Rob's House Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 I do agree in practice. But at what point does it become a federal issue? Currently there are what, 20+ states that have adopted constitutional amendments that ban same sex marriage... which runs counter to the 14th amendment. While a constitutional amendment defining marriage either way is a mistake, how long do we let a segment of the population dangle in limbo? What's the middle ground? The 14th amendment argument can certainly be raised, but it has its weaknesses. Just as a gay man can't marry another man, I as a straight man am not allowed to marry another man. And just as I am allowed to marry a woman, so too is a gay man. And it's Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve. Slam! In your face!
CosmicBills Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 The 14th amendment argument can certainly be raised, but it has its weaknesses. Just as a gay man can't marry another man, I as a straight man am not allowed to marry another man. And just as I am allowed to marry a woman, so too is a gay man. And it's Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve. Slam! In your face! I walked into that one.
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 I do agree in practice. But at what point does it become a federal issue? Currently there are what, 20+ states that have adopted constitutional amendments that ban same sex marriage... which runs counter to the 14th amendment. While a constitutional amendment defining marriage either way is a mistake, how long do we let a segment of the population dangle in limbo? What's the middle ground? It becomes a federal issue under the full faith and credit clause, when states aren't recognizing marriages in other states (all those laws stating "A gay marriage from another state won't be recognized here" should be killed post-haste). And when federal rights and privileges are dependent on marital status (e.g. tax filings), in which case the federal government does precisely what it does now: recognizes the marital status of a couple as defined by the license granted in the state of residence when they achieve such marital status. Y'know...like it works now. Because the states already don't define marriage homogeneously, but are required to recognize other states' marriages, and the federal government does defer to the states' definition when necessary. And yes, that means gays in some states won't be able to get married. So...move. Homosexuals tend to have higher liquidity (no kids) and greater mobility than us hetero heathens...which means states that discriminate will soon enough bemoan the lost tax revenue and change their ways. Until it gets to the US Supreme Court, who'll cite their interracial marriage decision about 40 years back as a foundation for not denying gays the right to marry (in a 5-4 decision - the minority opinion will point out that marriage being strictly hetero is such an ancient and self-evident concept that it ultimately carries the weight of a 'common law' legal definition.) Then the problem's solved. But as long as it's not codified into federal law in any manner, I don't give a ****. If North Carolina wants to pass obnoxious laws, I consider it their right. But a federal Constitutional amendment on it either way is utter nonsense, and DOMA should be taken out behind the Capitol, shot in the head, and buried in a shallow unmarked grave.
truth on hold Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 Sorry Joe, that dog won't hunt. There is no "assigned" God, nor should there be. Pick your own or pick your neighbors The United States Republic has freedom OF religion and does not need a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, you name it, God to be followed. What it does need, and you are trying to twist, is the common belief that citizens rights are inalienable, and do NOT come from the government. So try that "whose God" nonsense on some like thinking libs, save it here. So "rights" come from God, but you don't know which one , so you don't know which rights. And if you don't buy into that useless dictum then your only choice is to believe people are created in government run factories?
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) So "rights" come from God, but you don't know which one , so you don't know which rights. And if you don't buy into that useless dictum then your only choice is to believe people are created in government run factories? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL1Xt3T9ZnY&feature=youtube_gdata_player The quoted post has absolutely nothing to do with the post it was made in response to. First of all, inalienabe mean unseperable, and has nothing to do with divinity, and then... government people factories??? What the !@#$ is that ****??? Did you bump your head??? Edited September 6, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker
B-Man Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 The quoted post has absolutely nothing to do with the post it was made in response to. First of all, inalienabe mean unseperable, and has nothing to do with divinity, and then... government people factories??? What the !@#$ is that ****??? Did you bump your head??? Don't bother, my response went right over Joey's head and we got the standard....Oh , you must mean (insert illogical nonsense here) sad .
truth on hold Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 The quoted post has absolutely nothing to do with the post it was made in response to. First of all, inalienabe mean unseperable, and has nothing to do with divinity, and then... government people factories??? What the !@#$ is that ****??? Did you bump your head??? Why don't u read your boy b mans posts where he says rights must be god given otherwise they can be taken away by the state, instead of fumbling thru dictionary trying to sound intelligent. So what is it? A government needs a god, even unspecified, or it will undermine peoples rights ? Taliban believe they're acting under strict accordance with gods words, how were the Afghan peoples rights respected under their rule?
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 Why don't u read your boy b mans posts where he says rights must be god given otherwise they can be taken away by the state, instead of fumbling thru dictionary trying to sound intelligent. So what is it? A government needs a god, even unspecified, or it will undermine peoples rights ? Taliban believe they're acting under strict accordance with gods words, how were the Afghan peoples rights respected under their rule? So you did bump your head...
Doc Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 So you did bump your head... I'm thinking he ate paint chips as a child.
Chef Jim Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 I'm thinking he ate paint chips as a child. Unfortunately not enough.
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 I'm thinking he ate paint chips as a child. I think he's got 7' ceilings and a trampoline in the livingroom.
truth on hold Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 I'm thinking he ate paint chips as a child. Better than getting wasted on church wine lol
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 Better than getting wasted on church wine lol Definitely. That **** is horrible.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 Where will the RNC backers not go? Obama wants to take In GOD We Trust off of American currency?? OMG
3rdnlng Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 Where will the RNC backers not go? Obama wants to take In GOD We Trust off of American currency?? OMG I understand he wants to replace it with "Forward". "The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications," the online encyclopedia explains. The slogan "Forward!" reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism. Read more: New Obama slogan has long ties to Marxism, socialism - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/apr/30/new-obama-slogan-has-long-ties-marxism-socialism/#ixzz266ClmEE4 Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
IDBillzFan Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 Wow...was just reading this article and can not possibly understand why the WH hates Israel so much. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/white-house-declines-netanyahu-request-to-meet-with-obama.premium-1.464328
meazza Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 Wow...was just reading this article and can not possibly understand why the WH hates Israel so much. http://www.haaretz.c...remium-1.464328 Israel is one of those subjects that makes nut job leftists go into a frenzy (see jtsp and lybob).
IDBillzFan Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 Israel is one of those subjects that makes nut job leftists go into a frenzy (see jtsp and lybob). I guess he's too busy to meat with Netahyahu because he's meeting in Miami with DJ Laz "The Pimp With The Limp." http://miamiherald.t...he-limp-dj.html Dude is getting a little creepy with these radio spots.
DC Tom Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 I guess he's too busy to meat with Netahyahu because he's meeting in Miami with DJ Laz "The Pimp With The Limp." http://miamiherald.t...he-limp-dj.html Dude is getting a little creepy with these radio spots. Tell me you're joking...
Recommended Posts