Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

Supreme Court affirms right to gay marriage

jatki
jatki
Jun 27, 2015
7:06pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Like Hillary and our great leader King Obama, Boiler has evolved regarding his position on gay marriage. I would support such a vote if one was needed in Indiana. Boiler is also believer that the Constitution should be followed strictly, and that judges should not legislate from the bench. This issue should should be left to the states.

If judges can create law, why bother having a congress?



The majority of states legalized gay marriage. Why, then, is this a blow to democracy as stated by the dissenting judges? Furthermore, the Constitution serves to protect the minority from the will of the majority.

Congress creates laws. SCOTUS determines if those laws are in compliance with the Constitution.


It's not always what the people want and vote for, remember prop 8?

Don
Don
Jun 27, 2015
10:27pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Chilcoot
And the pig, because it has a cloven hoof that is completely split, but will not regurgitate its cud; it is unclean for you. You shall not eat of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
—Leviticus 11:7-8

And the pig, because it has a split hoof, but does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You shall neither eat of their flesh nor touch their carcass.
—Deuteronomy 14:8

For the record DonDiego is omnivorous. Umm, . . . he does have an aversion to shellfish and crustaceans, but it is based solely upon dyspathetic digestion. not religious tenets.

DonDiego is pleased that Chilcoot appreciates the distinction between Government employees and, f'rinstance, clergy.
Umm, . . . what about Justices of the Peace?

DonDiego supposes there are others in the Country, . . . maybe even within this Forum, . . . who will challenge the difference between Government employees and others who perform marriage ceremonies and demand services contrary to the beliefs of those non-Government employees performing the services.
And the issue will return to the Courts. Pr'bly for years.

DonDiego cannot be certain but he has a niggling suspicion that someone with a mindset nearer that of, say, forkushV, would be inclined to challenge the presumption that a man of the cloth need not join homosexuals in wedlock.
(forkushV seems to be taking this all very personally. DonDiego wonders if there are wedding bells in his future, . . . or if it is just his hatred of religious folks. In fact, Chilcoot seems to be taking it personally as well.)

Perhaps, this is the reason the dissenters on the Supreme Court dissented. If Congress had acted instead and passed legislation legalizing homosexual marriage, such details would likely have been included in the Law.
forkushV
forkushV
Jun 28, 2015
12:45am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote
Originally posted by: Chilcoot...DonDiego cannot be certain but he has a niggling suspicion that someone with a mindset nearer that of, say, forkushV, would be inclined to challenge the presumption that a man of the cloth need not join homosexuals in wedlock.
(forkushV seems to be taking this all very personally. DonDiego wonders if there are wedding bells in his future, . . . or if it is just his hatred of religious folks...
Bigoted clergy should always be able to practice and preach their bigotry, as long as it is not done under government authority or on the government's dime. It's called separation of church and state DonDiego. Do I have to start quoting Jefferson.

And if DonDiego is looking for "personal," here ya go. My mother told me that when she worked at a nursery school on a military base in Texas, she was scolded for sharing a "white" toy with a black child, and they explained to her the "Curse of Ham" in which Noah's accursed son begat the black people. It was a VERY popular Bible story in the South back then.

So there will always be bigots who justify their various bigotries with religion. And there will always be people like DonDiego who excuse it. I'll leave it to the readers to decide which is worse.
Tutontow
Tutontow
Jun 28, 2015
1:33am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
DonDiego is hopeful that the expanding tolerance/acceptance shown to homosexual-couples, by the courts and the population generally, is reciprocated with a tolerance of those officials who's religious beliefs, f'rinstance, forbid them from marrying a same-sex couple.

Perhaps if everybody just put a little effort into trying to get along with one another, instead of forcing one's beliefs on someone else, . . . life would be a mite better for everybody.


I guess Independent Baptist that work at the grocery store shouldn't have to ring up my beer when I go through their line. Or if they work at the movie theater, sell tickets only to G rated movies.

Nope DD we can't excuse people from doing their job based on religious beliefs. When we started hiring female firefighters two people that worked at my station left the FD because of their religious beliefs. You know woman sleeping in the same bunkroom.

alanleroy
alanleroy
Jun 28, 2015
2:05am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
So there will always be bigots who justify their various bigotries with religion.



Like this guy.
Tutontow
Tutontow
Jun 28, 2015
2:23am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
So there will always be bigots who justify their various bigotries with religion.



Like this guy.


My whole family is hard core Catholics but let me say this is the bunch that has spent millions protecting pedophiles.

I just can't take anything the pope etc has to say seriously.

forkushV
forkushV
Jun 28, 2015
3:05am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
So there will always be bigots who justify their various bigotries with religion.



Like this guy.
Let's see, he advocates using his particular version of the big invisible guy in the sky to enforce discrimination in secular laws. Yup, he fits the bill.

Of course that was five years ago, before he was the Pope and when he had a superior in the church to answer to. Maybe he's evolved.
Boilerman
Boilerman
Jun 28, 2015
3:40am
Block User
Liberals discriminate against folks that hold invisible Conservative thoughts within their minds. Liberals find discrimination to be fully acceptable, accept when they decide it's not.


Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
So there will always be bigots who justify their various bigotries with religion.



Like this guy.
Let's see, he advocates using his particular version of the big invisible guy in the sky to enforce discrimination in secular laws. Yup, he fits the bill.

Of course that was five years ago, before he was the Pope and when he had a superior in the church to answer to. Maybe he's evolved.


Dan Svatass
Dan Svatass
Jun 28, 2015
4:22am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: BobOrme
She didn't feel a need to personally attack other people in a sig line attached to every post she made...
You must be referring to my signature line. No personal attacks in there at all. Just a quote by thegreek that "Donald will handle Hillary down the road . . . ."

Why is that a personal attack? thegreek wrote it, in this forum, for all to see. I think that particular line deserves to be remembered.

I'm not attacking thegreek, he's clearly terrific. I'm highlighting something he wrote and apparently believes. Time will tell . . . .
Dan Svatass
Dan Svatass
Jun 28, 2015
4:33am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
For the record DonDiego is omnivorous. Umm, . . . he does have an aversion to shellfish and crustaceans, but it is based solely upon dyspathetic digestion. not religious tenets.
Seriously, get over yourself. I can't imagine any of us care.
Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
DonDiego is pleased that Chilcoot appreciates the distinction between Government employees and, f'rinstance, clergy.
Umm, . . . what about Justices of the Peace?
Acting in the capacity of their government function, which may include performing marriage ceremonies? Government employee, government function. Opting not to serve meat at home on Friday? Government employee, non-government function.
Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
DonDiego supposes there are others in the Country, . . . maybe even within this Forum, . . . who will challenge the difference between Government employees and others who perform marriage ceremonies and demand services contrary to the beliefs of those non-Government employees performing the services.
You see things I don't. I haven't seen a single post that would make me worry about that.
Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
In fact, Chilcoot seems to be taking it personally as well.
I am personally joyous at Friday's evolved understanding of the sorts of personal liberties guaranteed by our Constitution. Beyond that, you're just imagining things.
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now