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.
So? That only matters to people who venerate the bible. What about the rest of humankind?
Doesn't even matter that much to most of them. We've always been a secular country. See divorce and annulment for the Catholic church. When US law changed to allow divorce whenever anyone felt like it, the Catholic church didn't. You had lots of people that divorced for reasons the Church did not approve of so the concerned them to be still married regardless of their legal status.Then they'd want to get married again and the Church would say no, you're still married. You need to get an annulment. Nowadays they pretty much hand those out for anything but not so much back in the '70s. If you got divorced on grounds of feeling like it you weren't getting remarried in the Catholic church. Of course, you could always get remarried legally, just it wouldn't be in the Church and wouldn't be recognized by the Church. As a Catholic you might care about that on a personal level but societally not that many people really cared. Even within the Church nobody was really drinking the Kool-Aid that much anymore so nowadays they just pretty much hand out annulments for anyhting. Similarly, some churches will accept gay marriage and others won't.
yep, it says so right there in Leviticus. Leviticus has a lot of does and don'ts
Lev 19:26 26 “‘Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.
Lev 19:27 “‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
And of Course:
Lev 11:9 ¶ These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
So if you like your steak rare, or get a haircut, or trim your beard, or have a nice lobster tail or shrimp for dinner, you too are in violation of the laws of Leviticus.
The Bible also condemns false prophets and yet here we are with Christianity the leading faith in the country. The Bible is pretty damn clear about what is required of the Mosiach, and the messiah of the Christian faith ain't it. Should we crack down on Christianity then?
Ultimately, it doesn't matter *what* the Bible says to anyone but the person reading and interpreting it. It shouldn't be used as rule of law.
The supreme court illegally made law when the allowed same sex marrage.
There was and is no threat to same sex marrage, this law is unnecessary.
Democrats feared of the possibility after abortion law was changed.
For the second time in this thread: The Supreme Court cannot and did not make law.
The Bible is a book written by men in which they documented their understanding's of God will and teachings. Men are flawed, therefore it would be illogical to not acknowledge that the Bible is likely flawed. Furthermore, men have been interpreting the Bible of hundreds of years and there is not yet a consensus regarding it's literal interpretation.
For the second time in this thread: The Supreme Court cannot and did not make law.
If I may quibble: In a very real sense, the Supreme Court does make law. And it's in no way illegal, V8 Vega has that dead wrong.
Common Law systems, like the UK and the US (with the exception of Louisiana) ones, consider case law and statutory law pretty much equally binding. With its finding in Obergefell, the Supreme Court did establish a new set of legal rules for the nation to follow. This is a feature, not a bug, in a Common Law system. (In a statutory law system as used in most of Europe, precedent isn't nearly as big f a factor.)
The weakness of case law is, of course, that it can be overturned by a superior court, or by another case being brought to the same court, perhaps with a different judge/judges. So Congress did the right thing, moving the decision enshrined in case law by Obergefell into statutory law. And while the Supreme Court can of course theoretically find the Respect For Marriage Act unconstitutional on some weird ground or other, they'll have a much higher hurdle to clear than they would have had to do in simply overturning Obergefell.
If I may quibble: In a very real sense, the Supreme Court does make law. And it's in no way illegal, V8 Vega has that dead wrong.
Common Law systems, like the UK and the US (with the exception of Louisiana) ones, consider case law and statutory law pretty much equally binding. With its finding in Obergefell, the Supreme Court did establish a new set of legal rules for the nation to follow. This is a feature, not a bug, in a Common Law system. (In a statutory law system as used in most of Europe, precedent isn't nearly as big f a factor.)
The weakness of case law is, of course, that it can be overturned by a superior court, or by another case being brought to the same court, perhaps with a different judge/judges. So Congress did the right thing, moving the decision enshrined in case law by Obergefell into statutory law. And while the Supreme Court can of course theoretically find the Respect For Marriage Act unconstitutional on some weird ground or other, they'll have a much higher hurdle to clear than they would have had to do in simply overturning Obergefell.
True. I felt like Mr. Vega might not understand the nuances of this explanation.
True. I felt like Mr. Vega might not understand the nuances of this explanation.
With the number of times I've had to explain US law to Americans on this board, I fear you may be right that the detail approach may not be the most constructive one. Still, one tries.
Actually, it affects all of us when the very concept of normalcy is attacked in such an Orwellian way.
It's none of my business or concern if two homosexuals find some sort of equivalency between man-on-man sex and normal sex between a man and a woman or if they believe their unnatural sexual union has a purpose beyond their own self-indulgence.
But when the power of the state is harnessed to change the meaning of words such that thought is confronted and curtailed, we have a problem.
Heterosexual couples don't have anal sex?
"It's different when straight people do it!"
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.
