Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-26-2013, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,080 posts, read 14,376,986 times
Reputation: 9789

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomBen View Post
She is a bat **** crazy lunatic.

As if she knows anything God wants.
Lol! Didn't God want her to run for office?
I guess she doesn't subscribe to the "fool me once" adage.

 
Old 06-26-2013, 03:26 PM
 
17,290 posts, read 29,486,769 times
Reputation: 8691
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz View Post
Oh, she's just butthurt because she and her husband can no longer rake the money in to "pray the gay away."
Now that gay marriage has more legitimacy, Michelle is probably afraid that her husband is finally going to pack up all of his caftans and leave her for a man.


 
Old 06-26-2013, 03:27 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,815,268 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sco View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
If you openly support issues that not only contradict His word but mock Him you are without God. If you want to be with God follow His word. If you're offended then change.
What is Up with the weird Capitalization? Is that Some kind of Religious Thing?
Capitalization of both nouns and pronouns that refer to God, has been the common rule in the English language, ever since there had been an English language. It's hardly "weird".

About the only people who don't know that, are those who got their entire education from cartoons and video games, and texting.

Or those who have no education at all.

(Is that redundant?)
 
Old 06-26-2013, 03:30 PM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,414 posts, read 10,528,111 times
Reputation: 4307
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
So now that they've destroyed the meaning and concept of marriage, they will be able to "marry". A lot like dropping a 2000 lb. wrecking ball on a car before you steal it.
The rediculous divorce rate that straight marriages encur is destroying the concept of marriage and then they have the nerve to have another try at it and then another and another and still get the federal rights and benefits. If your marriage is in trouble because of gays getting married, then it was already in dire straits.
 
Old 06-26-2013, 03:31 PM
 
1,137 posts, read 975,153 times
Reputation: 560
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoOBama View Post
Yeah and if you pull out, she won't get pregnant.....lol
Actually after having 2 kids I got snipped so no pregnancy worries.

Every time I go to a hotel, I am going to finish on every bible I come across. (no pun intended)

Think about that next time you pick up your little book of fairy tales
 
Old 06-26-2013, 03:32 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,815,268 times
Reputation: 4174
I see that three different threads on three different subjects, got merged into one, on grounds that they were all on the same subject.

That should pretty well kill discussion on all three.

Who wants to search thru 1000-plus posts loking for the one he wanted to reply to?
 
Old 06-26-2013, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Riverside
4,088 posts, read 4,403,961 times
Reputation: 3092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli View Post
Uh...reading is fundamental. Prop 8 stands.
Wow... dumb AND rude.

Congratulations... or something
 
Old 06-26-2013, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 11,072,037 times
Reputation: 6192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
I see that three different threads on three different subjects, got merged into one, on grounds that they were all on the same subject.

That should pretty well kill discussion on all three.

Who wants to search thru 1000-plus posts loking for the one he wanted to reply to?
Precisely. I had a thread discussing the actual legal implications of this ruling - no point of even continuing on this thread. It's just a mess of insults swapping back and forth.
 
Old 06-26-2013, 03:35 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,279,148 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
But the 5th only applied because of the conflict between a state's and federal's definition of marriage. SCOTUS declared that states define marriage. With that, the federal definition cannot stand and by virtue of the 5th (conflicting law), DOMA is struck down.

I didn't see 14th in the decision??
Scalia even says that this ruling will be used to rule on state cases in his dissent.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-307_g2bh.pdf

Quote:
How easy it
is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion
with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status. Consider how easy (inevitable) it is to make the
following substitutions in a passage from today’s opinion
ante, at 22:
“DOMA’s This state law’s principal effect is to identify
a subset of state-sanctioned marriages constitutionally protected sexual relationships, see Lawrence, and
make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights,
enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And
DOMA this state law contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State enjoying
constitutionally protected sexual relationships, but not
other couples, of both rights and responsibilities.”
Or try this passage, from ante, at 22–23:
“[DOMA] This state law tells those couples, and all
the world, that their otherwise valid marriages relationships are unworthy of federal state recognition.
This places same-sex couples in an unstable position
of being in a second-tier marriage relationship. The
differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral
and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see
Lawrence, . . . .”
 
Old 06-26-2013, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,279,148 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
And it sucks that my thread got combined with this one - too many religious references to this ruling. Would be nice to discuss the LAW and not all the morality based judgements on it.
I agree. I wonder if the mods could separate them again?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top