Magistrates Refuse Marriages

[indago]

From The Associated Press 10 September 2015:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrates in a northwestern North Carolina county are refusing to perform same-sex marriages, citing the state's religious exemption law... Supervising Judge Randy Poole said that, by law, the McDowell magistrates cannot perform any kind of marriages for six months if they refuse to wed gay couples.

...Nonetheless, the North Carolina law violates the U.S. Constitution's requirement that state governments operate in a "religiously neutral" fashion, said Columbia University Law School Professor Katherine Franke. Franke said the state was placing a burden on people looking to get married.

"Clearly the costs of public officials' religion liberty rights are being shifted to the citizens of North Carolina who have limited access to public offices that issue marriage licenses and to other state employees who are pulled away (from) their duties elsewhere," Franke said. "Much more, the North Carolina law, on its face and as applied in these cases, builds a preference for religion into the law itself by granting the religious views of some public officials' special protection."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SAME_SEX_MARRIAGE_NORTH_CAROLINA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-09-10-19-28-13)

[tailfins]

It's obvious that those giving lip service to religious protections really don't mean it. It's time to follow India's lead and put a stop to accommodating homosexuals. If they reversed course, so can we.

[fj1200]

Cool. Another thread where civil servants refuse to do their job. :rolleyes:

[Gunny]

Cool. Another thread where civil servants refuse to do their job. :rolleyes:

Let's try your over-simplification again. Why is it, the church can't impose on the state, but the state can impose on the church? No double standard?

The REAL problem here that no one is addressing is states are telling the Fed gov't to go to Hell. I think we fought a civil war over this once. The people are tired of being told what to do by idiots.

[fj1200]

Let's try your over-simplification again. Why is it, the church can't impose on the state, but the state can impose on the church? No double standard?

The REAL problem here that no one is addressing is states are telling the Fed gov't to go to Hell. I think we fought a civil war over this once. The people are tired of being told what to do by idiots.

34? states by whatever method approved gay marriage prior to the decision. The States weren't telling the Feds where to go; Equal protection was a clear decision IMO.

My oversimplification? The church can't impose on the state because elected officials and SCOTUS do with limits by the Constitution. The state isn't imposing on the church, the state is imposing on private enterprises via NDA laws but I addressed that in the other thread. I expect one of those cases to go to the Supremes and ultimately support religious freedom.

[indago]

34? states by whatever method approved gay marriage prior to the decision. The States weren't telling the Feds where to go; Equal protection was a clear decision IMO.

My oversimplification? The church can't impose on the state because elected officials and SCOTUS do with limits by the Constitution. The state isn't imposing on the church, the state is imposing on private enterprises via NDA laws but I addressed that in the other thread. I expect one of those cases to go to the Supremes and ultimately support religious freedom.

"Equal protection" from what?

[Gunny]

34? states by whatever method approved gay marriage prior to the decision. The States weren't telling the Feds where to go; Equal protection was a clear decision IMO.

My oversimplification? The church can't impose on the state because elected officials and SCOTUS do with limits by the Constitution. The state isn't imposing on the church, the state is imposing on private enterprises via NDA laws but I addressed that in the other thread. I expect one of those cases to go to the Supremes and ultimately support religious freedom.

On legal grounds, I have no problem with states approving whatever. However, the state DOES impose on the church and has since whenever. All the state cares about is getting its money. And they DO impose on religion. You pay the state to get a marriage license. The preacher has to pay for his license. The state "lets" the preacher marry the couple for their nominal fee; especially, since no one's crowding the court house to get married. Cuts down on a lot of time and money for who? The state.

Last I checked, the 1st guarantees the separation of church and state. So get your state out of my church. You want to tear down my monuments, symbols and statues and not let my kid wear a Jesus tee shirt to school? Fine. Get your ass out of my church. The 1st ain't a one-way street.

[jimnyc]

34? states by whatever method approved gay marriage prior to the decision. The States weren't telling the Feds where to go; Equal protection was a clear decision IMO.

