will you answer a serious question seriously?
CPAC silence on SSM is speaking volumes
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
will you answer a serious question seriously?
alwight
New member
Yes, that was a kind of pre-emptive but serious answer I just did.
do you want God to exist?
alwight
New member
I've already answered that C.
Imagine that I own a property to which I would like to rent.
Would I want a tenant to already exist in it? :think:
"Yes and no." is my serious answer.
Yes, if they paid the rent on time and didn't damage the place.
No, if they avoided paying the rent and made holes in the walls.
What would your answer be C?
republicanchick
New member
this is what happens when the STATE's rights (as opposed to the Federal gov) are ignored...
I have so much respect for Judge Moore in Alabama... He understands this... as of course, any judge should... but we all know about activist judges who couldn't care less abaout the LAW
and the Constitution
++++
I am asking you what you want
I want God to exist because it gives meaning to this life
now
it is your turn to answer the question
do you want God to exist?
GFR7
New member
I am also very much a fan of states rights. :up: This is why I find the overturning of voters' states bans on same sex marriage by federal judges obnoxious and deeply disturbing.
Funny how when W Bush considered a federal ban on gay marriage, gay advocates yelled, 'Let the states decide!' Now they're singing a different tune. :nono:
so how do you get judges that won't overturn state laws?
alwight
New member
What you seem to be saying is that outwardly this one existence that we know we have, seen in isolation, is ultimately purposeless and futile, whatever purposes we might engineer for ourselves?
If I were somehow able to convince myself that there was an ultimate purpose to our existence from available evidence then yes I too might feel rather better about this life.
However that doesn't actually make any actual difference to the reality of it, it only indicates if you can spend your life under a delusion or not. Unless perhaps you are fortunate enough to say be sent angels or if God actually speaks or appears to you.
republicanchick
New member
well, we all know how hypocritical they are... how into The End Justifies the Means they are...
Moron City
+++
GFR7
New member
You grant supremacy to the states' rights (in this case, millions of voters on a state referendum); you don't allow this judicial activism to override the people and the states.
GFR7
New member
True.
lain:
I asked you a question
don't you know what you want?
do you want God to exist?
yes or no
alwight
New member
With all due respect to your idea of God but I do know what I do or don't want and which isn't to say yes or no to pig in a poke questions.
once again I am not asking you
if
you want my idea of God
do you want any kind of God?
do you want your kind of God?
this is an easy question
the only problem with it
is
the answer will expose you
What polls? How large a majority? 37/50 states but wasn't that mostly judicial action? Not legislators that are elected by the people. Put up a gay marriage bill in all 50 states, how many do you think would get passed? Put up a gay marriage referendum on ballots, how many do you think would get passed?
No doubt that Republicans (and any politician) watch the polls but I think they'd prioritize things they hear from their own constituents and I imagine that a good many of them still hear that gay marriage should be banned. But who knows. :idunno:
Daniel1611
New member
So if a state government passes a law that only state officials can drive cars? Can a federal judge overturn it based on the Constitution? What if the voters in a state vote to enslave a certain group of people? Can a federal judge overturn it? These scenarios may sound silly, but a case can be made that state bans on gay marriage violate the equal protection clause, in which case a federal judge can rule it unconstitutional. That's the issue you're really facing.
Personally, I don't agree with gay marriage, but I don't pretend it's for some religious reason. The Bible doesn't say "don't let the sodomites get married." We all know what the Bible says to do with the sodomites. If I want to give the Biblical position on homosexuals, it wouldn't be "don't let them get married." Christians that say they oppose gay marriage because of the Bible are basically just compromisers.
Buzzword
New member
Just a brief sample:
Associated Press 2010 - 52% support same-sex marriage
Gallup 2011 - 53% support same-sex marriage
Wall Street Journal 2012 - 54% would support a law in their state legalizing same-sex marriage
USA Today 2013 - 55% support same-same sex marriage
Gallup 2014 - 55% support same-sex marriage
Human Rights Campaign 2015 - 60% support same-sex marriage
Last I checked, judicial review is part of the judiciary system's JOB.
To review laws which have been passed by those elected legislators and determine whether or not they are in fact constitutional.
And 37 states out of 50 have determined that the laws preventing same-sex couples from marrying are not in fact constitutional.
Is a straight marriage bill or referendum or constitutional amendment required in order for straight couples to get married?
No.
The government protects their right implicitly as citizens of the nation.
It is only in recent years that the citizenry have begun demanding that the government protect gay couples' rights as it does the rights of straight couples.
Since the state legislatures did nothing to recall or reverse the discriminatory laws already on the books, it has fallen to the judiciary system to strike down laws which actively deprive citizens of their rights, and it has been doing so state by state.
And judging by the celebrations among the majority of the population resulting from those decisions, the judiciary is following the will of the people, even if the legislatures won't.
They're likely still hearing it, but that's only because at this point the most bigoted, ravening lunatics are making so much noise the rest of their constituents can't even be heard.
Morpheus
New member
National polls. It's easy for some congressman, or even some senators, to take a stand against gay marriage since their electorate are local in more conservative districts. Once a candidate's ambitions turn toward the White House their considered electorate suddenly takes on a broader, national position. Issues that got them elected in Kentucky or the 9th district of Louisiana may be the same issues that keep the Presidency out of their reach. Take the Presidency away from a party for a couple of terms and they will marry sheep if they think it will get them back there. To politicians morality is only a tool of the trade.