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.
Well, I guess that's unrealistic Marriage is just the name of that relationship. No matter what you call it, it needs to be defined.
No, marriage is a religious ceremony. A contract is a contract. The two are different. Calling one the other is not a separation of church and state, and its what leads to all of these messy legal issues.
There is a reason why a separation of church and state protects the church from the state, and getting marriage out of legal consideration is something that protects the church.
I suck at teaching. And many teachers hated me (heck, my math teacher once asked me if I was "testing him"). May be I was.
Anyway, side-stepping aside, it is a fact that republican party ain't the party that Lincoln was a part of. It ain't a party that hasn't gone through a phase on its own. Likewise, democratic party has had its share of social conservatives (some still survive but are less so). The social conservative democrats are the one y'all cling onto for your deliberate attempt to prove something that couldn't be further from the truth. There's a reason they took their belief to the republican party during the civil rights movement.
You don't need to be a "I know all" teacher to know that.
LOL and the Democratic Party aint the Party of Kennedy or LBJ. Lincoln's history with the Repubs is just as distant as the Kennedy's or LBJs are with the Democrats. Besides Lincoln's Party aint all that different, where do you think he received the grassroots support to free the slaves? That's right, social conservatives (value voters) and/or what is popularly know as 'abolutionists" or today's evangelists.
The primary reason why blacks are democratic today, is because Kennedy openly worked with the NAACP whereas Nixon didn't (funny enough it was Kennedy (who "nayed" the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as Senator of Masscheusettes) which was probably some of the earilest buds of the "Soutehern Strategy."
Either way, that was a LONG time ago. You continuously make it a habit of pretending that Republicans are living in the past, yet when a Republican insists that black Democrats are living in the past, because they can't come up with something better than the Civil Rights Movement, all we hear is crickets. lol.
It was absolutely necessary for blacks to vote Democratic back then--which is duly noted--but there really isn't a good reason as to why nearly 50 years later, the voting patterns are still the same. As it stands, a lot of Republicans don't address issues that specifically effect blacks, because they know that regardless of what happens, an overwhelming majority will put their rubber stamps on Democrat. And that's all fine n dandy, but you can't fault conservatives compromising their values for refusing to play the same entitlement game.
One of the things that truly boggled my mind recently was the issue with Newt Gingrich. Whether you agreed with what or how he said something is one thing--but he offered to speak to the NAACP on issues affecting African Americans. And what happened? The Democratic " black establishment" (i.e. higher ups) shooed him away. After all, they have their own coffers to fill.
Mississippi is pretty old school, like they're living in the 1930s. A great representation of the South.
Have you ever been to Mississippi or is this statement based on a few biased "news" articles?
It's not like the 1930's here. We have electricity and indoor plumbing. Since I'm posting this, we obviously have internet access. It's not perfect but we are trying to better ourselves.
I don't go around posting statements about California based on the sitcoms I watch. I've been there. I have family there. In fact, there are a lot like we are here in MS.
Have you ever been to Mississippi or is this statement based on a few biased "news" articles?
It's not like the 1930's here. We have electricity and indoor plumbing. Since I'm posting this, we obviously have internet access. It's not perfect but we are trying to better ourselves.
I don't go around posting statements about California based on the sitcoms I watch. I've been there. I have family there. In fact, there are a lot like we are here in MS.
Even though Mississippi is apparently filled with obese bigots it still has less annoying people than California does, so at least be happy about that.
That's an interesting outlook considering Democrats started Jim Crow.
Southern Democrats started Jim Crow. Southern Democrats were the ultra-Conservatives. The Northern Democrats and Republicans were more liberal. After the Civil rights era, however, Southern Democrats defected to the Republican Party. So Republicans now include the group that supported Jim Crow laws.
No, marriage is a religious ceremony. A contract is a contract. The two are different. Calling one the other is not a separation of church and state, and its what leads to all of these messy legal issues.
There is a reason why a separation of church and state protects the church from the state, and getting marriage out of legal consideration is something that protects the church.
Marriage is not a religious ceremony. Have you never heard of Common Law marriage or Civil marriage? Both are still marriage. Protestants opposed Marriage being entangled with religion. They viewed it as worldly.
The Puritans brought Common Law Marriage to the United States in the 17th Century.
Yes! And considering some of the comments here about the South. There seems to be a few here that can't be fixed. Why does a thread about anywhere in the South always bring out the stupid ignoramuses out of the woodwork? They seem to be sitting there waiting to offer up their stupid bigoted views about a region they know nothing about.
BTW show me any State in the nation that does not have people who are racists, bigots, obese. ignorant, etc, etc.
Marriage is not a religious ceremony. Have you never heard of Common Law marriage or Civil marriage? Both are still marriage. Protestants opposed Marriage being entangled with religion. They viewed it as worldly.
The Puritans brought Common Law Marriage to the United States in the 17th Century.
Marriage also predates most religions.
Yes, but the basis is on a religious union between two people, usually between a man and a woman. But the English system was based on a religious ceremony, we are supposed to not respect any establishment of religion, so we shouldn't have legal marriage. Just legal unions, and if you want to go to a church, or call yourself marriage, its up to you.
Yes! And considering some of the comments here about the South. There seems to be a few here that can't be fixed. Why does a thread about anywhere in the South always bring out the stupid ignoramuses out of the woodwork? They seem to be sitting there waiting to offer up their stupid bigoted views about a region they know nothing about.
BTW show me any State in the nation that does not have people who are racists, bigots, obese. ignorant, etc, etc.
Allow me to clarify, certainly it is very true that every state has racists, bigots, obese, and ignorant, people, because people from the South do move to other regions.
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.
Marriage is just the name of that relationship. No matter what you call it, it needs to be defined.
