing as performed by law enforcement officials is limited, Justice Kennedy wrote, and whether “the testing at issue in this case reveals any private medical information at all is open to dispute.”
In dissent, Justice Scalia wrote the identification was not the point of the testing. Mr. King’s identity was thoroughly established before the DNA testing, Justice Scalia said, as officials had his full name, race, sex, height, weight, date of birth and address.
Moreover, the testing took months to complete, the justice added.
Nor was there a serious dispute about the purpose of the Maryland law under review, he wrote. The law said one purpose of the testing was “as part of an official investigation into a crime.” Chief Justice Roberts, in staying the state court decision while the Supreme Court considered the case, acknowledged that the law “provides a valuable tool for investigating unsolved crimes and thereby helping to remove violent offenders from the generals population.”
The law authorized testing for purposes of identification, Justice Scalia wrote, but only for missing people and human remains. It said nothing about identifying arrestees.
“Solving crimes is a noble objective,” Justice Scalia concluded, “but it occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law-enforcement searches. The Fourth Amendment must prevail.”
All 50 states require the collection of D.N.A. from people convicted of felonies. After Mr. King was convicted of assault, there would have been no Fourth Amendment violation had his D.N.A. been collected and tested, Justice Scalia wrote.
“So the ironic result of the court’s error is this: The only arrestees to whom the outcome here will ever make a difference are those who have been acquitted of the crimes of arrest.”
From the bench, Justice Scalia repeatedly invoked the generation that fought the Revolutionary War and framed the Constitution. “The proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties,” he said, “would not have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”
 
Conservative justices arguing in favor of government intrusion? Scalia joined by liberal judges in dissent? Just what the fuck is going on here?

Also, for those outraged at this development, how do you feel about the policy of fingerprinting at booking?
 
Not a fan of fingerprinting either, but there's a world of difference between having someone press their fingerprints down on a pad of ink (all digital nowadays anyway) and sticking a needle in their arm or a stick in their mouth.

What's that?

Do you think there is a possibility that the sticks may have previously been up someone's ass? I'll refrain from speculating on who's ass may have housed those sticks prior to their new role... Ben Stein.
 
So you don't mind if I come around your place Thursday night and stick something down your mouth? See you at 7.

Am I actually fielding an irrelevant appeal from a student of law? That's, like, Logical Fallacy 101. If I have committed a crime and have high-hopes of committing more then you're damn right I don't want my D.N.A in the system. If I'm innocent and plan to stay that way, then I don't really give a fuck. I mean, unless they combine my D.N.A. with Mastodon D.N.A. from those islands off Siberia that were in last months National Geographic and then tried to frame me for some sort of rampage which would be totally out of character for me and my normal D.N.A.

I don't know man, you raise a lot of interesting questions. What if they combined me with a Sabre-toothed Tiger, though? You know? Weird shit like that... Dr. Moreau

...or worse.
 
Not a fan of fingerprinting either, but there's a world of difference between having someone press their fingerprints down on a pad of ink (all digital nowadays anyway) and sticking a needle in their arm or a stick in their mouth.

What's really the difference? They both identify you uniquely.
 
Philosphically and legally, let's get this straight. Police must have a valid search warrant to put a GPS tracking device on a car on the public streets for a prolonged time to track the movements of the car under the mosaic and trespass theories of the 4th Amendment, but not to stick a swab in the mouth of a person who has been arrested (but not had any test made to that mere accusation), huh? Which is more intrusive?





Your DNA provides much more than just your identity. You ok with a bunch of asshole cops knowing you are likely to develop male breast cancer? Or how about the FBI knowing that you have a particular gene that is associated with pedophilia? It seems you have the gene that leads to alcoholism so maybe the local cops should pull you over every night just to make sure you're not driving drunk.


So, devils advocate, why are they allowed to do a breathalyzer? Isn't that mere accusation that a cop suspects you of being drunk?

To your second point, yes, the idea that the DNA could be used against you is a compelling reason not to allow this.

And again, can't you just refuse like you can refuse a breathalyzer? Along this same line, if you are likely to get in trouble, should you refuse the breathalyzer?
 
DNA requires technology that is not readily available such as powder or cyanoacrylate in the case of fingerprinting or in terms of the method of analysis either.


