T1B

Diego wrote:See how simple freedom works?

1. Freedom would have been allowing the states to set their own marriage standard.

The "It's a fundamental constitutional right to marry who you want" take the SC sold us is utter bullshit.
Marriage is not in the Constitution and is hence a state issue -- CLEARLY.

The "fundamental right" has been hidden for a couple hundred years and nobody noticed until now?

LOL


2. Mvscal already noted where the profound implications begin, and that is by rational citizens realizing that a ruling elite (the SC) has completely made something up, and something as socially important as marriage, and jammed it down the throat of the people. The denied state freedom and they denied the freedom of the people to determine their own fate. They have created a climate of anarchy. This is the beginning of the profound implications -- and it only gets much worse from here.


3. Felix brought up Jefferson, so I simply noted that our founding document of freedom (signed by him) says that he (and others) acknowledge that rights in this land have come from the Creator. One has to go into warp drive stupidity to deny that the God of the Bible was the inspiration.

poptart wrote:Marriage is not in the Constitution and is hence a state issue -- CLEARLY.

^^^ CLEARLY doesn't understand the Ninth Amendment.

miniskirts were the work of the devil
They aren't? (-:

poptart wrote:

Diego wrote:See how simple freedom works?

1. Freedom would have been allowing the states to set their own marriage standard.

The "It's a fundamental constitutional right to marry who you want" take the SC sold us is utter bullshit.
Marriage is not in the Constitution and is hence a state issue -- CLEARLY.

The "fundamental right" has been hidden for a couple hundred years and nobody noticed until now?

LOL

FAIL

Using your logic freedom would be allowing the states to decide whether to permit slavery. I hate to break it to you, but individual rights & privileges aren't decided by popular vote.

Secondly, as long as marriage provides rights & privileges access to it will be a 14th Amendment issue. States can't decide on their own to block or remove rights & privileges w/o either due process or a compelling reason. You thumpers have provided neither.

2. Mvscal already noted where the profound implications begin, and that is by rational citizens realizing that a ruling elite (the SC) has completely made something up, and something as socially important as marriage, and jammed it down the throat of the people. The denied state freedom and they denied the freedom of the people to determine their own fate. They have created a climate of anarchy. This is the beginning of the profound implications -- and it only gets much worse from here.

Again, states have no such freedom to arbitrarily dish out rights & privileges. Had SCOTUS decided otherwise would have been closer to anarchy. Having a constitution & then not abiding by it would have been anarchy.

3. Felix brought up Jefferson, so I simply noted that our founding document of freedom (signed by him) says that he (and others) acknowledge that rights in this land have come from the Creator. One has to go into warp drive stupidity to deny that the God of the Bible was the inspiration.

It's hilarious how you categorize all of them as "christians." If they were around today you would be saying that they don't believe the bible exactly as you do (much like many christians don't believe that mormons & catholics are christians). Especially with Jefferson. How convenient of you to claim all of them as christians when you would cast them off as heretics if they were to speak their beliefs today.

The conservatard bleating about the "elite" SCOTUS is nothing more than a childish temper tantrum when they decided that gays have just as much right to marriage as you do. Grow up.

Diego wrote:States can't decide on their own to block or remove rights & privileges w/o either due process or a compelling reason.

The states had not been blocking anyone.
Any man and any woman were free to marry.


I don't know or care if T. Jefferson was a good Christian, bad Christian, or even Christian at all.
What I DO know is what he signed.
What was signed by him, and many others, was a recognition that rights in this land have come from the God of the Bible.

Look around a bit at the history of the original colonies in America.
Try to deny that Christianity was a fundamental pillar of their communities.

It's basic reality, guy.

poptart wrote:

Diego wrote:States can't decide on their own to block or remove rights & privileges w/o either due process or a compelling reason.

The states had not been blocking anyone.
Any man and any woman were free to marry.

When the states decide to limit who they can marry they are not truly free.

I don't know or care if T. Jefferson was a good Christian, bad Christian, or even Christian at all.
What I DO know is what he signed.
What was signed by him, and many others, was a recognition that rights in this land have come from the God of the Bible.

Look around a bit at the history of the original colonies in America.
Try to deny that Christianity was a fundamental pillar of their communities.

It's basic reality, guy.

Slavery was a fundamental pillar of their communities, too. Are you arguing that we should bring that back as well?

Perhaps we could also bring back the witch trials as well...

Papa Willie wrote:Enjoy your gay marriage, because you just lost out on guns...

It doesn't have to be a "this or that" scenario. It's very easy to support both. I do, but then again I'm a freedom loving American. If you don't like it you can GTFO out of my country you pinko bastard!

