Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by AuntPeggy, Jun 27, 2015.
Let her rip Greg!
Naw, God gave us the rainbow way before it was hijacked by the gay community in an effort to gain support from views like this.
I heard God was considering a copyright lawsuit for use without permission.
So what now? Will Kermit and Cookie monster be swapping spit on Sesame Street?
Will public schools start teaching our kids it's o.k. if Johnny and Jack want to kiss each other in Kindergarten?
There's some deeper issues going on here.
yup....it's all bout the promise and grace. ...and look how far we've come.
That's silly. I didn't marry my wife because I wanted to "share in government defined benefits," I married her because I love her and want to spend the rest of my life with her.
are you flying over Gayville, SD?
that is a JOKE people, c'mon! tryin to lighten sht up 'round here. and yes, that is a real place.
That's a good question, considering that SSM was already legal in a majority of states.
The answer is that there is only one reason: The supporters and those who brought the case want to use the force of government to compel dissenters (especially Christian dissenters) to either change their public opinions, or face ruin at the hand of government. It's as simple as that. Christians are a great target because they often hold strong convictions, but (foolishly) rarely fight back.
Regardless of what you believe, the argument for acceptance can never come at the hand of government. Government may be able to force a modification of behavior, but it cannot force a modification of thought. Many SSM supporters surely know this, but are content to twist the knife in others as long as they get what they want. All their talk of "love" and "respect" is a one-way street for those who disagree with them.
Can't wait for the lawsuit against a Christian baker with balls who is forced to bake the WORST CAKE EVER for a SSM couple. I've previously stated my opinion on the fact that a business transaction doesn't necessarily imply endorsement of an activity, but the continuing desire of SSM couples to force the unwilling to accommodate them is surely going to result in such a situation eventually.
According to the rule of law, and supported by their own majority opinion, the Supreme Court undeniably erred with the SSM ruling. There is no right to marriage of any kind in the Constitution, but the court decided to invent one. In doing so, they created a massive conflict with a right which IS specifically enumerated in the Constitution, that being the right of free EXERCISE of religion. Indeed, the SCOTUS majority opinion only referenced this enumerated right once, and didn't do it correctly (using the word "advocate" rather than "exercise"). The court's willingness to invent protections which do not exist, and change the meaning of legislation to ensure desired outcomes, should scare everyone who believes that the rule of law is central to a peaceful, civilized society.
You didn't need to get married to do that.
Oh, and congratulations how long has it been?
I could care less what gays do behind closed doors, nor if they want to get married.
I simply do not agree with it and I do not care to see gays pressing the issues on all of the vulnerable children . Can you gays now stop your marches and rally's and go back to doing what you do behind closed doors without all the influence on my children whom I would prefer to grow up normal, marry and have children of their own.
My guess is that your answer is "NO", and I also assume you will be fighting for even more. Your community has proven to be about more than just gay rights and we all know you wont ever be happy unless you are disturbing the lives of those that are not gay.
I don't get it. So what if he did have gays on board??! Do you believe that is a dangerous thing to do?
Yeah, I'm in the same boat. We don't plan for kids either, so there's no 'logical' reason for us to be married. It was just something we did to express our love for one another. Haven't regretted it yet!
So, who is going to be scared? This country has never maintained more than a thin veneer of peace and civility throughout its existence (except in the minds of a few True Believers).
A little over a year and a half. Thanks!
But, marriage is a commitment that is legally recognized. Without marriage, I wouldn't feel comfortable buying houses, having kids, or any of the other big things in life. I don't understand why we would prevent a subset of people from doing it when it does not harm us. IMO, his country is about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and as long as you don't get in my way of doing that, what right do I have to tell you that you can't?
It constantly baffles me how the same political group that argues that government is too big wants to have a government big enough to be in the bedrooms of consenting adults.
I would do away with the tax filing status. Everyone would file as an individual.
