Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I cannot and will not argue with the 'spiritual' part. That's between you and God. But the legal part is what can and must be debated because we the people determine the legality of the marriage contract. The license issued by the state, the contract granted by the state, the union recognized by the state. Denying access to this license, these protections, this contract to two committed individuals simply because they do not meet the requirements set forth by someone's interpretation of Scripture is on its face wrong.Of course you do, as long as that person is of the opposite sex.Right...and anti miscegenation laws weren't discriminatory because they applied equally to men and women. Tried and failed. We don't have the right to legally marry the non-familial consenting adult partner of our choice. You do. We don't have the same rights.
Marriage is the legal and spiritual union of one man and one woman, PERIOD.
We do not conduct business based on Scripture in America. If you're looking for a society that DOES legislate according to a Holy mandate, try Iran. We the people make the laws.
And there is no sense, no logic, no valid argument against same sex marriage in America today. Sober, tax paying citizens of the age of majority have the same rights to contract law protections as any other sober, tax paying citizen of the age of majority.
Any view on political conservatives who see that marriage is not in the enumerated powers, and therefore deem it the prerogative of the 50 laboratories of democracy, the states?
Or, in your view, does 'social justice' preempt the Constitution?
Or...a middle view....attempt an amendment.
Since marriage is not in the enumerated powers, and therefore deem it the prerogative of the 50 laboratories of democracy - do you call for the repeal of DOMA so that the federal government will recognize (again as it did for over 200 years) all Civil Marriages entered into under State authority?
>>>>
You seem unaware of the process by which a question is brought before the Court.
I await the origination of your lawsuit.
Since lawyers will pursue any action, for a fee, I'm certain you will be able to find one.
Do, keep me advised.
Um...we are not having problems with jobs and college scholarships. Many of us own the businesses and run the colleges. All we want are equal civil rights. But I can understand you feeling threatened.
You have equal civil rights.
You hate normal people and want to persecute them via AA. Next question.
Anyone who's white and poor in the US has no excuse. Whatever the white poor are doing, they're doing it wrong. They are losers, and deserve to suffer in poverty for their mistakes and poor life choices. Blacks suffered from decades of racism, and deserve a leg up.
Defined by society hundreds of years ago... Do you have quotes by me that indicate that I'm a bigot, or are you talking out of your ass again?
Your disdain for marriage equality makes you a bigot.
Society? What was "kosher", in society, in the past, does not define society today. Things change. People change. Try to come into the 21st century.
I hold no disdain for equality, but I have respect for tradition and the meaning of words. I AM in the 21st century, poet. The dictionary definition of "marriage" is still the legal and spiritual union of one adult man and one adult woman.
You would like to scrap that definition. Perhaps you would like to change it to a union of 2 or more mammals with no restrictions on species, age, sex or the number of participants. Not me. Words have meanings sir. THAT doesn't make me a bigot
I cannot and will not argue with the 'spiritual' part. That's between you and God. But the legal part is what can and must be debated because we the people determine the legality of the marriage contract. The license issued by the state, the contract granted by the state, the union recognized by the state. Denying access to this license, these protections, this contract to two committed individuals simply because they do not meet the requirements set forth by someone's interpretation of Scripture is on its face wrong.Of course you do, as long as that person is of the opposite sex.
Marriage is the legal and spiritual union of one man and one woman, PERIOD.
We do not conduct business based on Scripture in America. If you're looking for a society that DOES legislate according to a Holy mandate, try Iran. We the people make the laws.
And there is no sense, no logic, no valid argument against same sex marriage in America today. Sober, tax paying citizens of the age of majority have the same rights to contract law protections as any other sober, tax paying citizen of the age of majority.
I have no problem with civil unions whatsoever. My problem is with the constant redefinition of words.
Take "racism" for example. A racist used to be a guy in a white robe and a pointy hat that considered one race superior to another. Today, the left is seeking to change that to anyone who disagrees with the President.
What real damage will happen to your marriage, or mine , or anyone else's once same sex marriage equality is established throughout the land? Will you no longer be married? Will you have to be re-married?I cannot and will not argue with the 'spiritual' part. That's between you and God. But the legal part is what can and must be debated because we the people determine the legality of the marriage contract. The license issued by the state, the contract granted by the state, the union recognized by the state. Denying access to this license, these protections, this contract to two committed individuals simply because they do not meet the requirements set forth by someone's interpretation of Scripture is on its face wrong.Of course you do, as long as that person is of the opposite sex.
Marriage is the legal and spiritual union of one man and one woman, PERIOD.
We do not conduct business based on Scripture in America. If you're looking for a society that DOES legislate according to a Holy mandate, try Iran. We the people make the laws.
And there is no sense, no logic, no valid argument against same sex marriage in America today. Sober, tax paying citizens of the age of majority have the same rights to contract law protections as any other sober, tax paying citizen of the age of majority.
I have no problem with civil unions whatsoever. My problem is with the constant redefinition of words.
Take "racism" for example. A racist used to be a guy in a white robe and a pointy hat that considered one race superior to another. Today, the left is seeking to change that to anyone who disagrees with the President.
We saw it with blacks and hispanics and women and disabled. They say they want equal rights but it's just the opposite. They want special treatment in things like jobs and college scholarships. The perverts are playing the same game - take from the normals and give to me.
Dictionary Definition of Marriage courtesy of Merriam-Webster (Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
************************
1. It doesn't mention "spiritual" it references a contractual relationship recognized by law.
2. It includes same-sex Civil Marriage.
3. And yest he legal definition includes Same-sex Couples since there are 10 legal entities in this country that include as part of their legal definition same-sex couples.