The states were 31-0 in voting against gay marriage at one point. Sounded to me like a HUGE message.

[Black Diamond]

The states were 31-0 in voting against gay marriage at one point. Sounded to me like a HUGE message.
It was a huge message. But attitudes have (and are) changed so quickly. It's frightening.

[Gunny]

The states were 31-0 in voting against gay marriage at one point. Sounded to me like a HUGE message.

True enough. What the states were against was calling civil union "marriage". The flamers rejected that. They wanted to intrude on religious beliefs. That's been their whole point from "go".

[jimnyc]

It was a huge message. But attitudes have (and are) changed so quickly. It's frightening.

Admittedly, I've apparently seen a huge change in the past 15 years or so. But I'm a betting man, and I'd bet that if each stated voted today, it would still be around 50/50, if not even a few more against. The shift was when the activist courts started making changes instead of allowing the voting of the people to stand. I think folks kind of gave up, were bludgeoned to death by the PC crowd, and figured their votes didn't count anymore anyway. I suppose none of that matters now anyway.

But likely not many somehow see homosexuals as the same as others, nor see marriages as the same as others. They aren't married and everyone knows it. It's like someone getting a sex change and we all believe they are now really the other sex. Nope, nothing has changed. They are given the term marriage in a meaningless way. They aren't, and never will have a marriage in God's eyes.

[Gunny]

It was a huge message. But attitudes have (and are) changed so quickly. It's frightening.

Depends on how you look at it. Back when, I used to think they should all be shot and thrown into the ocean until I figured out it would wreck my lobster tails.:laugh:

BUT, giving special rights to yet another minority group is just bullshit.

[fj1200]

"Equal protection" from what?

It's not equal protection "from" it's equal protection "of."


The states were 31-0 in voting against gay marriage at one point. Sounded to me like a HUGE message.

31-0 until it wasn't.


BUT, giving special rights to yet another minority group is just bullshit.

Nobody is getting special rights.


Admittedly, I've apparently seen a huge change in the past 15 years or so. But I'm a betting man, and I'd bet that if each stated voted today, it would still be around 50/50, if not even a few more against. The shift was when the activist courts started making changes instead of allowing the voting of the people to stand. I think folks kind of gave up, were bludgeoned to death by the PC crowd, and figured their votes didn't count anymore anyway. I suppose none of that matters now anyway.

But likely not many somehow see homosexuals as the same as others, nor see marriages as the same as others. They aren't married and everyone knows it. It's like someone getting a sex change and we all believe they are now really the other sex. Nope, nothing has changed. They are given the term marriage in a meaningless way. They aren't, and never will have a marriage in God's eyes.

I'm pretty sure that plenty of them are married and believe they are married in God's eyes. Nevertheless the decision was correct and inevitable given the Federalization of "marriage" anyway.

[fj1200]

On legal grounds, I have no problem with states approving whatever. However, the state DOES impose on the church and has since whenever. All the state cares about is getting its money. And they DO impose on religion. You pay the state to get a marriage license. The preacher has to pay for his license. The state "lets" the preacher marry the couple for their nominal fee; especially, since no one's crowding the court house to get married. Cuts down on a lot of time and money for who? The state.

Last I checked, the 1st guarantees the separation of church and state. So get your state out of my church. You want to tear down my monuments, symbols and statues and not let my kid wear a Jesus tee shirt to school? Fine. Get your ass out of my church. The 1st ain't a one-way street.

What do states impose on religion?

[Gunny]

What do states impose on religion?

You must be bored. I already made it clear. Marriage is a religious institution. When the state sticks its nose in to make tax dollars, it is imposing on religion, by definition. The state has NO right to say a damned thing about religion nor marriage one way or the other. What they have is the Right to get the fuck out of the church's business.

