But before leaving California, carefully check your lineage to see if you can find a black person in it. Don't leave money on the table.
Post Left Wing looniness here
- Thread starter Horn6721
- Start date
But before leaving California, carefully check your lineage to see if you can find a black person in it. Don't leave money on the table.
With that article Andrew McCarthy helped me be able to articulate my hesitations.
I knew I thought it was right and fair that same sex couples have same legal rights
But I also think it is right and fair for people to be able to follow their religious beliefs including viewing marriage as between a man and a woman or the belief that life starts at conception.
What the Left really wants has nothing to do with same sex marriage. It has to do with destroying our country.
I knew I thought it was right and fair that same sex couples have same legal rights
But I also think it is right and fair for people to be able to follow their religious beliefs including viewing marriage as between a man and a woman or the belief that life starts at conception.
What the Left really wants has nothing to do with same sex marriage. It has to do with destroying our country.
The bill is a crock of ****. For starters, Obergefell already made same-sex marriage legal and on equal footing throughout the United States. Second, there's no serious political will in any state to retroactively prohibit same-sex marriage. So the entire piece of legislation is totally unnecessary if we're looking at the stated reasons for it.
People on the Left are quick to point out that the Supreme Court could come in and overturn Obergefell. I don't believe that they would. However, even if they did, a federal marriage definition law is going to run into major constitutional issues. Marriage is and has always been a state issue. If the Court was ballsy enough to overturn Obergefell, they would wipe their *** with a federal marriage law, which is far more difficult to defend.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
My main concern is that marriage law will continue to inch toward discrimination against Christians. That is the trend.
Depending on how far you want to go back, marriage hasn't always been a state issue. Maybe you mean state vs federal. I mean state as government. Marriage used to be strictly a church issue with separate religious courts adjudicating cases around marriage and divorce. The "state" literally had no power in the area.
Not saying you're wrong, but I'm not sure what that would look like in policy.
That is exactly what I mean. It has been a state issue, not a federal issue. If Congress tries to define it, that should be struck down. They have no such authority.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
More law suits for cake shops that don't want to make certain types of cakes. It could also progress to forcing churches to perform same sex marriages, throw pastors in jail who won't, close churches that won't, etc.
I agree with that. But I would go further. I would support actions to remove marriage as a state issue too. Muslims already do similar things in sharia courts in the US.
Facing Addiction
1,000+ Posts
Op-Ed: Does the 1st Amendment protect a right to discriminate? (msn.com)
"People should not be able to use their religion as a basis for inflicting injuries on others."
This is the part that confuses me. If a baker refuses to make a cake for a same sex couple and there are several other bakers to choose from, how is that inflicting injury on others? Forcing someone to do something in opposition to their personal religious beliefs is actually inflicting injury on another.
"People should not be able to use their religion as a basis for inflicting injuries on others."
This is the part that confuses me. If a baker refuses to make a cake for a same sex couple and there are several other bakers to choose from, how is that inflicting injury on others? Forcing someone to do something in opposition to their personal religious beliefs is actually inflicting injury on another.
Ok. I thought you were referring to making it harder for Christians to marry. Yes, you will see more of this stuff. It may be awhile before we see anyone jailed, but you could see the tax exempt status pulled and then see discriminatory tax laws imposed on churches that still revere the Bible. And of course, that tax code could be used to bankrupt churches and if the tax isn't paid and the church still operates, jail the pastors for tax evasion.
Obviously churches, synagogues, and mosques can marry on their own. Furthermore, many states (including Texas) will recognize them as common law marriages even if no marriage license is obtained.
However, the reason you'll never see the state completely disengage from marriage is twofold. First, somebody with to decide issues of property division if there's a death or divorce. Second, somebody needs to decide child custody in the event of divorce. Could a church do this? They could certainly voice their opinions on it, but they don't have the power to enforce them. A church doesn't have constables to go seize property or take kids away from a kidnapping parent.
Incoming Dem whip Clark recalls child ‘waking up with nightmares’ over climate change
New Liberal leadership. It's just sick. This woman is a fanatic and an unfit mother because she put those thoughts in her child's head. And yet she is so fanatical she believes telling us this is a cause to give all our money to UN bureaucrats and destroy the fossil fuel industry. This person is the prototypical shrill, idealistic, out of control Liberal.
New Liberal leadership. It's just sick. This woman is a fanatic and an unfit mother because she put those thoughts in her child's head. And yet she is so fanatical she believes telling us this is a cause to give all our money to UN bureaucrats and destroy the fossil fuel industry. This person is the prototypical shrill, idealistic, out of control Liberal.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
I don't know how it was enforced before but the church did make those decisions at one point in time. Maybe the enforcement part was done by civil magistrates. Maybe extended families. I don't know. That is a good point to raise.
