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.
I know. That was an attempt at humor. They could just eat the lamb sandwiches, though, unless they didn't eat meat at all. Then, I guess they would have to settle for bread.
Right decision. Finally! My stance is that same sex marriage is morally wrong and should be illegal. Granting same-sex couples a license to marry will not create true marriage. Neither two men nor two women can become one flesh.
Your stance is unconstitutional and it's only a matter of time before the U.S. Supreme Court overrides Alabama's anachronistic folly. Our founding fathers worked very hard to make sure the USA did not become a theocracy. Your Bible does not rule our laws, the Constitution does.
I was glad to hear that AL called them out on this. It is about time. Kansas spent a ton of money fighting it and then just caved in. There needs to be a decision by the Supreme Court and AL is forcing their hand.
Same sex marriage will be used by heterosexuals and homosexuals. Heck, it already is. I think it will separate traditional marriage which will always be one man and one woman from the governmental legal contract between any two individuals and maybe more.
Since we are separating government and religion, our government was set up that way, polygamy and prostitution need to be legalized. Let everyone determine their own fate.
I was glad to hear that AL called them out on this. It is about time. Kansas spent a ton of money fighting it and then just caved in. There needs to be a decision by the Supreme Court and AL is forcing their hand.
Same sex marriage will be used by heterosexuals and homosexuals. Heck, it already is. I think it will separate traditional marriage which will always be one man and one woman from the governmental legal contract between any two individuals and maybe more.
Since we are separating government and religion, our government was set up that way, polygamy and prostitution need to be legalized. Let everyone determine their own fate.
The supreme court will already be ruling on SSM in April.
The government part of a marriage is already separate from the religious part. You go to city hall to get a marriage license and file that license the church part is completely optional. If you have only a religious marriage, then it is not recognized my the government.
So you do not believe in the Constitution or only support certain aspects that you like, is that it?
This a strawman, and it has nothing to do with what I said.
Quote:
We are a Republic, and respect for individual states rights are deeply imbedded into our founding document. One of the things I have always loved about this country is that certain things are allowed in certain states, others are not. Since we have no border restrictions, we are free to move to whatever state we choose. So if you do not like the laws in your state, you are free to move to one that better suits your personal taste.
I'm not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar, but my understanding is that there are things the states are allowed to decide individually, and other areas the Federal government has power over. And there are some principles, such as not depriving certain groups of people of rights that are available to others, that can trump states' rights, when there is a conflict between state and Federal laws. That's why the Federal government was able to order the southern states to desegregate their school systems back in the 50s and 60s, even though some of them very much did NOT want to do so.
Quote:
For example, if riding a motorcycle without a helmet is important to you, but you state requires a skid lid, then you can move to a state that allows it. I'll bet dollars to donuts there are things you approve/disapprove of in your state (death penalty, CCW/guns, state income tax etc.) compared with other states. What is right for one state is not necessarily right for others. So just as you would not want others imposing their idea of what your state does that you approve of, nor should you be able to prohibit what others do in their state.
And if you ride across the state line, from a state that doesn't require helmets to one that does, you'd best have a helmet handy to put on if you don't want to get a ticket. Easy-peasy. The states can have different laws about this because the Constitution doesn't guarantee anyone the right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. If it did contain such a guarantee, however; all states would be required to comply with the Constitution.
But that's really neither here nor there. Marriage is much more complicated than the other areas states make their own laws about (driving, the sale and use of alcohol, etc. etc.). Marriage isn't just something you do for a couple of hours on Saturday afternoon; it's not a hobby like riding a motorcycle may be. It affects one's entire life. For that reason, the motorcycle helmet analogy isn't adequate. I'm not sure there's really anything else that compares.
I'm tired. I really would rather make friends and argue for causes that most people agree are just. I think it is sad that no one really cares about the religious person's point of view, but trying to explain it one more time isn't going to change anything. Really, I would be happy to see things level out a little. When the preacher only has the choir to preach to, he can get as picky as he wants, but when he's got the harlots and drug dealers in his congregation, he's usually a lot more relaxed. Maybe a radical change in our politics and demographic would do us some good.
To be honest, I think it would do some good. It would be great if there was a wholesale, radical change in politics and attitudes down there.
However, sometimes changes have to happen because it's the right thing to do, even if some people don't feel ready for them.
Take the civil rights movement, for example: most of the south did NOT want to desegregate schools, allow African Americans to sit anywhere they wanted on the bus, shop at certain stores, eat at restaurants, etc. A lot of the south actively WANTED to make it as hard as possible for black people to even register to vote, much less cast a ballot. (Go see "Selma" to see what I'm talking about here.)
The civil rights movement FORCED the southern states to accept school desegregation and to do away with all the jim crow laws that dictated a thousand a one different things that blacks were or were not allowed to do. A lot of white people were extremely unhappy about this, including most of the so-called "Christian" people in those states. A lot of those people felt like these changes were being crammed down their throats. A lot of those people who weren't one bit happy about giving African Americans the right to vote, doing away with segregated restrooms and lunch counters, and on and on DID have to be dragged clawing, kicking, and screaming, into complying with the law.
But you know what happened? The changes happened anyway, because jim crow was just plain WRONG. And the funny thing is, those people who didn't like it at first eventually accepted it and ADAPTED--because they HAD to. The changes--integration, etc.--happened because they needed to happen, and people just had to adjust. I think it's going to be the same way with same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court is getting ready to hear some cases on this, and if they hand down a ruling a few months from now saying that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional (as a lot of us think they will), that will become the law of the land, and all the states will have to comply whether they like it or not. And once again, people will adapt and adjust.
Killing the baby is really horrible thing. Once that is accepted and practiced the rest is just fruit of the poisonous tree. Who is worse those that do the job of cutting those children up? or those that give millions to anyone who will do it for them?
The supreme court will already be ruling on SSM in April.
The government part of a marriage is already separate from the religious part. You go to city hall to get a marriage license and file that license the church part is completely optional. If you have only a religious marriage, then it is not recognized my the government.
Most states charge preachers with a crime if they marry a couple who has not gotten a license from the state. So you are incorrect. They are not separate. The evidence that this will be used to force people to be a part of same sex marriages is already playing out across this country. First the cake maker, then the dress maker, soon the facility the church rents out, then the preacher. Saying it won't come to that is like saying "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor".
How Much Does the First Family Cost Taxpayers for Vacations?
While it’s difficult to pin down precise figures, the Washington Examiner reports they have “spent tens of millions in tax dollars to vacation, and they still have two more years to go.”
Judicial Watch has compiled a list of vacations, fundraisers and other presidential trips and their accompanying expenses. A rough tally of this incomplete list comes to a minimum of $33,441,728.23.
But there is a positive side of the story. Imagine that Obama had been working on destroying America as does on all his regular working days and all the more damage he could have done.
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.
Aborted-baby organ program
