85% of Blacks don't agree with the democrats on immigration illegal or legal.
This is true of same sex marriage as well.
Noted homophobe Obama ran his first campaign including opposition to gay marriage.
People tend to forget he was against it before he was for it.
I had Obamabot tell me less than 6 months after Obama flip on this issue that anyone opposed to gay marriage was a malignant bigot.
I was against it in the late 90s but went pro by early 2000s. So I evolved way before Obama. But he was still going to the Church of God Damn 'Merica so prolly takes one a bit longer to come around.
From a civil, contract law standpoint, I really don't care. Knock yourself out. Whomever one wants to subrogate their rights and property to is their business.
Where i have reservations is a 5-10 year populist wave redefining a word with thousand year+ understood meaning in Western common law. Yes, I understand that "marriage" has become equivilance-by-proxy from civil to social/religious. If the redefinition stops at civil, no protest from me. I don't think it will though. Some asshole will sue a church for refusing to preform a religious marriage ceremony. And that asshole will become a GLAAD hero.
It felt like in the lead up to the SCOTUS decision where we arguing about the meaning of a word, albeit one that labels a fundamental institution across all human civilizations. Prior to Obergefell, a majority of Americans were in favor of civil unions but still struggled with the "marriage" label and I get that. However, in terms of how the government is involved in marriage it is and should be a civil union matter and I, personally, could never find a compelling reason for the state to deny gay couples civil unions. Let the churches make the call I say in terms of who they want to confer marital status to and not.
I really hope we don't get to a place where some assholes start suing churches for refusing to perform a ceremony. I wish they would have left the cake bakers alone as well. They won and don't need to add insult to injury. Just go get married in a church of your choosing, find a baker (there are plenty) and move the fuck on.
I agree with you, civil unions should have been a slam dunk, and for that matter, marriage within gay friendly churches, but for the left, this isn't simply about legal status, it's about forcing a cultural change and spiting those who disagree with them. Traditional religion, and likewise, the cake bakers have been singled out to make a cultural point.
You can bet your bottom dollar that some assholes will eventually sue a traditional church for refusing to perform a gay wedding ceremony, and they'll use bullying and shaming tactics to get their way as a deliberate means of spiting the church and its parishioners. This is the way of gay militants, many of whom feel it is there prerogative and responsibility to make "fundies" feel uncomfortable anywhere anytime. They're bullies, plain and simple.
My non-belief is oft stated in this shit hole, forum of ideas, but the last thing I want to see happen is the courts forcing religions to marry people who don't meet their criteria for marriage. I'm more skeptical, however, that we'll actually see this result. This issue like so many in my view is defined by extremes and I wish we could all just get along and compromise. But that's the unrealistic Pollyanna outlook I suppose.
Separation of church and state. I believe that the Federal Government should recognize gay marriage, but I also believe that a Church has the right to ban gay marriage ceremonies on it's premises if gay marriage conflicts with it's beliefs. Some churches will allow it, and some won't.
Couples and organizations can challenge it in court, but they won't win. Churches unlike private businesses are excluded in parts of the federal discrimination law. Since getting married in a church doesn't make a marriage legal or not legal, there isn't a case to be made that a church denying a ceremony creates a hardship.
85% of Blacks don't agree with the democrats on immigration illegal or legal.
This is true of same sex marriage as well.
Noted homophobe Obama ran his first campaign including opposition to gay marriage.
People tend to forget he was against it before he was for it.
I had Obamabot tell me less than 6 months after Obama flip on this issue that anyone opposed to gay marriage was a malignant bigot.
I was against it in the late 90s but went pro by early 2000s. So I evolved way before Obama. But he was still going to the Church of God Damn 'Merica so prolly takes one a bit longer to come around.
From a civil, contract law standpoint, I really don't care. Knock yourself out. Whomever one wants to subrogate their rights and property to is their business.
Where i have reservations is a 5-10 year populist wave redefining a word with thousand year+ understood meaning in Western common law. Yes, I understand that "marriage" has become equivilance-by-proxy from civil to social/religious. If the redefinition stops at civil, no protest from me. I don't think it will though. Some asshole will sue a church for refusing to preform a religious marriage ceremony. And that asshole will become a GLAAD hero.
It felt like in the lead up to the SCOTUS decision where we arguing about the meaning of a word, albeit one that labels a fundamental institution across all human civilizations. Prior to Obergefell, a majority of Americans were in favor of civil unions but still struggled with the "marriage" label and I get that. However, in terms of how the government is involved in marriage it is and should be a civil union matter and I, personally, could never find a compelling reason for the state to deny gay couples civil unions. Let the churches make the call I say in terms of who they want to confer marital status to and not.