[fj1200]

You must be bored. I already made it clear. Marriage is a religious institution. When the state sticks its nose in to make tax dollars, it is imposing on religion, by definition. The state has NO right to say a damned thing about religion nor marriage one way or the other. What they have is the Right to get the fuck out of the church's business.

A little. But I don't see that as much of an imposition. They're not saying anything about religion and they coopted marriage by which to grant benefits decades ago. Not to many complained about it until it had to be governed equally.

[jimnyc]

31-0 until it wasn't.

You can move the posts if you like, I already kicked it through the uprights. They WERE telling the feds where to go and how they wanted things, until courts stepped in. If you now want to claim, that after things were 31 states to none, that courts started reversing things, that's different. You also stated that 34 states approved of gay marriage prior to the decision, which isn't even remotely correct.

[jimnyc]

Here is prior to SCOTUS, states voting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States#Effo rts_to_ban_same-sex_unions_by_constitutional_amendment

[Gunny]

A little. But I don't see that as much of an imposition. They're not saying anything about religion and they coopted marriage by which to grant benefits decades ago. Not to many complained about it until it had to be governed equally.

Because you want to deny the slippery slope that's as obvious as daylight. This is an imposition on the church by yet another dumbass minority getting special treatment for being fucked up. First it was all about the word "marriage". Now you have to make their fucking cakes. And they want to be married in our church? If that doesn't spell "slippery slope", I don't know what does.

Over 60% of Americans were fine with "civil union" over 10 years ago. Oh, but that ain't good enough. They have to impose.

Guess what? You're a fag you ain't a Christian so get the fuck out of my church. Go start your own.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Let's try your over-simplification again. Why is it, the church can't impose on the state, but the state can impose on the church? No double standard?

The REAL problem here that no one is addressing is states are telling the Fed gov't to go to Hell. I think we fought a civil war over this once. The people are tired of being told what to do by idiots.



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Gunny again.

Some people think that war was all about freeing tha' slaves! While we true Southerners know damn well what it was really about!
Too many today are SO DAMN ignorant and SO VERY proud of it IMHO. -TYR

[fj1200]

You can move the posts if you like, I already kicked it through the uprights. They WERE telling the feds where to go and how they wanted things, until courts stepped in. If you now want to claim, that after things were 31 states to none, that courts started reversing things, that's different. You also stated that 34 states approved of gay marriage prior to the decision, which isn't even remotely correct.

I'm not moving the goalposts; You chose old goalposts. And I said 34? states by whatever method. Some by vote, some by legislature and governor, some by courts. This is a bit more up to date regarding votes:


The pace of state legislative action quickened in 2012. The Washington state Legislature and governor approved legislation in February 2012 establishing same-sex marriage. In June 2012 opponents gathered enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot in November. Voters upheld the law and same-sex marriages began on Dec. 6, 2012.
...
Maryland passed a same-sex marriage bill in February 2012 that was signed by Governor O’Malley on March 1. Opponents of the legislation obtained enough signatures to file a referendum challenging the law. Voters upheld the law and it went into effect on Jan. 1, 2013.
In November 2012, voters in Maine approved a ballot measure legalizing same-sex marriage. It is the first time voters had been asked to legalize same-sex marriage rather than prohibit it. The measure went into effect Dec. 29, 2012.
The Maine initiative and the Washington and Maryland referendum votes to uphold the same-sex marriage laws marked a watershed. They were the first instances of public votes to establish same-sex marriage. On the same date, Minnesota voters voted against a constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriages. Those four votes reversed a long trend of public votes against same sex marriage. Previously, voters in 32 states had consistently voted to limit same-sex marriage. Thirty states had enacted constitutional provisions to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman and prohibit same-sex marriages. Between 1998 and May 2012, only one public vote out of 32 had not supported restrictions on same-sex marriage. (In 2006, Arizona voters rejected a constitutional provision prohibiting same-sex marriage and then approved a prohibition in 2008.)
http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-laws.aspx

Along with some states that approved laws by legislature and governor signature, 11 I think.