Facing Addiction
1,000+ Posts
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, so this is a legit query. How does the Collins/Baldwin amendment effect the act? I didn't see what was in the Lee amendment that didn't get in.
Tillis Helps Secure Robust Religious Freedom Protections in The Respect for Marr... (senate.gov)
Tillis Helps Secure Robust Religious Freedom Protections in The Respect for Marr... (senate.gov)
From what I can tell, the big difference is in the breadth of the protection. The Collins/Baldwin Amendment keeps the SJW mafia from going after "religious nonprofit" entities like churches and charities. A church, synagogue, or mosque isn't going to get sued or lose its tax-exempt status for following their scriptures on the matter. However, it's not going to protect the business, artist, or employee for doing the same, so it's not going to protect the baker or photographer who doesn't want to be involved in the gay wedding. The Lee Amendment would.
At least in the US, divorce has always been a civil matter determined in state courts both with respect to property division and what should be done about the kids and the wife (where the kids live, child support, alimony, etc.). The big difference is that back in the day, people were more deferential to their churches, which obviously discouraged divorce unless there was a serious biblical basis for it, which there usually is not. Accordingly, the church simply helped keep the number of true divorce cases down, but in the rare situation in which it was biblical, courts did handle. But how big of a difference did that make? Not much, because the courts usually followed common law or statutory principles that were often rooted in the Bible.
Property division upon death was also a civil matter - if things had to get "official." However, the big difference is that like with marital disputes, things didn't usually have to get very "official." The surviving family members usually just divided things up based on the will or what "made sense," paid off any creditors, and if there was a dispute, a church could help resolve that. You would still see the final paperwork closing out the estate filed with the court especially if non-family members (usually creditors) were in the equation, but the handling of disputes were often handled out of court. And honestly, they usually still are, especially in Texas where we have independent administration. Makes a huge difference.
Last edited:
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
That is my understanding as well, Bible and common law.
The big difference is where the power resides. It gives another group within society power and takes it away from others. I think that is very important. I am not saying we are going to do this or anything. I am saying these types of ideas are interesting to me and could potentially be very beneficial to society. Political decentralization is the only way to protect freedoms and rights practically. My desire is to make the idea more palatable to people.
I meant that the results of going to court probably weren't than different from what church leaders would have suggested. That's far less the case now. For starters, we have no-fault divorce. You can divorce for stupid reasons or no reason. Churches would never suggest that.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
That is correct. In fact it was the Reformers who started the transition. Luther and others transferred that power from church courts to civic courts because they trusted the local magistrate more than the Catholic church. They also had a great deal of influence over these magistrates. Protestant churches had a great deal of political influence as well as spiritual and moral influence. I would even say that had a level of power over society.
But that transition continued to evolve, once the Enlightenment hit, it was all over for church power in society. Church influence has been waning ever since. We are 300-400 years down the road now. We see the bad results and it is getting worse.
The way to improve the situation is to go back and distribute power. Society is much more secular so civic marriage/divorce courts won't go away and many will prefer them to church courts. But providing alternatives to those who want it is a first step.
One other thing, the big thing the church has that the state doesn't have is the ability to truly change lives. A pastor can tell a husband or wife, "I love you, and so does your church family. However, you're doing this wrong. You need to do it differently, and if you're willing to submit to God's discipline and direction, your church family and I are here to support you in making the changes you need to make."
A state district judge isn't going to do that, and frankly, he can't do it. He's going to look at the divorce paperwork, and if there are no kids involved, he's going to say, "OK." If there are kids involved, he may ask a few more questions, but reconciling the family isn't going to be a priority for him.
If I had kidney problems I sure as hell wouldn't be taking ANY vaccines until the kidney issues were cured.
Horrific, and these people should lose their licences and get sued into bankruptcy. However, are we sure about this story? I'm seeing nothing on it.
Also, the girl in that photo looks quite a bit younger than 14. I'm saving my indignation until such time as this story can be corroborated.
Facing Addiction
1,000+ Posts
‘Inclusive’ restaurant turns away Christian group because of its beliefs. Who's the bigot? (msn.com)
“Welcome to the double standard of the left, where some believe Jack Phillips must be forced to create a wedding cake as part of the celebration of a same-sex ceremony but any business should be able to deny basic goods and services to those who hold biblical values around marriage,”
“Welcome to the double standard of the left, where some believe Jack Phillips must be forced to create a wedding cake as part of the celebration of a same-sex ceremony but any business should be able to deny basic goods and services to those who hold biblical values around marriage,”
I heard on radio the 14 yo was adopted from Ukraine by an Army vet knowing the girl had kidney problems. Duke Med Center did turn her down for being unvaccinated even though she had covid and recovered. Her name is Yulia Hicks
There is supposed to be audio between her parents and Duke.
I will try to find later
There is supposed to be audio between her parents and Duke.
I will try to find later
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 3
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