Diego in Seattle wrote: Using your logic freedom would be allowing the states to decide whether to permit slavery. I hate to break it to you, but individual rights & privileges aren't decided by popular vote.

Uhhhmmmmm.....I hate to break it to you, but they had that freedom until they amended the Constitution.

You see, back in the day, they actually took the Constitution seriously and did one of those amendment dealios when they realized it needed changing. Too bad we seem to have forgotten how to use that procedure.

Personally, I believe the fed position on marriage is that is none of their fukking bidness. Your marital status should be of no concern to them.

Diego wrote:When the states decide to limit who they can marry they are not truly free.

States routinely set standards for issuing licenses, and for allowing actions to legally occur or not occur.

Ho hum.

Diego wrote:Slavery was a fundamental pillar of their communities, too. Are you arguing that we should bring that back as well?

Of course I'm not.
Why would I say that?

You are flailing.

I've been simply pointing out what is blatantly obvious to anyone who has look into the matter at all.

America was founded on a backbone of Christian faith.

John Adams wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.

America was settled by many victims of real religious persecution. Their descendants did not want government and religion mixing any more than they wanted race mixing.

Scott wrote:Don't like Gay Marriage? - Don't have One
Don't like Guns? - Don't Buy One
Don't Like Abortion? - Don't Have One
Don't like the Confederate Flag? - Don't Buy One
Don't Like Drugs? - Don't Do Them

Don't Like the Govt trying to take away your Rights? - Then Quit trying to take away the ones you don't agree with

Don't like taxes? - Don't pay taxes



Wait...


Wat?

What's problematic about the recent Supreme Court's rulings-- and this isn't necessarily new or recent --is that they have become an unelected legislative branch rather than the brake on the potential excesses of Congress and the Oval Office. This has only become quite visible of late in that nobody is surprised by the various judges who rule based on their ostensible political leanings. But the question is, do we expect those judges to judge or do we wish for them to rule from a predetermined political view? That is the crux of the problem.

This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue-- both sides of the aisle have been guilty of this for some time. The most egregious case of rejecting a judge because he didn't toe the line on a particular political orthodoxy? Robert Bork. Instead we have Congress in essence stuffing the ballot box by accepting or rejecting a potential judge based on litmus tests. It's not how our Founding Fathers wanted the system to function.

Dinsdale wrote:

John Adams wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.

Dins, would you quit quoting the men who developed the Constitutuion, tart is on a roll here.....

btw tart, the Declaration of Independence was a declaration of the original 13 colonies independence from Great Britain, not an establishment of any laws....

Felix wrote:bible thumpers who falsely believe this country was founded on christian beliefs.....it wasn't.

http://undergod.procon.org/view.resourc ... eID=000081

Click and go down the list -- state-by-state;


Alabama, 1901: "We the people of the State of Alabama ... invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution..."

Idaho, 1890 (home of Felix): "We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom..."

Indiana, 1851: "TO THE END, that justice be established, public order maintained, and liberty perpetuated; WE, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this Constitution."

Maryland, 1867: "We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty..."

South Carolina, 1778: "We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the preservation and perpetuation of the same."

Utah, 1896: "Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution..."

Wisconsin, 1848: We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, form a more perfect government..."

Mississippi, 1890: "We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work..."


Etc...

Go down the list.




Do you do drugs, Felix?

Diego in Seattle wrote: Slavery was a fundamental pillar of their communities, too. Are you arguing that we should bring that back as well?

If the 13th Amendment was a buttplug you might actually know something about it.

BSmack wrote:America was settled by many victims of real religious persecution. Their descendants did not want government and religion mixing any more than they wanted race mixing.

Ignorant moron.

Papa Willie wrote:America is, nor never really has been what they taught you it was in school...

English, motherfucker. Does ya speaks it?

And from the twittershere:

mvscal wrote:

The profound implication is that the personal opinion/bias of five supreme court justices supersedes the Constitution.

OK I get it. You mean like when they decided that:

- Well regulated means not regulated.
- Money means the same thing as speech.
- Corporations are people.


But wait, the knuckledraggers didn't seem to have much of a problem with those "interpretations."
I guess it all depends on whose ox is being (Al)Gored.

Since marriage, whatever that means, is no longer something for the states to decide or to regulate, they should completely remove themselves from the process. States should stop issuing all marriage licenses to anyone. They should also immediately stop over seeing the dissolution of marriages and division of assets. This should now be handled by the Federal Court system. States have no say in marriage so should completely wipe their hands of it.