Here is prior to SCOTUS, states voting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States#Effo rts_to_ban_same-sex_unions_by_constitutional_amendment

You're cherry picking again. It doesn't present the whole picture.

[fj1200]

Because you want to deny the slippery slope that's as obvious as daylight. This is an imposition on the church by yet another dumbass minority getting special treatment for being fucked up. First it was all about the word "marriage". Now you have to make their fucking cakes. And they want to be married in our church? If that doesn't spell "slippery slope", I don't know what does.

Over 60% of Americans were fine with "civil union" over 10 years ago. Oh, but that ain't good enough. They have to impose.

Guess what? You're a fag you ain't a Christian so get the fuck out of my church. Go start your own.

There are plenty of gay Christians. God knows why when they get hate thrown at them repeatedly.

Nevertheless there are already NDA laws on the books and it didn't take the recent decision to do it but that is an imposition on business and not on religion. I think you're making up an outrage before it happens.

[fj1200]

Some people think that war was all about freeing tha' slaves! While we true Southerners know damn well what it was really about!
Too many today are SO DAMN ignorant and SO VERY proud of it IMHO. -TYR

This thread isn't about the Civil War. Shocker I know.

[Gunny]

There are plenty of gay Christians. God knows why when they get hate thrown at them repeatedly.

Nevertheless there are already NDA laws on the books and it didn't take the recent decision to do it but that is an imposition on business and not on religion. I think you're making up an outrage before it happens.

No there aren't. If they are truly Christian, they aren't gay. And haters are going to hate. If you figure out how to stop THAT, I'll vote for you. But, you miss my point entirely because you're too busy looking at the individual situation and not the big picture ....

What I hate are stupid laws that are completely Unconstitutional that cater to less than 15% of our nation. And maybe it's from growing up poor and not listening to their BS excuses. And you're as bad as anyone promoting the crap with your attitude. You're giving it the Obama-Iran touch ... if it doesn't happen today .... but you don't look at the monster you're creating with your purposeful ignorance.

How about Trump? He is a DIRECT result of frustration. A nation catering to a bunchy of whiny-ass wimps crying for a freebie at the expense of the majority. You know how long I've heard "we're for the middle class"? And we just keep getting raped. But don't pretend people like you who just want to ignore everything aren't part of the problem.

I don't care what fags do in their own home. I care what they do in front of my kids. I care when they try to take over my church. THAT is whole point. They're trying to force their bullshit aberration on the rest of us and people like are like "oh well".

[jimnyc]

34? states by whatever method approved gay marriage prior to the decision.


I'm not moving the goalposts; You chose old goalposts. And I said 34? states by whatever method. Some by vote, some by legislature and governor, some by courts. This is a bit more up to date regarding votes:


http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-laws.aspx



It was at minimum at a point 31-0 against gay marriage from the states, so I don't see how 34 states approved of gay marriage prior to scotus decision.

[fj1200]

It was at minimum at a point 31-0 against gay marriage from the states, so I don't see how 34 states approved of gay marriage prior to scotus decision.

I didn't say it wasn't; I said it was old information. I also said 34 states had it by whatever method.

[fj1200]

No there aren't. If they are truly Christian, they aren't gay. And haters are going to hate. If you figure out how to stop THAT, I'll vote for you. But, you miss my point entirely because you're too busy looking at the individual situation and not the big picture ....

What I hate are stupid laws that are completely Unconstitutional that cater to less than 15% of our nation. And maybe it's from growing up poor and not listening to their BS excuses. And you're as bad as anyone promoting the crap with your attitude. You're giving it the Obama-Iran touch ... if it doesn't happen today .... but you don't look at the monster you're creating with your purposeful ignorance.

How about Trump? He is a DIRECT result of frustration. A nation catering to a bunchy of whiny-ass wimps crying for a freebie at the expense of the majority. You know how long I've heard "we're for the middle class"? And we just keep getting raped. But don't pretend people like you who just want to ignore everything aren't part of the problem.

