Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Trump just butt fucked Schumer...
Comments
-
The INLANDER is your source?!?2001400ex said:
https://m.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2016/05/03/hitching-post-lawsuit-settled-by-city-of-coeur-dalenegreenblood said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.Southerndawg said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.GrundleStiltzkin said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.GrundleStiltzkin said:
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.YellowSnow said:
People tend to forget he was against it before he was for it.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Noted homophobe Obama ran his first campaign including opposition to gay marriage.YellowSnow said:
This is true of same sex marriage as well.RaceBannon said:85% of Blacks don't agree with the democrats on immigration illegal or legal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jesus.
Just link Perez Hilton.
-
YKWPurpleThrobber said:
The INLANDER is your source?!?2001400ex said:
https://m.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2016/05/03/hitching-post-lawsuit-settled-by-city-of-coeur-dalenegreenblood said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.Southerndawg said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.GrundleStiltzkin said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.GrundleStiltzkin said:
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.YellowSnow said:
People tend to forget he was against it before he was for it.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Noted homophobe Obama ran his first campaign including opposition to gay marriage.YellowSnow said:
This is true of same sex marriage as well.RaceBannon said:85% of Blacks don't agree with the democrats on immigration illegal or legal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jesus.
Just link Perez Hilton. -
Hopefully, all you law dogs got the joke.AZDuck said:
Better than whOregon (lol!) worse than BoaltYellowSnow said:Hey @creepycoug , being that you are the arbiter of all things academis smack talk, do you think UC Hastings Too High?
-
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.YellowSnow said:
The 50% divorce rate by straights made a compelling case for the sanctity of marriage I thought.RaceBannon said: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
This one is in its 33rd year -
And if I was rich I'd be on # 3 or 4 with a 25 year oldTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Helps Trump IMOYellowSnow said:
The 50% divorce rate by straights made a compelling case for the sanctity of marriage I thought.RaceBannon said: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 -
Why do you think that you have to marry them to keep them around?RaceBannon said:
And if I was rich I'd be on # 3 or 4 with a 25 year oldTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Helps Trump IMOYellowSnow said:
The 50% divorce rate by straights made a compelling case for the sanctity of marriage I thought.RaceBannon said: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 -
So racism AND
Props and congratulations for surviving.RaceBannon said:
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.YellowSnow said:
The 50% divorce rate by straights made a compelling case for the sanctity of marriage I thought.RaceBannon said: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
This one is in its 33rd century.
-
She is lucky to have you.RaceBannon said:
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.YellowSnow said:
The 50% divorce rate by straights made a compelling case for the sanctity of marriage I thought.RaceBannon said: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
This one is in its 33rd year -
That's a good questionsalemcoog said:
Why do you think that you have to marry them to keep them around?RaceBannon said:
And if I was rich I'd be on # 3 or 4 with a 25 year oldTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Helps Trump IMOYellowSnow said:
The 50% divorce rate by straights made a compelling case for the sanctity of marriage I thought.RaceBannon said: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 -
CondolencesRaceBannon said:
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.YellowSnow said:
The 50% divorce rate by straights made a compelling case for the sanctity of marriage I thought.RaceBannon said: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
This one is in its 33rd year