Where deductions for minor dependents were involved, any adult or combination of adults would be able to claim them, wholly or proportionately, without regard to residency or relationship, as long as the total deduction added up to 100 percent, and they were all in agreement. If they could not agree by the filing deadline, then no one would be able to claim the deduction for the child(ren) in question for that year.
That was the majority's rationale. For anyone who has not already done so, I urge you to read the actual opinion, including the dissents by Judges Roberts and Thomas. They very cogently rebutted the majority's logic.
Let's be honest here. In modern times women marry for the princess party and lifetime $upport, men marry because they are under the illusion marriage will keep their woman off other men's sticks.
It's not working Dave, spray him again!
Perhaps this is a case where the tenth amendment comes into conflict with the ninth.
That's a good question, considering that SSM was still specifically outlawed in many states.
The answer is that there is only one reason: The opponents and those who forced the case want to use the force of government to compel supporters of SSM (especially Christian supporters) to either change their public opinions, or face ruin at the hand of government. It's as simple as that. Christians are a great target because they often hold strong convictions, but (foolishly) rarely fight back.
Regardless of what you believe, the argument for opposition can never come at the hand of government. Government may be able to force a modification of behavior, but it cannot force a modification of thought. Many SSM opponents surely know this, but are content to twist the knife in others as long as they get what they want. All their talk of "sanctity of marrige" is a one-way street for those who disagree with them.
Can't wait for the lawsuit from a baker who claims to be forced to bake the WORST CAKE EVER for a SSM couple instead of being allowed to discriminate against them. A business transaction doesn't necessarily imply endorsement of an activity, but the continuing desire of anti SSM individuals to force the unwilling to accommodate them is surely going to result in such a situation eventually.
According to the rule of law, and supported by their own majority opinion, the Supreme Court undeniably erred with the SSM ruling. There is no right to heterosexual marriage of any kind in the Constitution, but the court decided to invent one in order to support the "right" of SSM. But, in doing so, they upheld with a right which IS specifically enumerated in the Constitution, that being the right of free EXERCISE of religion - the right to follow the teachings of Christ and his message of acceptance and love.
Now, can we all just sing:
Don we now our gay apparel fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la.
Y'all know I'm right. Y'all just scared.
A girl and I got in trouble for kissing in the first grade.
Yep. It is baffling. Those are LINOs, Libertarians In Name Only.
I imagine that this kind of thing happened with civil rights and slavery back when they were changed by law. Probably going to be a rough transition phase for a bit but it'll eventually become normal.
How would that work in community property states?
I'll try something stronger--
Okay, that's a consistent libertarian position and I respect it. But the only way it's going to happen in this country is a revolution as the government (both federal and state) is already deeply involved in marriage as in (imo too many) other aspects of people's private lives. In other words, that horse is in the next county already.
The only defensible (imo) basis for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples was the idea that the government has an interest in promoting stable families "for the sake of the children", together with the corollary that procreation is central to the purpose of marriage. Even pro-SSM activist John Corvino (on the faculty of my old employer) considered that position defensible. The Kennedy opinion rejected it in toto. Once you've done that, hetero-only marriage laws emerge as unreasonably discriminatory, and personally I believe that's all they are, an attempt to raise a religion-based loathing of homosexuality to the status of law. So I'd go even further and say that Michigan's Prop 2 and similar state-level amendments violate the 1st amendment prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion, even though the majority opinion didn't go that far.
In the interest of full disclosure of potential bias: I'm single by choice, but also gay.
What you don't seem to understand that this is an expansion of government power, Federal government that is, beyond the restraints placed on it by the constitution .
Rejoice on the day when you agree with that power and rue the day when it goes against you.
Yep. Back in those days they predicted that the blacks would rise up and kill all the whites. They predicted the US would fall into chaos and ruin. They said civil society would be irreparably damaged. The usual unfounded fears that accompany change.