I don't care what fags do in their own home. I care what they do in front of my kids. I care when they try to take over my church. THAT is whole point. They're trying to force their bullshit aberration on the rest of us and people like are like "oh well".

That is your opinion. And Christians shouldn't be the source of hate even if you don't agree.

And trust me. I don't miss your point, I just disagree with your slippery slope argument.

[darin]

...and yet our courts continue to 'enforce' a law that no congress has approved...(sigh)

[Gunny]

That is your opinion. And Christians shouldn't be the source of hate even if you don't agree.

And trust me. I don't miss your point, I just disagree with your slippery slope argument.

What source of hate? I don't know any Christians that "hate" gays.

And you disagree with my slippery slope argument because it doesn't suit your agenda of keeping those blinders firmly in place.

[fj1200]

...and yet our courts continue to 'enforce' a law that no congress has approved...(sigh)

You do know that's not a requirement right? They declared particular state legislation/amendments unconstitutional.


What source of hate? I don't know any Christians that "hate" gays.

And you disagree with my slippery slope argument because it doesn't suit your agenda of keeping those blinders firmly in place.

If you can't find a Christian that hates gays then you're not looking and you don't have to look very far. And I disagree with your slippery slope argument because it lacks evidence. FWIW I would agree that an NDA law is unconstitutional but SCOTUS legalizing gay marriage is not.

[Gunny]

You do know that's not a requirement right? They declared particular state legislation/amendments unconstitutional.



If you can't find a Christian that hates gays then you're not looking and you don't have to look very far. And I disagree with your slippery slope argument because it lacks evidence. FWIW I would agree that an NDA law is unconstitutional but SCOTUS legalizing gay marriage is not.

Guess that would be my point, huh? I'm a Christian and I ain't looking for nor listening to anyone claiming to be Christian that is full of hate. Guess I might as well be a jihadist, huh? I don't sit around and look for people that misuse the Word.

Difference between me and them is I don't need an excuse. I don't need to misuse anyone's words. I don't need someone to blame. People like you want to blame this or that and whatever these idiots use as a reason for their evil deeds.

I'll just punch you in the mouth if you're a bad guy. Y'all make excuses for what you do trying to over-explain good and bad and quantify it into grey areas. I grew up on John Wayne and Matt Dillon. Bad guys die. I don't care what your excuse is. That 3 word sentence ain't got a whole bunch of math to it, does it?

The problem is you young 'uns don't listen. And you're weak. Ask any vet on this board. WHile y'all are lining up your excuses you're getting taken out. We're old, tired, been there done that, and don't want to hear it. We ain't fight for God, Christianity. apple pie and mom ... whatever. We fight for each other and to get home.

Y'all want to make to make it all these bullshit ideological reasons and I'll tell you this .. we haven't fought a right war YET. Not from the Revolution to date. We have not one time fought a war that meant anything but self-interest for the people with the money that didn't have to put their asses on the line. They always convince poor people that they need to go fight for some ideological bullshit they dream up. And if they can't talk you into it, they draft your ass. The NYC Rebellion in 1863? A draft riot because Irish refugees didn't get why they should go fight to free slaves in the South that were treated better than they were.

Not being able to see through the bullshit f blaming a religion is just crap.

[fj1200]

Guess that would be my point, huh? I'm a Christian and I ain't looking for nor listening to anyone claiming to be Christian that is full of hate. Guess I might as well be a jihadist, huh? I don't sit around and look for people that misuse the Word.

Difference between me and them is I don't need an excuse. I don't need to misuse anyone's words. I don't need someone to blame. People like you want to blame this or that and whatever these idiots use as a reason for their evil deeds.

I'll just punch you in the mouth if you're a bad guy. Y'all make excuses for what you do trying to over-explain good and bad and quantify it into grey areas. I grew up on John Wayne and Matt Dillon. Bad guys die. I don't care what your excuse is. That 3 word sentence ain't got a whole bunch of math to it, does it?