What real damage will happen to your marriage, or mine , or anyone else's once same sex marriage equality is established throughout the land? Will you no longer be married? Will you have to be re-married?
Is marriage a stabilizing force in society? What effect comes from denying sober, tax paying Americans from entering this contract?
Failing to recognize and endorsing racism amounts to a tacit approval of racism. The same goes for sexism and homophobia.
I have no problem with civil unions whatsoever. My problem is with the constant redefinition of words.
Take "racism" for example. A racist used to be a guy in a white robe and a pointy hat that considered one race superior to another. Today, the left is seeking to change that to anyone who disagrees with the President.
Affirmative action is persecution. Nothing could be more obvious. THINK`
NO, affirmative action is merely a correction to the fact that most of the wealth is held by white males who would just hire people like them left to their own devices.
The main beneficiary of AA have been white women.
Now, all that said... if you think there isn't prejudice out there still, you are mistaken.
Case in point. They sent out 1300 resumes with obviously white names and obviously names that would used by African Americans. Other than that, the experience on the resumes were pretty much identical.
The people with black sounding names were 50% less likely to get a call-back.
Point 1, Most of the prejudice remaining is fueled by resentment. It's not bad enough that blacks are so over represented on the welfare rolls, since AA, qualified white males have lost out in employment and college admissions.
Point 2. Maybe they don't get call backs because no white man knows how to pronounce Laquishatanyatoma.
In my experience, most blacks with "black sounding names" were raised by parents that don't want to be identified as Americans, but as African Americans. Any person I hire needs to be able to interact with my clients. If they were raised with a resentment against "white society", I really don't need them representing my firm.
bodecea is right. homosexuals are not fighting for scholarships etc...they are fighting for a fundamental right - marriage.
Equal protection. No state can enforce separate but equal. A marriage in one state must be recognized in all other states (full faith and credit). State's cannot hide behind the skirts of "state's rights" to enforce discriminatory laws. Gone are the days of little bigoted fiefdoms. No more George Wallaces or Lester Maddoxes.Social conservatives continue to mistake their loss of power over the personal lives of people unlike them as persecution of social conservatives.
Any view on political conservatives who see that marriage is not in the enumerated powers, and therefore deem it the prerogative of the 50 laboratories of democracy, the states?
Or, in your view, does 'social justice' preempt the Constitution?
Or...a middle view....attempt an amendment.
We saw it with blacks and hispanics and women and disabled. They say they want equal rights but it's just the opposite. They want special treatment in things like jobs and college scholarships. The perverts are playing the same game - take from the normals and give to me.
Since marriage is not in the enumerated powers, and therefore deem it the prerogative of the 50 laboratories of democracy - do you call for the repeal of DOMA so that the federal government will recognize (again as it did for over 200 years) all Civil Marriages entered into under State authority?
>>>>
You seem unaware of the process by which a question is brought before the Court.
I await the origination of your lawsuit.
Since lawyers will pursue any action, for a fee, I'm certain you will be able to find one.
Do, keep me advised.
Were did I ask about lawyers or courts?
You brought up enumerated power and I asked if you supported the repeal of DOMA so that the federal government recognized all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law. That had nothing to do with the courts, it had to do with a legislative action by Congress.
Do you understand how a law is repealed?
Deflect much?
>>>>
Concealed carry is not a contract.Equal protection. No state can enforce separate but equal. A marriage in one state must be recognized in all other states (full faith and credit). State's cannot hide behind the skirts of "state's rights" to enforce discriminatory laws. Gone are the days of little bigoted fiefdoms. No more George Wallaces or Lester Maddoxes.Any view on political conservatives who see that marriage is not in the enumerated powers, and therefore deem it the prerogative of the 50 laboratories of democracy, the states?
Or, in your view, does 'social justice' preempt the Constitution?
Or...a middle view....attempt an amendment.
How about a right to carry issued in one state?
>
I have a big issue also with society changing the definition of words as the years pass.
....... What's this bullshit about redefining "voter" which used to mean land owning white guy, to include women, minorities, and non-land owners?
>>>>
Affirmative action is persecution. Nothing could be more obvious. THINK`
NO, affirmative action is merely a correction to the fact that most of the wealth is held by white males who would just hire people like them left to their own devices.
The main beneficiary of AA have been white women.
Now, all that said... if you think there isn't prejudice out there still, you are mistaken.
Case in point. They sent out 1300 resumes with obviously white names and obviously names that would used by African Americans. Other than that, the experience on the resumes were pretty much identical.
The people with black sounding names were 50% less likely to get a call-back.
Point 1, Most of the prejudice remaining is fueled by resentment. It's not bad enough that blacks are so over represented on the welfare rolls, since AA, qualified white males have lost out in employment and college admissions.
Point 2. Maybe they don't get call backs because no white man knows how to pronounce Laquishatanyatoma.
In my experience, most blacks with "black sounding names" were raised by parents that don't want to be identified as Americans, but as African Americans. Any person I hire needs to be able to interact with my clients. If they were raised with a resentment against "white society", I really don't need them representing my firm.
You seem unaware of the process by which a question is brought before the Court.
I await the origination of your lawsuit.
Since lawyers will pursue any action, for a fee, I'm certain you will be able to find one.
Do, keep me advised.
Were did I ask about lawyers or courts?
You brought up enumerated power and I asked if you supported the repeal of DOMA so that the federal government recognized all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law. That had nothing to do with the courts, it had to do with a legislative action by Congress.
Do you understand how a law is repealed?
Deflect much?
>>>>
Lack of comprehension much?
When the case comes before the Court, ask for my opinion.