I really hope we don't get to a place where some assholes start suing churches for refusing to perform a ceremony. I wish they would have left the cake bakers alone as well. They won and don't need to add insult to injury. Just go get married in a church of your choosing, find a baker (there are plenty) and move the fuck on.
I agree with you, civil unions should have been a slam dunk, and for that matter, marriage within gay friendly churches, but for the left, this isn't simply about legal status, it's about forcing a cultural change and spiting those who disagree with them. Traditional religion, and likewise, the cake bakers have been singled out to make a cultural point.
You can bet your bottom dollar that some assholes will eventually sue a traditional church for refusing to perform a gay wedding ceremony, and they'll use bullying and shaming tactics to get their way as a deliberate means of spiting the church and its parishioners. This is the way of gay militants, many of whom feel it is there prerogative and responsibility to make "fundies" feel uncomfortable anywhere anytime. They're bullies, plain and simple.
My non-belief is oft stated in this shit hole, forum of ideas, but the last thing I want to see happen is the courts forcing religions to marry people who don't meet their criteria for marriage. I'm more skeptical, however, that we'll actually see this result. This issue like so many in my view is defined by extremes and I wish we could all just get along and compromise. But that's the unrealistic Pollyanna outlook I suppose.
Separation of church and state. I believe that the Federal Government should recognize gay marriage, but I also believe that a Church has the right to ban gay marriage ceremonies on it's premises if gay marriage conflicts with it's beliefs. Some churches will allow it, and some won't.
Couples and organizations can challenge it in court, but they won't win. Churches unlike private businesses are excluded in parts of the federal discrimination law. Since getting married in a church doesn't make a marriage legal or not legal, there isn't a case to be made that a church denying a ceremony creates a hardship.
What puzzles me about Trump is that if he gets some billed passed and we don't get into a war and he gets 3.0% growth or more per year one and he doesn't get impeached one would think he cruises to reelection. Yet, no one's come close to getting reelected at 38% approval rating. Are there another 10- 13% out there that hate the son of a bitch but will vote for him anyway?
Hey @creepycoug , being that you are the arbiter of all things academis smack talk, do you think UC Hastings Too High?
Solid law school. Comparable to UW. It's not Boalt or Stanford, for sure. Not even UCLA. But it's solid. If you want to work in the Bay Area or LA it will carry the same way UW carries here. Go to Boston, Philly, Chicago or NY and NOWGAF. Go Texas and you deserve what you get.
Hey @creepycoug , being that you are the arbiter of all things academis smack talk, do you think UC Hastings Too High?
Better than whOregon (lol!) worse than Boalt
That's right. Though I'll say both Oregon and now Washington have much nicer LS facilities than Hastings.
The problem with places like Hastings is, you know you're second-tier in your own yard. At least in Seattle, if you're at UW LS you know every single student at Seattle U and Gonzaga applied and was rejected at UW, which is ranked much higher and is a fraction of the cost.
My wife and I got married in a Las Vegas chapel drunk on our ass because of our strong belief in the sanctity of marriage.
If the gays want to put half their shit up for grabs like the straights then go for it.
It is a civil ceremony that can be religious of one wants IMO
The 50% divorce rate by straights made a compelling case for the sanctity of marriage I thought.
People forget that I am actually on my second marriage myself. Got married long ago in a Church with all the trimmings and it lasted 6 months.
This one is in its 33rd year
#metoo
Wife #2 was a significant upgrade in every respect so I got that going for me.
found her at patties huh
Nope. #1 was an arranged marriage. Got 100 gold pieces and a donkey for the dowry.
I meant number 2
Thought she was a scottsdale chick
Negative. Went to Scottsdale once with #1 though. Went to some Messican joint located in some office park that was cash only and claimed to have the best Margaritas in all Phoenix area. They came out of a 7-11 type slushie machine in keg cups for $5.00 while you waited 40 mins for a table. I figure any joint that gets away with the cash only / no reservation stuff has to be good and it was.
Comments
Jesus.
Just link Perez Hilton.
This one is in its 33rd year
The problem with places like Hastings is, you know you're second-tier in your own yard. At least in Seattle, if you're at UW LS you know every single student at Seattle U and Gonzaga applied and was rejected at UW, which is ranked much higher and is a fraction of the cost.
Wife #2 was a significant upgrade in every respect so I got that going for me.
Thought she was a scottsdale chick
#2 is 6'2" D 1 Full Ride for Hoops with great personality; beat UW in Hec Ed in fact
Eugenics Upgrade + Personality Upgrade