The problem is you young 'uns don't listen. And you're weak. Ask any vet on this board. WHile y'all are lining up your excuses you're getting taken out. We're old, tired, been there done that, and don't want to hear it. We ain't fight for God, Christianity. apple pie and mom ... whatever. We fight for each other and to get home.

Y'all want to make to make it all these bullshit ideological reasons and I'll tell you this .. we haven't fought a right war YET. Not from the Revolution to date. We have not one time fought a war that meant anything but self-interest for the people with the money that didn't have to put their asses on the line. They always convince poor people that they need to go fight for some ideological bullshit they dream up. And if they can't talk you into it, they draft your ass. The NYC Rebellion in 1863? A draft riot because Irish refugees didn't get why they should go fight to free slaves in the South that were treated better than they were.

Not being able to see through the bullshit f blaming a religion is just crap.

I'm not looking for them either but there they are.

People like me? WTF are you talking about? Who do I want to blame for what or on what?

I honestly am at a loss as to what you're getting at.

[Gunny]

I'm not looking for them either but there they are.

People like me? WTF are you talking about? Who do I want to blame for what or on what?

I honestly am at a loss as to what you're getting at.

Because you sit around, refuse to recognize a threat, and do nothing.

I'm blaming you for doing nothing. The same as I blamed so-called conservatives the past two elections. Y'all want to talk all kinds of shit, but you can't see past your own viewpoint to the big picture.

[fj1200]

Because you sit around, refuse to recognize a threat, and do nothing.

I'm blaming you for doing nothing. The same as I blamed so-called conservatives the past two elections. Y'all want to talk all kinds of shit, but you can't see past your own viewpoint to the big picture.

I'll respectfully disagree. I don't think we need to crap on the Constitution on the idea that Christians are being persecuted. I don't think we need to rely on hate-filled speech because people disagree. I don't think we need to toss out limited government to protect "my" marriage.

I'm not here tossing aside conservative, small-government, Constitutional values. Sorry about that.

[Gunny]

I'll respectfully disagree. I don't think we need to crap on the Constitution on the idea that Christians are being persecuted. I don't think we need to rely on hate-filled speech because people disagree. I don't think we need to toss out limited government to protect "my" marriage.

I'm not here tossing aside conservative, small-government, Constitutional values. Sorry about that.

Well, you ARE crapping on the Constitution by catering to minorities and forcing the majority to do it ESPECIALLY if you are stepping on someone's freedom of religion. THAT is why this country exists ... religious persecution.

[fj1200]

Well, you ARE crapping on the Constitution by catering to minorities and forcing the majority to do it ESPECIALLY if you are stepping on someone's freedom of religion. THAT is why this country exists ... religious persecution.

You are still free to practice your religion.

[Gunny]

You are still free to practice your religion.

But my church isn't if you can force yourself/lifestyle on it. We believe in certain things.

[fj1200]

But my church isn't if you can force yourself/lifestyle on it. We believe in certain things.

Nobody has done that to your church.

[Gunny]

Nobody has done that to your church.

You're either missing the point which I don't believe, or obfuscating. You should know by now you ain't playing word games with me.

Fags are forcing themselves on our religion. Beginning and end of story. I don't care if they have their own church, what they do in their homes, but don't try to blow smoke up my ass. THAT is whole point here. Another stupid, abnormal minority group forcing themselves on everyone else.

They can go start their little faggot churches and I ain't walking across the street to bother with them. But don't come across MY street and try to force your faggoty ass crap on me. I don't want you around my kids. I don't want them thinking you' or your lifestyle is okay. I don't want them thinking it's okay to burn down your neighborhood because the cop is white and the criminal black.

Back to the point, you are as much at fault here as anyone. All you have is excuses trying to dodge the elephant in the room.

[fj1200]

You're either missing the point which I don't believe, or obfuscating. You should know by now you ain't playing word games with me.

