Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Trump just butt fucked Schumer...
Comments
-
Actually, I think order of operation gives me the assist.oregonblitzkrieg said:
I did the heavy lifting now I'm passing the ball to you and taking the assist.pawz said:
Yes. Go on. Continue.oregonblitzkrieg said:pawz said:oregonblitzkrieg said:I was for letting states decide on the gay marriage issue, instead of the courts forcing it on reluctant populations. This was another big reason democrats got destroyed and are out of power and currently irrelevant. People don't want 9 unelected black robed fucking druids deciding broad social issues for them. Put issues like this up for a vote in each state. Let each state decide. Like with Mary Jane.
Pics?
TYFYS -
Where do you get the actual approval rating? Is that an OBK thing? Where do we get it? Do we just consult your pole?oregonblitzkrieg said:
No one was supposed to win an election either where the other candidate was projected to win 90% of the time. Fake polls are shit. You don't really believe that approval rating do you? His actual approval rating is above 50%. Better believe the majority of Americans are not fucktarded scum like the democrats are, believing in open borders, socialism and free speech restrictions.YellowSnow said: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?
-
"Its" "affect". Fuck!!!Southerndawg said:
The dems fucked themselves by going full progtard. Since becoming the party of limousine "liberals", their collective power base has eroded to it's lowest level since the 1920's. Being more concerned with bodies, bathrooms, political correctness and the future votes of illegal aliens than with issues that effect actual citizens is no recipe for long term success. #resist #sanctuarystate #schumershutdown #metoo #blametheonepercent #notaxbill #amnestyforillegals #automaticvoterregistrationforillegals ... that may be a winning formula in California, Oregon, Washington and parts of the Northeast, but it's a loser in most.jhfstyle24 said:
The dems so fucked themselves over by clearing their bench and pushing for a horrendous candidate in Clinton and then losing that they might legitimately have no one better than someone as incompetent as Elizabeth Warren. If that happens, he could win at 25-30%.YellowSnow said: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?
But, sadly, this is Spot the fuck on. I have been saying this since the election, and seemingly nobody wants to hear it. There was a fantastic piece written in the Harvard business review by, of all people, a law school professor at UC Hastings Who absolutely and brilliantly made this very point. It's a good read. I recommend anyone here go find it. She also does a fantastic job of explaining Troomp. -
Me too.DerekJohnson said:
I will be shocked if he doesn't get reelectedYellowSnow said: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?
-
#MeToocreepycoug said:
Me too.DerekJohnson said:
I will be shocked if he doesn't get reelectedYellowSnow said: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?
-
You are correct, it is affect.creepycoug said:
"Its" "affect". Fuck!!!Southerndawg said:
The dems fucked themselves by going full progtard. Since becoming the party of limousine "liberals", their collective power base has eroded to it's lowest level since the 1920's. Being more concerned with bodies, bathrooms, political correctness and the future votes of illegal aliens than with issues that effect actual citizens is no recipe for long term success. #resist #sanctuarystate #schumershutdown #metoo #blametheonepercent #notaxbill #amnestyforillegals #automaticvoterregistrationforillegals ... that may be a winning formula in California, Oregon, Washington and parts of the Northeast, but it's a loser in most.jhfstyle24 said:
The dems so fucked themselves over by clearing their bench and pushing for a horrendous candidate in Clinton and then losing that they might legitimately have no one better than someone as incompetent as Elizabeth Warren. If that happens, he could win at 25-30%.YellowSnow said: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?
But, sadly, this is Spot the fuck on. I have been saying this since the election, and seemingly nobody wants to hear it. There was a fantastic piece written in the Harvard business review by, of all people, a law school professor at UC Hastings Who absolutely and brilliantly made this very point. It's a good read. I recommend anyone here go find it. She also does a fantastic job of explaining Troomp.
I believe I've read the article you are referring to. In my opinion it is fairly accurate, but ironically, Williams seems unable to avoid a temptation she warns against. This may be in order to maintain some credibility within the blue state echo chamber she and her friends inhabit. Nonetheless a small blip on an otherwise good take on the situation, at least in my opinion. -
It felt like in the lead up to the SCOTUS decision we where just 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. -
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.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 -
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. -
Ironic how the thread title transitioned into a gay marriage debate...
-
One might say the thread has been butt fucked.greenblood said:Ironic how the thread title transitioned into a gay marriage debate...
-
Hey @creepycoug , being that you are the arbiter of all things academis smack talk, do you think UC Hastings Too High?
-
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. -
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. -
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?
-
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. -
Maybe even some for-profit churches are protected as well. Go figure...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. -
In Idahogreenblood said:
Maybe even some for-profit churches are protected as well. Go figure...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. -
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 -
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
