IT MUST BE
AN ANTI-MATTER
MATTER
SO DIF BE IT
A SAME
NOT A SAME
NIXY SEXY
SO DIF
MATT’D SAME
NO TOO TO
SAME SEX
“SAME SEX”
FIRST THE COSMOS
OF REAL MATTER
& SAME AS DIF
NO TO TOO
“SAME SEX”
O DIFFERENT SEX
NOT FAIR
FOR GREATER RIGHTS
THENCE WHENCE IF
OH NO - OH, NO!
NOT THE SAME O
THE SAME - IT BE DIF
CAN’T HAVE IT LEGIT
AS THE SAME FOR SAME
AS SAME AS FOR DIF
CAN’T HAVE IT LEGIT
AS FOR DIF AS SAME
AS SAME FOR SAME
IT CAN’T BE
SAME SEX FOR ALL
AS DIF SEX FOR SAME
IT CAN’T BE
DIF SEX FOR DIF SEX
AND “SAME” FOR SAME
ONE CAN BE NATURAL…
ONE OTHER TWO UNNATURAL…
… FAMILY MARRIAGE LAWS
BUT SAME SEX MARRIAGE
NOT BUT A BLACK HOLE
OF ILLEGIT ANTI-MATTER
NO TO “SAME SEX MARRIAGE”
AS SUCH ISN’T FAIR TO DIF
TO DIF SEX COUPLES AS DIF
AS PER PUBLIC RESTROOMS
AN UNFAIRNESS TO “SAME”
AND GOODBYE TO DIF SEX HEADS
A DOMINO EFFECT TIPPIN’
SO SWEAT THE REST OF HEADS
GREATER RIGHTS TO SAME IF TO “SAME”
NO, AGAIN, TO “SAME SEX…”
IT NOT THE SAME BUT DIF
IT CAN’T BE “SAME” IF DIF FOR SAME.
J.P.HOGAN
[LATE NIGHT SUPREMELY RISEN INSPIRED LINGUISTIC CIVILITIES AS POSTED & DATED]
A refreshed
ocularity as per the
US Constitution as
a purposed dedication
as a spectacle
of & for the
New Testament Senator
Rand Paul is sightable for
standing tall on
the original spectacle
o‘ such and not efforts since
to cloud - to cloud
our First Amendment barring
of Congress from a “re-specting” per
the original humble spectacle o’
the founders in
their
unanimaty.
Our First is
that it is not
“Congress may pass
no law abridging
freedom of religion”
but is
what it is
as a referencing
to the spectacular bold
establishment in
the New Testament
with “Congress shall make no law
respecting an
establishment of
religion…”.
It is an odd turn o‘
law for citation siting
and sighting
since it seems for all
the other ways it could have been
written to be, as it has been
recently suggested to be,
o’ meaning,
it fits only with
the above attempt
o’ sharing that
a re-establishment has become
popular - more popular than the
attempts to a popular post-Constitu-
tionalism convenient to a new
marching for secular
socialism.
It seems
popular
now that it is
re-established
that the First
Amendment is phrased
just so to
survive the phases
o’ distrust and assaults
with “respecting”
critical only if
a “spectacle” existent
already in
an establishment o’
religion.
It is a well -
well set odd phrase so o’
the “do ordain and establish” o’
o’ the humble “subscribing”
under God
so that “Year of our Lord” o’
our Founders’ Christianity and
its calender as o’
else could they have barred Congress
from infringing o’
o’ the struggle
in America
for freedoms
to be o’ the type o’
Christians - Christians so
many were trying
to be?
For the oddity
of the First
to work o’
o’ not a useless o’
random wordiness
it seems
there both
has to be - be o’
o’ an ‘establishment
of religion’
already
and it
as a “spectacle”
o’ o’
“spectacular”
(boldness?)
for there to be
“respecting” bar for Congress
to be
to any law o’
o’
“re-specting.”
So it seems
our Founders established
o’
o’ humbly
under God
in that Year o’
o’ their Lord o’
o’ that our Constitution
is a spectacle o’
o’ an establishment
in the New
Testament
and
the establishments there o’
o’ in of
“marriage”
“creation”
and all
therefore of
man and women.
So technically we
may not -
may not have freedom -
Freedom from religion
O’
o’ but such that
local jurisdictions
may render
o’ of.
Hmmm?
J.P. Hogan
[Rejustified Facebook.com/jpeterhogan status posting - (more) poetic of 25th March of 2013]
[note: What to do with popular attempt long of suggesting we could just say we are now in a post-Constitutional new world order and like President Obama with his 2nd Inaugural can be legally of such spectacle of his of orating like: I just swore the oath - BUT!!! I won’t feel beholden to it or our Constitution…?]