So they enter the relationship already subject to various baggage, button-pushing, etc.
Gay marriage in Utah put on hold
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
So they enter the relationship already subject to various baggage, button-pushing, etc.
scootsy
Well-Known Member
Ouch bro... Ouch.
Sure we do, we've even linked news stories to them. For the most part, no one cares.
You mean, before the 14th amendment required that the states also ensure freedom of religion?
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Y'all have some of (if not the) best post-sec institutions, bar none. Y'all tend to foster some of the brightest writers, scientists, economists, and politicians of the world.
Still, the education system is flawed-- and it isn't AT ALL indicative if your wife's performance, or Wes/Gyp/QSH's performances. It's indicative of the systems and structures overseeing it.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
For every Nobel scientist that comes from Stanford, how many kids in Cali never graduate high school? That's the sorta 'ish I'm talking about.
And I'm not trying to point fingers. Canada isn't perfect either (sorry Jim). Just look into what we've out our Indigenous Peoples through, and how 'well' educational services are being provided to them.
And I'm not trying to point fingers. Canada isn't perfect either (sorry Jim). Just look into what we've out our Indigenous Peoples through, and how 'well' educational services are being provided to them.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/ne...bpoenas-sermons-in-ERO-court-case-5822800.php
In Houston there is a court case over a city law regarding equal rights. Now the court has subpoenaed the sermons and communications between pastors and members of their congregations.
Toughts? Does this violate any freedoms? I am sure Dutch will have a field day with this one.
In Houston there is a court case over a city law regarding equal rights. Now the court has subpoenaed the sermons and communications between pastors and members of their congregations.
Toughts? Does this violate any freedoms? I am sure Dutch will have a field day with this one.
I know a woman named Gaye (with an "e") and my mom had a good friend named Gay (spelled just like that)
We also have neighbors whose last name is Gayes and some years back for a while next door to them was a family of 2 gay men and their 2 children. One day I asked one of my kids to bring something over to the Gayes' house and they brought it to the wrong house. So later that evening I get a call from one of the men asking what it was all about and I said "oh that's for the Gayes..." Then I sort of paused awkwardly and he laughed and said he'd bring it next door.
That was probably 15 years ago.
Perhaps they are looking for pastors who specifically supported a political candidate. You can lose your tax exemption for doing that.
it'd go a long way in my book if all gays could laugh at stuff like that and just be that decent......
uhhhhmmmm........ same thing for Mormons or anyone else. . . . .
That would not make sense in the tone of this case. This is against a specific law, not a recent election. If that were the case then that is not an attempt at retaliation?
Perhaps. That was just my first thought.
Yeah, very interesting development. Not sure how I feel about it. I want more info but the only other report I have seen is a retype by Fox News.
Maktub
Well-Known Member
So what? Sexual relations is not a prerequisite for marriage. Can you show evidence that married couples have more sex than non-married? In fact, I bet the opposite is true. So maybe it's in society's best interest to allow sibling marriage?
Question is, why did the subpoenas specify pastors and members of their congregations instead of targeting other groups, such as the local Committee on Foreign Relations (known to be positively pushing the LGBT agenda while being a tax exemp private group, or the ACLU, or the Lions Club or Rotary or the Knights of Columbus or the Sierra Club or the Texas State Bar Association or about a thousand local "charities" operation through local arrangements with tax exempt community philanthropics.
Surprised you're not out there crying outrage on this one.
Religions have been singled out for public persecution and driven out of the political community, absolute disenfranchised from participating in our political system, whether acting individually or collectively in the political process.
The Constitution says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a national religion, meaning as it was intended that our Federal government could not specify a national "Church". It was a postive bar against exerting any prejudice legislatively for or against a church.
The SCOTUS failed to see that as a bar against the Edmunds-Tucker Act. . . . and against some other legislation that has favored or disfavored some specific belief systems. . . . .
While I see the problem with some Libertarian concepts that seem unsettling to the general public, I question the whole notion of state endorsement of private contracts or church sanctioned relations. Put me down for saying the government is not the solution to private prejudices. Injurious actions, yes.
If you have evidence of any of these groups publicly stumping for a particular political candidate, please notify the IRS.
*snort* *chortle* *guffaw*
In a country where POTUS is Christian, 95% of Congress is openly Christian (and maybe two members have no religion at all), at least 48 out of 50 governors are openly Christian, and being a non-Christian effectively makes you un-electable as a Senator in over half the states. the notion that religious people have been driven out of the political process deserves only derision.
I think intent is best explained by the writers, particularly James Madison (the primary author), who openly advocated the wall of separation.
That depends on how it is enacted. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.