Fags are forcing themselves on our religion. Beginning and end of story. I don't care if they have their own church, what they do in their homes, but don't try to blow smoke up my ass. THAT is whole point here. Another stupid, abnormal minority group forcing themselves on everyone else.

They can go start their little faggot churches and I ain't walking across the street to bother with them. But don't come across MY street and try to force your faggoty ass crap on me. I don't want you around my kids. I don't want them thinking you' or your lifestyle is okay. I don't want them thinking it's okay to burn down your neighborhood because the cop is white and the criminal black.

Back to the point, you are as much at fault here as anyone. All you have is excuses trying to dodge the elephant in the room.

Like I said, nobody has done that to your church. Do you bother reading any arguments in opposition to your belief?

[Gunny]

Like I said, nobody has done that to your church. Do you bother reading any arguments in opposition to your belief?

You're just determined to not admit you're wrong when you either know you are, or you're dumber than a red brick. Your "belief" is based on willful blindness.

[gabosaurus]

http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2015/09/5wSg7nE.png

[indago]

It's not equal protection "from" it's equal protection "of."

I don't see an "of." in your posting...

[indago]

You do know that's not a requirement right?

So, just what is a "requirement right"?

[Gunny]

http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2015/09/5wSg7nE.png

The Master of Irrelevance strikes again.

[fj1200]

You're just determined to not admit you're wrong when you either know you are, or you're dumber than a red brick. Your "belief" is based on willful blindness.

That sounded like a no. You say I'm wrong but you offer no evidence other than you said so.


I don't see an "of." in your posting...

Try brushing up on the Constitution.


So, just what is a "requirement right"?

:rolleyes:


The Master of Irrelevance strikes again.

Unfortunately it's indicative of who some elevate to the level of "hero."

[Gunny]

That sounded like a no. You say I'm wrong but you offer no evidence other than you said so.



Try brushing up on the Constitution.



:rolleyes:



Unfortunately it's indicative of who some elevate to the level of "hero."

My idea of a hero is Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone. He took on an entire company of Japs with a .30 cal Browning. The "hero", whose name I regretably don't recall, loaded for him while he bled out. The firefighters and police that ran TOWARD the twin towers while everyone else was running away. THOSE are heroes.

Everyone else is just long on shit and short on substance.

[jimnyc]

Unfortunately it's indicative of who some elevate to the level of "hero."

I don't think her past has anything relevant in this at all. People are seeing her as a hero for her actions, not for her being a great christian. I don't care if she is a huge sinner or not, but I support her in fighting for her religious rights.

[fj1200]

My idea of a hero is Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone. He took on an entire company of Japs with a .30 cal Browning. The "hero", whose name I regretably don't recall, loaded for him while he bled out. The firefighters and police that ran TOWARD the twin towers while everyone else was running away. THOSE are heroes.

Everyone else is just long on shit and short on substance.

Yes. She is nowhere close.


I don't think her past has anything relevant in this at all. People are seeing her as a hero for her actions, not for her being a great christian. I don't care if she is a huge sinner or not, but I support her in fighting for her religious rights.

I disagree with pretty much everything you said. Her rights were not infringed.

[jimnyc]

Yes. She is nowhere close.



I disagree with pretty much everything you said. Her rights were not infringed.

You're free to disagree.

But that STILL doesn't make her past relevant.

[fj1200]

You're free to disagree.

But that STILL doesn't make her past relevant.

Of course it doesn't. As long as she dislikes the correct kind of sinners. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Of course it doesn't. As long as she dislikes the correct kind of sinners. :rolleyes:

So YOU have never sinned? You're my hero!!

But IF you've ever sinned, you may as well walk away from any church you attend quickly, as it must mean you're no longer allowed to have faith or practice. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, buddy.

Edited to roll my eyes at FJ, as maybe it makes me look smarter somehow? :rolleyes:

[Black Diamond]

Of course it doesn't. As long as she dislikes the correct kind of sinners. :rolleyes:

Saul of Tarsus wrote a lot of the new testament after persecuting thousands of Christians. Should we not heed his words because he committed horrible sins prior to his ministry?