So what happens when we grant authority to sharia law? That's another one creeping in the door. When the hordes swarm I hope I can pull a convincing last minute conversion to Islam. Good to be on the winning side. Obvious you guys can't defend your families and communities from extinction.
The four dissenting Supreme Court Justices agree with you. I'm only quoting a bare snippit of their individual dissents, but today's internet mindset being what it is I've probably quoted more than will be read by most. The entire text of the court opinion and the individual dissents can be read here: [link]
Justice Scalia:Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.
Justice Thomas:By straying from the text of the Constitution, substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority. Petitioners argue that by enshrining the traditional definition of marriage in their State Constitutions through voter-approved amendments, the States have put the issue “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process.” But the result petitioners seek is far less democratic. They ask nine judges on this Court to enshrine their definition of marriage in the Federal Constitution and thus put it beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire Nation. That a “bare majority” of this Court is able to grant this wish, wiping out with a stroke of the keyboard the results of the political process in over 30 States, based on a provision that guarantees only “due process” is but further evidence of the danger of substantive due process.
Justice Roberts:Allowing unelected federal judges to select which unenumerated rights rank as “fundamental”—and to strike down state laws on the basis of that determination—raises obvious concerns about the judicial role. Our precedents have accordingly insisted that judges “exercise the utmost care” in identifying implied fundamental rights, “lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy preferences of the Members of this Court.”
Justice Alito:Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims. Most Americans —understandably— will cheer or lament today’s decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.
The issue of gay marriage wasn't a constitutional issue - it was a voter issue. The right of a man to marry another man isn't enumerated in the constitution, therefore the method provided by the founders of the country to create that right was to put it up for a vote in the 50 states and let the voters of each state decide the issue for themselves. Remember Lincoln's "government of the people, by the people, for the people" quote? We as a country were progressing steadily down the road on that process, in exactly the way that the founders expected us to be. Until now.
Now the Supreme Court has with this ruling said that it doesn't matter how the people of this country vote on an issue - what matters is whether a fringe can properly motivate a few justices to do their bidding.
Principled people that have honest disagreements with other principled people will be labled as bigots and worse. The rule of law has been subverted and the process of majority rule has been sidelined. I'm happy for my gay friends that are celebrating now. I'm a bit saddened for my country, though.
Yeah, kind of like when the government gets to decide who gets married and who doesn't. Rejoice on the day when you agree with that power and rue the day when it goes against you.
Better yet. Drop the income tax in its entirety, all 22,000 pages of tax code.
then set the Federal excise tax to 10% for all goods and services bought in the US or imported to the US. except basic food items.
That will bring every body into the tax system, reduce the IRS to monitoring the merchants as tax collectors. No more back taxes, no more administrative law (taking your stuff), no more April 15th, no more W2s, 1040 forms.
The moneys not taken from your pay checks would be available for savings or spending your choice.
It would do the same thing as Rand Paul's flat tax at 14% with out any forms or tax day.
Was it the teacher??
It wouldn't. In my opinion, all laws having to do with marriage should be repealed, including community property laws. If a married couple (or trio, etc.) wanted to own their property in common, they could sign a contract to that effect.
Well... ultimately I'd rather abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing. But that's off the thread topic and more appropriate to SZ, where I venture not these days.
from one moderate conservative to another ..
We have bigger things to worry about than 1% of the population who want to marry themselves.
I have hand it to them, the LGBT community has been fabulous keeping their cause and name in the headlines when they represent about as much power voting as us farmers I'll bet. Maybe more, but not much more. I'm not worried about it. What worries me are the 50% and growing base of voters who pay no federal income tax. That's what steers elections and issues.
Americans are dying everday for freedom and our enemies keep conspiring to kill us so what adult people do behind closed doors isn't any of my business and isn't important in a macro sense. If there is a higher court than man, so be it, it isn't my issue. War and financial depression concern me. Business concerns me.
" the chief business of America is business." -- Calvin Coolidge
now....is that Brian with an "i"....or Bryan with a "y"?