Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Meanwhile, in order to make gay marriage legal in the UK, a law has to be passed to forbid the state church from performing gay marriages. It just looks better there because they are all prim and proper and dress in robes.
And wigs. Or is that Whigs?
Maybe marriage should be restricted to being an entirely religious construct, and a civil union would be the government version.
Total waste of time proclamation based on thoroughly discredited legal theory. Sounds an awful lot like the arguments states were making to defend slavery and segregation, i.e. "states aren't obligated to follow federal law." A silly waste of time designed to drum up their rural Baptist base.
...Sounds an awful lot like the arguments states were making to defend slavery and segregation,....
I'm not sure why the states would need to make this argument. Slavery was legal even after the Civil War started. (abolished by 13th amendment). Segregation was legal until 1954.
There should a rule for state legislatures -- do no harm. If it doesn't help people, enhance freedom or protect us, leave it alone. There's a financial cost to these antics -- people and companies will not move to this state unless you are plying them with tax payer-supported incentives or they think like these legislative wasters of time and space. Or, maybe this is their goal -- free thinkers, progressives, creatives, gays: go home, leave or don't bother coming and, oh by the way, North Carolina doesn't need or want your money.
I'm not sure why the states would need to make this argument. Slavery was legal even after the Civil War started. (abolished by 13th amendment). Segregation was legal until 1954.
Post-1954 several southern states made similar arguments saying that they did not have to comply with the Brown v. Board ruling. Segregation was not legal but was commonly practiced through the early 1970s.
This has to be an April Fools joke, right? I mean, it HAS to be. I think it's great. I read that the bill was filed on April 1, even if it was reported as news the next day.
The thing that makes it so great as an April Fools joke is that is so believable, which it is, which is sad that we think our legislators are actually capable of sponsoring a bill like this. Anyway, the joke is on all of you!!!! Even more so if it is a serious bill!!
glad to see they are tackling the important issues.
OK, since you want to continue
Religion is important. If the ACLU would butt out there wouldn't be a bill. Of course if it wasn't important then Rowan wouldn't be testing it and the ACLU wouldn't be mad and there wouldn't be a bill.
They told the chicken to cross the road. They assured him no one would ask why.
Religion is important. If the ACLU would butt out there wouldn't be a bill. Of course if it wasn't important then Rowan wouldn't be testing it and the ACLU wouldn't be mad and there wouldn't be a bill.
They told the chicken to cross the road. They assured him no one would ask why.
Religion should have absolutely no part whatsoever in government. The reverse is true as well, except to protect the individual's right to observe any religion, or none at all.
Maybe marriage should be restricted to being an entirely religious construct, and a civil union would be the government version.
That would solve the problem, now wouldn't it .
Back on topic, my feeling on this is this:
If Reps want to pray in the Name of Jesus, that's fine.
If Reps don't want to pray in the Name of Jesus, that's fine too.
I believe that they should be free to express themselves in whatever way they want, so long as they're expressing a personally held belief (in other words, that the belief they're espousing is one of personal conviction; that they aren't speaking on behalf of an organization/institution).
If Reps want to pray in the Name of Jesus, that's fine.
If Reps don't want to pray in the Name of Jesus, that's fine too.
I believe that they should be free to express themselves in whatever way they want, so long as they're expressing a personally held belief (in other words, that the belief they're espousing is one of personal conviction; that they aren't speaking on behalf of an organization/institution).
I don't understand the highlighted point. Which problem are you referring to? I agree with the rest though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