So there's nothing to worry about? If they're not equipped to run it unless there are serious suspicions then why is this even an issue?

Your DNA provides much more than just your identity. You ok with a bunch of asshole cops knowing you are likely to develop male breast cancer? Or how about the FBI knowing that you have a particular gene that is associated with pedophilia? It seems you have the gene that leads to alcoholism so maybe the local cops should pull you over every night just to make sure you're not driving drunk.

I wouldn't care if they knew I was prone to male breast cancer. Maybe they'd send me a kick-ass Hallmark card. If I have a gene associated with pedophilia then I'd just have to try my hardest not to rape any children. So far... 100% success rate. Drunk drivers should not be on the road.

However, like you said in the first part I quoted, I sincerely doubt that law-enforcement has the resources or interest in pursuing avenues of speculative prosecution.
 
For today, perhaps. But once they've got your DNA on file there is nothing to stop them. Just hope you're never falsely accused.

Were I to be falsely accused, I believe DNA evidence would work in my favor. Haven't there been cases where men facing imminent execution were exonerated by conflicting DNA samples?

The whole point of this decision is that they're allowed to take your DNA regardless of whether they suspect you of a crime.

If I weren't suspected of a crime they'd better have a good fucking reason for arresting me in the first place... and a Hallmark card with a couple of dogs on it explaining how sorry they are.
 
Two articles in the NYT today on this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/...-was-right-to-allow-cheek-swabs.html?src=recg
Why the Court Was Right to Allow Cheek Swabs
  • by AKHIL REED AMAR and NEAL K. KATYAL
SOMETHING astonishing happened Monday: Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court’s longest-serving member and one of its most conservative justices, joined three liberal justices in a sharply worded dissent arguing for the rights of criminal suspects.
The court decided, 5 to 4, that the Constitution permits the police to swab the cheeks of those arrested of serious crimes, and then do DNA tests on the saliva samples to see if the suspects are associated with other crimes. Justice Scalia joined three liberal justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — in dissenting.
DNA is already revolutionizing law enforcement. The ability for police to use cheek swabs of arrestees rests on a threadbare majority. The closeness of the vote, and the unusual coalitions on either side, suggest that the matter is far from settled. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who was part of the majority, rightly called the case, Maryland v. King, “perhaps the most important criminal procedure case that this Court has heard in decades.”
As prosecutors, police agencies and civil libertarians consider the ruling’s implications, Justice Scalia’s stark dissent — and the fact that President Obama’s two appointees to the court so far agreed with it — makes it worthy of scrutiny, even if he was on the losing side. His argument is deeply flawed, because he did not get his history quite right.
Justice Scalia summarized his scathing dissent from the bench — a rare act that signals sharp disagreement. His opinion opened with these lines: “The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence. That prohibition is categorical and without exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment.”
But the Fourth Amendment’s text is not nearly so simple as he makes it out to be. It merely requires that all searches and seizures be not “unreasonable.” Its words do not distinguish between intrusions seeking “evidence of crime” and other sorts of intrusions — say, to collect revenue, or preserve public safety.
Justice Scalia failed to identify even one source from the founders articulating the ultraprecise rule that he claims is the central meaning of the Fourth Amendment. And his version of the Fourth Amendment would lead to absurd results.
The government, for example, permits searches at the border to prevent contaminated livestock and plants from entering the country — is such authority permitted only because these searches are not seeking “evidence of crime?” If so, if what happens if the government at some point criminalizes the intentional introduction of diseased animals and vegetables? Why should these searches magically now become unconstitutional?
To take another example: the government requires people to pass through airport metal detectors, both to find evidence of crimes or the tools to commit them, like guns and bombs, and to save lives. These searches occur even when there is no basis for suspicion. (Consider the controversies about searches of small children and wheelchair-using elderly people.)
Justice Scalia properly notes that the Constitution’s framers loathed “general warrants,” but these colonial-era warrants had odious features that cheek swabs lack. These general warrants were issued by judges ex parte — that is, in secret, without the affected citizen present — and blocked the citizen from later taking his complaint to a civil jury and seeking damages against the oppressive official. The Fourth Amendment’s words do indeed prohibit general warrants — warrants lacking “probable cause” — but this language regulating warrants simply does not apply where no warrants are involved. For example, the police may stop and frisk without warrants, even where they lack probable cause. Certain kinds of warrantless searches — at the border, in airports, in stop-and-frisk searches and elsewhere — may exist even though a warrant to authorize these very same actions would indeed be unconstitutional.
Akhil Reed Amar is a professor of law and political science at Yale. Neal K. Katyal is a former acting solicitor general of the United States, a professor of national security law at Georgetown and a partner at the law firm Hogan Lovells.
In other words, general warrants, which were essentially “get-out-of-jail-free cards” for the police, to insulate them from civil liability, raised special problems at the time of the nation’s founding, when the framers were concerned about the arbitrary exercise of imperial authority from London.
Warrants were not always the framers’ solution; sometimes warrants themselves were the problem. And here, unlike the secret ex parte generalized warrant, the DNA in the Maryland case was collected pursuant to a law enacted by the Legislature. In approving the law, Maryland’s lawmakers knew they would run the risk of being swept up in the DNA database themselves — and balanced that risk against the potential benefits. That is nothing like a secret warrant that could be aimed at a single unpopular individual. To be sure, the framers disliked certain kinds of warrants, but when no warrant has been issued — as in the cheek swab situation — the framers simply required that the search or seizure must be reasonable.
This is precisely the question that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the five-justice majority, squarely confronted in this landmark case: Is a policy of swabbing and DNA testing only certain arrestees — who have not been convicted and may never be convicted — truly reasonable?
On one hand, the swabbing itself is not particularly intrusive — no more so than a fingerprint or a lineup. Proper DNA testing can simultaneously exonerate innocent people who have been wrongly accused and find the bad guys — a true win-win situation — and in the process, this amazing new technology can powerfully deter crime. On the other hand, DNA testing without strict safeguards can reveal lots more personal information than a mere fingerprint. (For example, who is the suspect’s actual biological father or child?) If members of racial minorities are more likely to be wrongly arrested, they and their relatives will loom disproportionately large in the government’s DNA database.
Reasonable minds can differ on this. And therein lies the real genius of the Fourth Amendment. Contrary to Justice Scalia’s view, the framers did not answer the DNA question in 1791. Rather, the framers posed the question for us, their posterity. The distinction between criminal evidence-gathering and all sorts of other government programs and purposes is not an all-purpose touchstone or talisman. Rather, we must ponder how intrusive a given search policy is, how discriminatory it might be in application, how well justified and well administered it is, how democratically accountable it is, how it might bear upon human dignity, and so on.
The words of the Fourth Amendment mean exactly what they say. Warrantless searches are unconstitutional only if they are “unreasonable.” That rule, and no other, is the true “heart of the Fourth Amendment.”
Akhil Reed Amar is a professor of law and political science at Yale. Neal K. Katyal is a former acting solicitor general of the United States, a professor of national security law at Georgetown and a partner at the law firm Hogan Lovells.