[indago]

Try brushing up on the Constitution.

"Try brushing up on" coherent posting...



.

[fj1200]

So YOU have never sinned? You're my hero!!

But IF you've ever sinned, you may as well walk away from any church you attend quickly, as it must mean you're no longer allowed to have faith or practice. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, buddy.

Edited to roll my eyes at FJ, as maybe it makes me look smarter somehow? :rolleyes:

I sin all the time. I'm not using tools of the State to cast judgement.

And rolleyes doesn't make one look smarter, it denotes sarcasm.


Saul of Tarsus wrote a lot of the new testament after persecuting thousands of Christians. Should we not heed his words because he committed horrible sins prior to his ministry?

Of course we should. We study many books written by Paul in Sunday School. We're finishing up Romans now.

[fj1200]

"Try brushing up on" coherent posting...

Do you ever have anything relevant to add?

[Perianne]

Of course we should. We study many books written by Paul in Sunday School. We're finishing up Romans now.

I thought you were a Muslim. I learn something new every day!

[Black Diamond]

I sin all the time. I'm not using tools of the State to cast judgement.

And rolleyes doesn't make one look smarter, it denotes sarcasm.



Of course we should. We study many books written by Paul in Sunday School.

My point is, and Gaby brought this up, not sure you did, but her previous fornication and adultery are irrelevant.

[jimnyc]

I sin all the time. I'm not using tools of the State to cast judgement.

And rolleyes doesn't make one look smarter, it denotes sarcasm.

And yet her past STILL has no relevance on what took place in Kentucky. None whatsoever.

[fj1200]

I thought you were a Muslim. I learn something new every day!

That doesn't speak well to your reading skills.


My point is, and Gaby brought this up, not sure you did, but her previous fornication and adultery are irrelevant.

Something about casting the first stone.


Of course it doesn't. As long as she dislikes the correct kind of sinners. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

And yet her past STILL has no relevance on what took place in Kentucky. None whatsoever.

You're right, the Constitution does. That doesn't back her either.

[jimnyc]

My point is, and Gaby brought this up, not sure you did, but her previous fornication and adultery are irrelevant.

Unless you disagree with her, and now need more "ammo" of course, then it's perfectly acceptable to post corny little memes, and support them.

[indago]

Do you ever have anything relevant to add?

"Try brushing up on" reading comprehension...

[fj1200]

Unless you disagree with her, and now need more "ammo" of course, then it's perfectly acceptable to post corny little memes, and support them.

One doesn't need more ammo when one has the Constitution. :)

[jimnyc]

You're right, the Constitution does. That doesn't back her either.

You can spin it a million times - but your ORIGINAL comments are still WRONG, her past marriages have NOTHING to do with any of this. You look like a child who keeps changing his lame argument when something is pointed out.

But whatever. No need for me to go further on this subject with you, I don't care to see endless backpedaling.

[fj1200]

"Try brushing up on" reading comprehension...

:roundnround:

[fj1200]

I don't care to see endless backpedaling.

:laugh:

[jimnyc]

One doesn't need more ammo when one has the Constitution. :)

And the inability to write correct statements, and then jumps to the constitution when the retarded statements is pointed out.

Oh. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

:laugh:

I see your ability to debate is at it's strongest once again. Go back to trolling with Drummond, I'm not wasting my time with an idiot that debates with emoticons.

[Perianne]

That doesn't speak well to your reading skills.


I don't usually pay much attention to what you write because I thought you were a Muslim.

[fj1200]

I see your ability to debate is at it's strongest once again. Go back to trolling with Drummond, I'm not wasting my time with an idiot that debates with emoticons.

Oh geez. Her past speaks to her credibility.


I don't usually pay much attention to what you write because I thought you were a Muslim.

I can't help your willful ignorance.