4 out of 5 republicans voted against same sex marriage
4 out of 4 democrats voted for it
are you for same sex marriage?
that would explain it
SUPREME COURT EXTENDS GAY MARRIAGE NATIONWIDE
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
4 out of 5 republicans voted against same sex marriage
4 out of 4 democrats voted for it
are you for same sex marriage?
that would explain it
And two republican appointees are activists for the legislature can you explain that? You seem to want to ignore the fact that these two men were put there by republicans...you are at a loss for words I know.
4 out of 4 democrats voted for same sex marriage
4 out of 5 republicans voted against it
are you for same sex marriage?
sounds like you are
I think he is saying that as long as someone wears the label of "R", he will defend any decision they make.
You keep trying to tell yourself that those two republican appointees are not to blame. You keep telling yourself that there is a difference...why don't you compliment the emperor on his new clothes while your at it....:chuckle:
Amongst other lies he tells himself...:chuckle:
Shasta
Well-known member
:chuckle:
This comic is silly...and bigoted too since it assumes a stereotype of anyone who disagrees with you. Personally the most rational analysis of Obama's presidency concludes that it is in almost every respect an unmitigated disaster on par with few others.
As for the oblique references to redefining marriage you have shown an irrational bias against the objective norms provided to us by biology in favor of the faulty psychological programming engendered by the modern dysfunctional family. Does not logic teach you that the hardware should match the software, Mr Agnostic, or that a truly rational society should side with the natural male-female alliance as a reproductive unit? This has all been tried before, you know, in ancient Greece and Rome and it did not bring about the deepening of human relationships then any more than it will now.
Great post! :first:
which two?
can you name them?
you can't see
can you
you can't name them
are you for same sex marriage?
can you at least answer that?
Actually in this case it was one republican appointee that pushed it over the edge and it was Kennedy. In the O-Care case it was two Roberts & Kennedy, both of which are activist republican appointees. I mixed the two up I will admit but, I was spot on that a republican appointee was the deciding vote in this case. What was that difference you were speaking of again?
I think you don't quite state it correctly. That is, I assume that the attempt will be made to impede churches who vocally differ with the position of homosexual culture. I simply believe it should and will fail.
Sorry, if you want me to consider something seriously you have to offer it seriously. Moving on then.
All that exists beyond the truth of the moment is speculation, informed and uninformed. What's foreseeable is challenge. Of course. I and any reasonable person considering the thing should see that. But potential for harm isn't harm itself and it isn't an argument against a thing that doesn't in and of itself work that harm.
So we legalize possession of firearms understanding that some will attempt to use them for ill or to advance an interest and action contrary to the good, public and/or moral.
Whereas it actually is funny that you criticize what I think without apparently knowing what that is.
I suspect most won't care what you think, will see anyone outside of what they deem enlightened as embers of a dying fire, though there will almost certainly be those who will seek to stamp you out to be sure that fire doesn't rekindle.
To no effect. It isn't lost on anyone in that community that a) the public tide has turned, or b) that even churches are split to some extent these days, or c) that the day was won and those churches have no real chance to undo what the Court has accomplished, even with a political and popular will that is missing.
For some? Sure. There's a Westboro for every idea these days.
The question is never "Will someone attempt it?" That one is almost always answered, "Yes." The question is can the attempt succeed and the answer to that, for any number of reasons, should be "No."
No, Are you? you seem to think republican appointees are going to do your bidding... this could not be further from the truth seeing how activist jurists rule.
I'll note there are a number of additional considerations in the consideration that complicate it. But it is a cause that can be advanced with a compelling challenge to societal interest and standard in opposition. It may be the only one remaining with that weight to it. It even has Biblical precedent to muddy the waters of religious opposition.
Sure there is. How do you think slavery was defeated as a legal institution, ultimately? It wasn't by a Court ruling.
Quetzal
New member
Wrong, it assumes a stereotype of someone who represents themselves with a Confederate battle flag, pickets with signs about things that are different, and who does not like Obama.
I see this as a slide into approval of the "anything goes" mentality.
You may rest assured that polygamy shall soon be a challenge to the law. And just as soon as animals can be taught to bark, moo, baa and whinny once for yes that will be the next agenda!
For such a mentality Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed utterly.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Why Wasn’t the Supreme Court Vote on Gay Marriage 4-3?
Laurence M. Vance
Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg have both performed same-sex weddings. Why didn’t they recuse themselves? By the way, Ginsburg was confirmed in the Senate in 1993 by a vote of 96-3. This means that only three Republican senators voted against her. This also means that Republican senators John McCain, Chuck Grassley, Connie Mack, Trent Lott, John Danforth, Phil Gramm, Strom Thurmond, and Bob Dole voted to confirm Ginsburg.
Laurence M. Vance
Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg have both performed same-sex weddings. Why didn’t they recuse themselves? By the way, Ginsburg was confirmed in the Senate in 1993 by a vote of 96-3. This means that only three Republican senators voted against her. This also means that Republican senators John McCain, Chuck Grassley, Connie Mack, Trent Lott, John Danforth, Phil Gramm, Strom Thurmond, and Bob Dole voted to confirm Ginsburg.