And from the NYT Editorial Board:
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/...dna-and-suspicionless-searches.html?src=rechp

DNA and Suspicionless Searches
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Alonzo Jay King Jr. was arrested in Maryland on assault charges in 2009. When he was booked into jail, the police took a sample of his DNA by swabbing the inside of his cheek without a warrant to collect his DNA or probable cause to think it would link him to any crime. His DNA profile matched evidence from a rape in 2003, and he was convicted of that rape.
Maryland’s highest court last year wisely struck down the state law that permits DNA collection from people who have been charged but not yet convicted because it violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches.
On Monday, the Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, overturned that ruling and upheld the Maryland law.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, pretended that collecting DNA is like fingerprinting, a legitimate part of the police booking procedure to identify a suspect.
But the main reason law enforcement seeks DNA sampling is not to get an accurate name. It is to connect the suspect to other cases, unrelated to the arrest, by matching the DNA found at other, older crime scenes, when there is no reasonable suspicion to do so.
That is exactly the use of DNA that Justice Samuel Alito Jr. alluded to during oral argument in February when he called this “perhaps the most important criminal procedure case that this court has heard in decades” — because the use of DNA could help in investigating unsolved crimes with “a very minimal intrusion on personal privacy.”
The federal government and 28 states currently permit DNA collection before conviction. The decision severely undermines fundamental Fourth Amendment principles that protect individuals against unjustified searches and incursions on privacy by law enforcement.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the dissent that was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, eviscerated the logic of the majority opinion.
“The court’s assertion that DNA is being taken, not to solve crimes, but to identify those in the state’s custody, taxes the credulity of the credulous,” he said. “Solving unsolved crimes is a noble objective, but it occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law-enforcement searches.”
That has been a bedrock rule in court decisions about the Fourth Amendment, Justice Scalia explained, which the majority has cast aside. Until now, the Supreme Court has allowed suspicionless searches — also called “special needs” searches by the court — only when there is some justification other than discovering evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
For example, the court has approved such searches in the form of random drug tests of railroad employees to ensure safety of the railroads.
In this case, there was neither a basis for suspicion nor a special need. “This search had nothing to do with establishing King’s identity,” Justice Scalia wrote, warning that “as an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”
 
