What I am thinking is that supreme court judges are elderly, unelected lawyers, and they have no legitimate business overruling the legislative will unless it violates an express provision of the constitution. A state law that defines marriage as "one man, one woman," violates no provision of the constitution. What are you thinking?
As a local matter, I am agnostic on gay marriage as long as the activists don't try to force my church to redefine matrimony as well.
Forcing churches to allow gay marriage is a fear-mongering tactic by those who seek to shred our Constitution. It'd be a violation of the First Amendment.
Would you say that P. M. Justin Trudeau is attempting to force churches to bend to his will........ and to his definition of political correctness? Could P. M. Justin Trudeau manage to destroy the USA Democratic Party for 2018?
Surely you know that "marriage" has been defined and redefined approx a gazillon times in our history? Get hypocritical christians out of govt. Seriously. You are more than welcome to believe whatever you wish and you can change your definitions as your whims dictate or what Repub whorehounds are calling it. None of that matters. If it concerns consenting adults, the state does not belong in our private lives. Ever.
Don't care. I have my own opinions, e.g., no dogs or threesomes allowed. I'm bigoted against polygamists, see? Sue me.
Read this CBC article..... and see if you feel the same way: Trudeau is asking religious Canadians to betray their conscience for federal funding The Liberals have applied an ideological purity test to their applications for summer job grants
Please don't pick out one sentence and then pretend to answer the entire post. Thanks. Here's what I actually wrote. Surely you know that "marriage" has been defined and redefined approx a gazillon times in our history? Get hypocritical christians out of govt. Seriously. You are more than welcome to believe whatever you wish and you can change your definitions as your whims dictate or what Repub whorehounds are calling it. None of that matters. If it concerns consenting adults, the state does not belong in our private lives. Ever.
While it is true that Congress has no right to pass laws forcing religious institutions to perform gay marriages, or even acknowledge them within their churches, it is equally true that religious institutions don't have the right to prevent anyone so inclined to be a partner in a gay marriage. The Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of all citizens equally under the law. Gay citizens have the same right to that protection as anyone else. They also have the right to marry whomever they love. And, overall, love in any form is ALWAYS a positive thing.
You're welcome. Now, get out of the private lives of others and give them same rights and freedoms you enjoy.
Yes, he does, but that's Canada. Like Russia, they are free to **** over their citizens as much as they like. It's up to the citizens to suck it up or revolt. The United States is unique in that we fought a war against our oppressors. We kicked out the Red Coats. Canada never did that. Australia never did that. Germany accepted a dictator and lost millions in a stupid war. France was weak and got its ass kicked for being lame. Britain is a has-been.
I just noticed your sig. I believe this thread concerns so called "gay" marriage. Not dogs. FYI, there are places where bestiality is legal. Why doesn't the right or the catholic church get all upset about that? There are still a lot of priests screwing children. The right is silent about that as well. But, just to be clear, IMO, if its between consenting adults, its their business. Period. Two or 6? Its their business. Hell, if its consenting adults and damn bridge, who cares? MYOB But animals and children? The pope recently got caught hiding pedo priests. Important words there, "got caught". Two pope's ago was in charge of shuffling pedo priests from one parish to another. More pedo priests are caught all the time. And still, catholics and Repubs are upset about gays? Puh-lese. Also, IMO, we need to be protecting the least among us from those who would do them harm. You know. Like little kids.
Trudeau only banned funding anti-abortion groups. Most of us would agree that we should not be forced to fund religious groups. those who are against abortion would not want to fund abortion. Just as the US govt does NOT fund abortion. In spite of what the right says, that is ...
Yes to equal rights to gay couples, and all variations of group unions too. End the tyranny of monogamy. Respectfully, reserve he word Marriage to refer to only 2 persons of the opposite sex. The insistence that it is not "equal" is just more, in your face behaviors that has become too commonly accepted today along with the loss of civility. Moi And the "wus in chief" joins the gayness
Having personal experience with a homosexual brother, the only time I heard him bring up marriage it was him wanting to marry a woman so she and he could have a child. But in all his years, never did he mention marrying a man. He got so much pecker from many men, why limit his odds to any one man? But he did want a child. Sad story of Jim. Bails out of CA direct to New york city for live as a stage performer. Sadly the stage did not want him. So he went to work at a stock brokers office. I visited his office and he showed me what happens on Wall St. at the stock exchange. This was prior to computers. Jim also enjoyed beer. I don't mean a 6 pack, he drank the 18 packs and when finished immediately purchased another. Beer seems not able to harm your liver. But per the doctor that was trying to save his life, Jim's Liver was gone and next went his kidneys. The problems with his liver caused him to constantly bleed. Think of a open area on the body and he bled from it. Finally in a hospital on Manhattan, he died. Spent his last week in a coma. Dad donated his body to science. The hospital had asked for it. Dad did consult all of us to get our view.
Do you support gay marriage? Yes, I support gay marriage--for two reasons. First, Everyone should have the right to be themselves to the fullest extent possible, so long as that doesn't inflict on someone else's right to be themselves too. Secondly, I've discovered during my life that love in any form is ALWAYS a positive thing, and makes the world a better place for us all. Love is good no matter how it is expressed, for to love is to explicitly take actions that are positive and beneficial to both those involved and to those around them. The world needs more love--in every form.
It sounds like you evaluate a nation's greatness by how successful it is kicking butt. That's not what makes a nation great. What makes a nation great is treating its people with respect, dignity, honor and personal freedom.
