legalized gay marriage is NOT the problem: it is STATE's rights

[republicanchick]

legalized gay marriage is NOT the problem: it is STATE's rights​

RE today's decision that gay marriage is acceptable in all 50 states, the problem is NOT homosexuality

that problem has been with us since time began (probably).

Frankly, i don't care if perverts want to attempt to legitimatize their perversions through some legal act like "marriage."

I say Attempt... because they will never be able to succeed in this goal, not in the eyes of most Americans, but most importantly, not in the eyes of that Person they always try so hard to forget (God), who will judge them in the End.

no, i don't care much about gays being "married." In the eyes of God they are NOT married and never will be. And God's opinion is virtually the only one we need concern ourselves with.

But what is downright SCARY is the way the states are being dissolved [read: destroyed] ...into the central government, aka the federal government.

THAT is what is really frightening. Despite all the different branches of gov, etc... We are becoming a virtual monarchy

Didn't we fight a war over this kind of thing in the 18th century with England?

As Ann Coulter [title of her book] says

Adios, America!

....



+

 

[drbrumley]

But what is downright SCARY is the way the states are being dissolved [read: destroyed] ...into the central government, aka the federal government.

THAT is what is really frightening. Despite all the different branches of gov, etc... We are becoming a virtual monarchy

Didn't we fight a war over this kind of thing in the 18th century with England?

As Ann Coulter [title of her book] says

Adios, America!

....



+[/FONT][/B]

Well, better late than never. This destruction you mention was completed in 1865, with a few more nails here and there since then.

 

[Jose Fly]

So why haven't you been railing against the Loving v. Virginia ruling, where the SCOTUS overruled a state's marriage laws?

 

[shagster01]

legalized gay marriage is NOT the problem: it is STATE's rights​

RE today's decision that gay marriage is acceptable in all 50 states, the problem is NOT homosexuality

that problem has been with us since time began (probably).

Frankly, i don't care if perverts want to attempt to legitimatize their perversions through some legal act like "marriage."

I say Attempt... because they will never be able to succeed in this goal, not in the eyes of most Americans, but most importantly, not in the eyes of that Person they always try so hard to forget (God), who will judge them in the End.

no, i don't care much about gays being "married." In the eyes of God they are NOT married and never will be. And God's opinion is virtually the only one we need concern ourselves with.

But what is downright SCARY is the way the states are being dissolved [read: destroyed] ...into the central government, aka the federal government.

THAT is what is really frightening. Despite all the different branches of gov, etc... We are becoming a virtual monarchy

Didn't we fight a war over this kind of thing in the 18th century with England?

As Ann Coulter [title of her book] says

Adios, America!

....



+

While I agree with you on the whole on this (yes, it's shocking), the ruling was one based on the constitution. Would you also support the state's right to not recognize freedom of religion? Or do you want to pick and choose state rights?

 

[republicanchick]

Well, better late than never. This destruction you mention was completed in 1865, with a few more nails here and there since then.

???

dont get it

1865? what about it?

bad grammar and

imprecise language and

incomplete sentences

oh my


bad grammar and

imprecise language and

incomplete sentences

oh my
++

 

[republicanchick]

While I agree with you on the whole on this (yes, it's shocking), the ruling was one based on the constitution. Would you also support the state's right to not recognize freedom of religion? Or do you want to pick and choose state rights?

a state that refused to recognize religious freedom would soon lose all its best citizens

the ruling was NOT based on the Constitution

There is no right to marriage in the Constitution, gay or otherwise


__

 

[musterion]

???

dont get it

1865? what about it?

bad grammar and

imprecise language and

incomplete sentences

oh my


bad grammar and

imprecise language and

incomplete sentences

oh my
++

You are really too uninformed and stupid to post as often as you do. I would enjoy seeing you given a long time out.

 

[republicanchick]

next the Sup Ct will outlaw malice

watch out, Musterion,

His Servant (ha ha )

Pate

shagster

saul 2 paul

and others

 

[Jonahdog]

a state that refused to recognize religious freedom would soon lose all its best citizens

the ruling was NOT based on the Constitution

There is no right to marriage in the Constitution, gay or otherwise


__

again, based on your extensive legal knowledge.

 

[drbrumley]

You are really too uninformed and stupid to post as often as you do. I would enjoy seeing you given a long time out.

Well Musterion, it's a learned trait from our fine outstanding publik skools...cough, cough.

That did go over her head didn't it?

 

[republicanchick]

as per Shannon Bream of Fox News (and others) it is VERY strange that Roberts ruled one way on Ocare and another way on gay marriage

the issue in both cases centered around state's rights... and the states, of course, lost both times

Yet Roberts voted against the gay marriage thing... Good for him... I think he has packed his bags and on his way out of Moron City? I hope so

Anyway... strange.. I would like to think he did that RARE thing, that thing so few people do these days, esp people with lots of money and prestige...

I would like to think he REPENTED!!!!!!!!

wishful thinking?

++

 

[shagster01]

a state that refused to recognize religious freedom would soon lose all its best citizens

What if it only refused to recognize catholic freedom? Then many people would stay.

the ruling was NOT based on the Constitution

There is no right to marriage in the Constitution, gay or otherwise


__

The constitution prohibits discrimination. Your religion is a choice and I can't discriminate based on that choice of yours. Same with being gay.

 

[Jose Fly]

So why haven't you been railing against the Loving v. Virginia ruling, where the SCOTUS overruled a state's marriage laws?

 

[TrakeM]

Funny how state's rights suddenly became an issue right after DOMA, a federal law defining marriage, was struck down by the Supreme Court.

 

[seehigh]

a state that refused to recognize religious freedom would soon lose all its best citizens

the ruling was NOT based on the Constitution

There is no right to marriage in the Constitution, gay or otherwise


__

But equal rights is. That's the essence of the ruling.

 

[republicanchick]

So why haven't you been railing against the Loving v. Virginia ruling, where the SCOTUS overruled a state's marriage laws?

probably because i haven't heard of it...

do ya think?


__

 

[republicanchick]

ok, i read some of the decision in Loving v Virginia

being Black is not the same as being perverted & helping to pervert society by trying to be "married" in defiance of the definition of marriage that people and God Himself hold


I know that is hard to understand for some folks but...



____

 

[Jose Fly]

probably because i haven't heard of it...

do ya think?

Here's a tip...spend less time starting new threads and more time reading. Start with Loving v Virginia, and then ask yourself if you oppose that ruling on the same grounds as the gay marriage ruling from Friday.

 

[republicanchick]

Here's a tip...spend less time starting new threads and more time reading. Start with Loving v Virginia, and then ask yourself if you oppose that ruling on the same grounds as the gay marriage ruling from Friday.

Here's a tip

I didn't read the rest of this (beyond the word "tip")

Moron City

don't often visit that place, don't even drive through it if i can help it

 

[Jose Fly]

ok, i read some of the decision in Loving v Virginia

being Black is not the same as being perverted & helping to pervert society by trying to be "married" in defiance of the definition of marriage that people and God Himself hold


I know that is hard to understand for some folks but...

Don't know if you're being deliberately stupid, but I'll try one more time.

In Loving v. Virginia the SCOTUS overturned a state's laws on marriage.

In this thread you objected to Friday's gay marriage ruling on the grounds that the SCOTUS should leave marriage issues to the states.

So the obvious question is, do you object to Loving v. Virginia on the same grounds (SCOTUS shouldn't overturn state marriage laws)?