I was honestly surprised Scalia came down on the opposing side


This actually didn't surprise me at all. Scalia's too pro-personal liberties to compromise those at the expense of security.

Further, while he's not a fan of generally established "right to privacy" stuff deriving from selective incorporation of Am.XIV and Substantive Due Process, he's more prone to following established jurisprudence simply because it's on the books. Very precedent minded.

Thomas, on the other hand, doesn't agree at all with SubDP and rejects the very notion of ruling by it. He'd depart from Scalia on that principle - No right of privacy exists in the first place, so no need to address established jurisprudence.

Breyer separates from Ginsburg b/c he's a bigger fan of Federal police power than Ginsburg, who errs more on the side of individual rights.

EDIT: This reaffirms my belief that Justice Scalia is the greatest mind on the court.
 
[quote name="hossoso" url="/t/60993/willamina-city-leaders-considering-an-illegal-alien-free-zone/0_30#post_968051"]Next stop: Police State
http://www.katu.com/news/local/17065941.html
[/quote]

Okay? Despite how well you seem to think you know me and your shotgun conjecture proclivity, I spent several years working for groups interested in expanding mixed and low-income housing (see: Yesler Terracehttp://www.kuow.org/post/yesler-terrace-mixed-income-neighborhoods-and-seattle-housing-authority) options in Seattle to the ends of eliminating or reducing economic/racial/societal segregation, traffic, crime, urban/suburban/exurban food deserts, cost of living for the newly relocated suburban poverty enclaves (you do know that a greater percentage of people live below the poverty line in suburban areas than in the 'inner-city' now, don't you?), and increasing the effectiveness and availability of low-cost transit options in the areas that need them the most. I no longer work actively in the field because Federal and State funding dried up but I still volunteer in the initiative and proposal side for El Centro de la Raza.

I'm not sure why you posted something about illegal aliens, especially Latin Americans. I spend almost half the year in Latin America, by choice, because I fucking love everything about it. Ningun ser humano es ilegal. Also, the article you posted is about a small town in Oregon. What could that possibly have to do with me? Do you think Seattle is in Oregon?

I still don't know what you were on about stating the I hate black people. I just don't like basketball players or rappers - regardless of skin color.
 
So much lawyering talk.

I can see this been useful if they can solve some of the cold cases, but again it can be abused if the definition of "series crime" is not clarified.
 
Actually disappointed its not on YouTube or something. It's the Ethics in America series, some of Scalia's few public discussions. I know I saw it from videos at my college library in the '90s. If you can watch it it's well worth it.

http://www.learner.org/resources/series81.html


It's not letting me watch the videos online. Might have to resort to my library.

EDIT: NVM - got it. Thanks for this. Scalia is my favorite Justice and I love to watch his old CSPAN clips and whatnot. Thanks.
 
It doesn't matter how they define serious crime. They will always inch it forward until eventually jay walking is a serious crime. This isn't paranoia, this is what they do.

I guess I agree. I think this is a good example of slippery slope.

I think we are still far from a police state, but I can definitely see that we are moving towards that which I personally don't want.
 
It doesn't matter how they define serious crime. They will always inch it forward until eventually jay walking is a serious crime. This isn't paranoia, this is what they do.

