PG Mall Development: Chick-Fil-A (Riverdale Park: health insurance, home, tax)

[Zimar]

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

What words were re-defined in context of the law?

I answered this question earlier in the thread. I'm not going to repeat myself, I'm just going to note that you have not yet articulated any type of actual harm done to anyone or anything by allowing homosexuals to legally get married.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by Zimar

I answered this question earlier in the thread. I'm not going to repeat myself, I'm just going to note that you have not yet articulated any type of actual harm done to anyone or anything by allowing homosexuals to legally get married.

Please point me to the post that you addressed this.

[tcave360]

Now, Now people! Anger!!! I know this thread is already at critical risk as it is!!!! The Mods are watching!

[armory]

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

After many discussions and opinions on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that people are blowing the definition thing way out of proportion and it is a red herring argument against how the law is structured. I believe that no one is forcing upon others what marriage means to them. Nor does it destroy any religious definition of marriage. We can all agree that mans laws do not supersede what the Bible or any other religious text says in one's own religion The Christian definition of marriage still stands and will always stand. Each individual still possesses their own definition of what marriage is and means. No one is taking that away from anyone.

I think it is a matter of convenience when people try to ascribe their religious or cultural beliefs to laws for people of diverse faiths and cultures. There are many laws in this country that don't squarely line up with personal beliefs of others. Nor should we expect them to. America is the great experiment in that as a free nation, it must be careful to include all people without alienating or discriminating against others. That's hard to do with so much diversity.

It is my opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman. If congress needs to adopt a broader definition in order to provide civil rights to others, so be it. My definition won't change. If someone asks, I'll tell them. If someone else thinks it should also include same-sex couples, then that's their belief and they are entitled to it. The inclusion of rights same-sex couples is not taking anything away from my own marriage and what it means.

I agree with you that the term doesn't have to be re-defined. But, even if it is, it's only redefined in laws where people are afforded certain rights. To me that's fine. Words aren't the issue, it's the purpose behind them.

This gets way out of hand. Is this a federal or state decision? If any is a student of the US Constitution one would know immediately to go to the 10th amendment and find out. The first 10 amendments were tacked onto the end of the Constitution to ensure it remains intact.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


What this one tells us is if something is neither enumerated nor amended in the Constitution it is for the states to decide. Marriage or sex is not mentioned in the Constitution, hence why sodomy is in state law and not federal. Marriage is monitored by the states and not the federal. Concerning Roe v Wade - the Supreme Court ruling only placed a limit upon the regulations a state could impose...it did not impose any regulations itself.



In contrast - the 2nd amendment is enumerated. That takes precedence over state law. The states cannot legally create new laws concerning arms... Why no one has taken this to court yet is beyond me. There is no interpretation needed as it is one sentence.

Gay marriage is not something to be brought before the SC as it is up to the states. The 10th amendment says so and that is the law of the land.



How many people have a copy on their desk? I have for years and refer to it often. It is easy to read and I have no idea how SC justices find trouble with it even after taking an oath to uphold it.

[scrapper105]

So, um, how about those cookies and cream milkshakes ? Aren't they great ?

[Zimar]

Originally Posted by armory

This gets way out of hand. Is this a federal or state decision? If any is a student of the US Constitution one would know immediately to go to the 10th amendment and find out. The first 10 amendments were tacked onto the end of the Constitution to ensure it remains intact.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


What this one tells us is if something is neither enumerated nor amended in the Constitution it is for the states to decide. Marriage or sex is not mentioned in the Constitution, hence why sodomy is in state law and not federal. Marriage is monitored by the states and not the federal. Concerning Roe v Wade - the Supreme Court ruling only placed a limit upon the regulations a state could impose...it did not impose any regulations itself.



In contrast - the 2nd amendment is enumerated. That takes precedence over state law. The states cannot legally create new laws concerning arms... Why no one has taken this to court yet is beyond me. There is no interpretation needed as it is one sentence.

Gay marriage is not something to be brought before the SC as it is up to the states. The 10th amendment says so and that is the law of the land.



How many people have a copy on their desk? I have for years and refer to it often. It is easy to read and I have no idea how SC justices find trouble with it even after taking an oath to uphold it.

Actually, you are very incorrect. The Supreme Court can decide if something is a protected right under the Constitution, even if it is just a general liberty interest. That is why we have thousands and thousands of Federal laws on topics that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. That is why we have Federal protection against discrimination based on gender, even though it is not mentioned in the Constitution. Do you actually believe that all of the discussion and debate and the fact that this issue reached the Supreme Court is because everyone but you literally failed to read the Constitution? Is it not slightly more plausible that you are the one who is incorrect, not everyone else? I mean, if you had this incredibly deep understanding of the Constitution way beyond everyone else, wouldn't YOU be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

[tcave360]

Originally Posted by scrapper105

So, um, how about those cookies and cream milkshakes ? Aren't they great ?

Love 'em! Although, I usually settle for an Ice-Tea/Lemonade Mix. Can't ever get enough of them! LOL

[Mr Beco]

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

It really boggles the mind why some of those places haven't come to PG. Given the fact that Whole Foods has a plant in PG, I thought they would have been in Bowie or Laurel by now. It just doesn't make a ton of sense. I mean no offense to Detroit, but even that city just got a Whole Foods.

What PG wants is a Wegmans, they just opened in Germantown, MD. I hear they are amazing.

Whole Foods is good, but damn expensive. There are two Whole foods, one in Falls Church and Vienna, VA., 5 miles or so apart. A Whole Foods off River Road and White Flint in Montgomery, 10 miles apart. Two Harris Teeters, Seven Locks and off of Rockville Pike, 5 miles apart. Prince Georges is just neglected...go figure.

[scrapper105]

We have a Wegmans in PGCo. Whole Foods is coming by the end of 2014.

[Khemistry]

Originally Posted by Barry Rock

What PG wants is a Wegmans, they just opened in Germantown, MD. I hear they are amazing.

Wegman's has been in PG County since 2010, and it was the 2nd location in the state of Maryland. Where have you been??