On the flip side the gun rights folks should be happy with this gay marriage ruling. It says:

A marriage license issued by State A must be recognized by State B.

Now go back and change marriage with concealed carry. Further marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution but guns are. This ruling should help force other states to recognize and accept the ability to carry.

I assume that means Colorado's and Oregon's pot laws will get overturned since federal law says it's illegal.

Goober McTuber wrote:I assume that means Colorado's and Oregon's pot laws will get overturned since federal law says it's illegal.

2 days to go, and we're all good -- except the Legislature is still whining about the rules (and about how to milk every last penny from it), even though they were required by the law to have it figured out by now.

But I'm currently in Washington, where it's been legal for a while (but I brought my own, since it costs several times more in the stupid stores that the good old black market).

Dinsdale wrote:But I'm currently in Washington, where it's been legal for a while (but I brought my own, since it costs several times more in the stupid stores that the good old black market).

You buy your pot from negroes? That's so retro.

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:The only thing that will save this world from its biggest problem, which is overpopulation, is more homosexuals.

Really? The only thing? Try again.

Short of lots of murder or lots of sterilization.

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:The only thing that will save this world from its biggest problem, which is overpopulation, is more homosexuals.

Really? The only thing? Try again.

Short of lots of murder or lots of sterilization.

Or some unforeseen pandemic, you pint-sized pedophile.

Nice IKYABWAI you kiddy fucking psycho

Goober McTuber wrote: You buy your pot from negroes?

Moving Sale wrote:Nice IKYABWAI you kiddy fucking psycho

If you trace back through posting history here, you'll see that I pegged you as a pedo before you ever went all KC on me. Neener, neener.

Only at T1B...... Where a thread about winning the right to chow box as wife and wife will gradually give way to Caddyshack references.

You're probably so high you don't even know it.

poptart wrote: a bunch of irrelevant horseshit

so what was your point in posting that crap.....that some states refer to their freedom as "god given"?

what the fuck does that have to do with establishment of the federal constitution that clearly espouses the separation of church and state.....

Felix wrote:

poptart wrote: a bunch of irrelevant horseshit

so what was your point in posting that crap.....that some states refer to their freedom as "god given"?

Some states?

ALL of them do.
lol

what the fuck does that have to do with establishment of the federal constitution that clearly espouses the separation of church and state.....

Why are you trying to move the goal posts now?

- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof -

Most states in early America had an established state church.





bible thumpers who falsely believe this country was founded on christian beliefs.....it wasn't.

- Felix


This is wrong, Felix.

poptart wrote:- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof -

Most states in early America had an established state church.

Link?

bible thumpers who falsely believe this country was founded on christian beliefs.....it wasn't.

- Felix


This is wrong, Felix.

John Adams, signer of the Constitution, thinks you're an idiot.

poptart wrote:
Most states in early America had an established state church.

the fuck they did....nothing you posted remotely comes close to saying we've established our laws based on the laws of god...simply because they reference god (TJ referred to it as maker but Jefferson was a deist) doesn't mean their laws were based on any religion.....sorry dude, but your arguement falls flat on it's face.....

88 wrote: But it doesn't matter anymore. Whichever party gets their five people appointed to the Court gets to run the kingdom now.

Then how do you account for the SCOTUS' most recent rulings? ACA, LGBT marriage to name a couple.

If the "traditional" definition of marriage is no longer valid, how long until plural marriage is legal? And shouldn't LGBT fans be supporting the "rights" of those who want to practice plural marriage?

Left Seater wrote:If the "traditional" definition of marriage is no longer valid, how long until plural marriage is legal? And shouldn't LGBT fans be supporting the "rights" of those who want to practice plural marriage?

Can you produce a compelling reason why it shouldn't?

Diego wrote:Link?

That is a good link, 88.

Here are a couple more: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/publi ... onial.html

http://religionandpolitics.org/2013/04/ ... religions/

Felix wrote:nothing you posted remotely comes close to saying we've established our laws based on the laws of god

I've never made that claim.
I've merely claimed that YOUR statement is wrong.


bible thumpers who falsely believe this country was founded on christian beliefs.....it wasn't.

- Felix


What you said is false.
The country absolutely was founded on Christian beliefs.
It's undeniable.

I really shouldn't be surprised to see a lib deny basic reality, because we see it so often, but this particular instance of denial is embarrassing -- even for a lib.

Not content that their secularism has taken root (and produced very ugly things), the lib must take it further and deny that the country was even founded upon a backbone of Christian faith.


You can think whatever you want, Felix.

This will all pass.