It's refreshing to interact with someone so convinced of their own infallibility that they can discount the risk of making such absolutist statements. Does the increasing acceptance and legalization of gay marriage and marijuana just confound the fuck out of you? They both buck your theory and your (clearly) insane, conspiratorial and fantastically paranoid outlook on who's who, what's what, and how things ought to be.
 
hossoso hossoso I cannot believe that you would deny that laws have become increasingly statutory and dramatically expanded in scope over the last 50 years.

Further, control over citizens is exactly what every government ever has aspired to throughout all time. It's the nature of the beast. The US is fortunate to have safeguards built into the Constitution to prevent this, but all it takes is entrenched legislatures and socialist presidents to knock down the barricades.

How else to bring gay marriage under federal control than to legalize it? Once pot is legal, black markets drop out and you have all the federal legislation enacted to control "your" MJ.
 
hossoso hossoso I cannot believe that you would deny that laws have become increasingly statutory and dramatically expanded in scope over the last 50 years.

This must be a very difficult time for you but you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that I think laws fluctuate (expand and retract) with the times. This country is still an experiment. But, I think we can all agree that Prohibition must've sucked, right?


hossoso hossoso How else to bring gay marriage under federal control than to legalize it?

Huh. Would you care to explain what this means, how it benefits the federal government or how it is used to manipulate homosexual relationships? Is it reverse lebensraum? I bet it's reverse lebensraum.
 
Dude, they're trying to outlaw large sodas. How much more evidence of the rise of Moonbat Paternalism do you require?


Same thing with asbestos, seatbelts, smoking and tight-rope walking without a net, it's even illegal to set fire to your own goddamned home! I don't think the soda controversy is a very weighty issue. It might affect positive changes, it might be forgotten. I don't really care. If you earn yourself a reputation as a reactionary, people will become inured to your protests in the future and it will be easier to dismiss your legitimate complaints as coming from someone that just protests everything.

What this really boils down to is... refills. Just go to a place that offers free refills and thank God you've got some real first-world problems.

C'mon man, you have a maid. Just stop.

My mother and father have maids at their properties, mostly due to them being abroad often. When I spend a few days at one of my parents empty places and the ladies are there, we have an understanding that they don't have to do anything. If it is pointed out that something was not cleaned or watered they just tell my parents that I was working and couldn't be bothered.

The house I rent in Mexico has a maid's quarters inside the walls. She doesn't have anywhere else to live and her pay comes out of the rent I agree on with the owner, it goes up every year and I know she does pretty well for herself. She's always thrilled to see me and is very social and helpful for the first couple of days but after that I see less and less of her. Most of the time I only see her out in the courtyard with her friends. Sometimes she tells me she needs more money for cleaning supplies but she never cleans. I could go on about her eccentricities but no one cares.

--------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - -
Just to re-cap the thread thus far:
*I've been told I hate black people.
*I have some connection to a town in Oregon that is trying to bar illegal immigrants from entry to their town.
*I am colluding with or abetting the Federal Government in suppressing gay marriage by supporting marriage equality.
*Not endorsing high-fructose freedom vehemently enough.

For just one and a half pages long this thread has been quite a roller-coaster. It began with me not really feeling strongly one way or the other about DNA swabs at booking and now were up to me not really feeling strongly about black, illegal immigrant, homosexuals getting married under the authority and jurisdiction of COINTELPRO to undermine the gay community through an aggressive campaign of tolerance and support while everyone is shotgunning mini-kegs of Mtn. Dew.
 
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


As a man of conviction and agency, I assume you find that sort of armistice as deeply dissatisfying as I do. I just hope that fate will grant us the time on Earth to one day see the issue settled conclusively and allow the victor the opportunity, no... the duty, to triumphantly shake his dick in the losers stupid fucking face.
 
^ until then lets see a cat fight.

So... DNA, now all our phone calls are NSA property. Awesome thing that Patriot Act.
 
Just to re-cap the thread thus far:
*I've been told I hate black people.
*I have some connection to a town in Oregon that is trying to bar illegal immigrants from entry to their town.
*I am colluding with or abetting the Federal Government in suppressing gay marriage by supporting marriage equality.
*Not endorsing high-fructose freedom vehemently enough.

I've been repeatedly libeled in this thread. I've been falsely accused of some disgusting behavior that only exists in the mind of the poster...

hossoso hossoso Eres tú mirrey?

... but this hurts the most.

Just add it to the list, buddy.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom