re: Respect for Marriage Act passed by Senate. Goes to House for final vote.

quote:

---

And I can agree with this until I'm blue in the face, but doesn't change the fact that this isn't the approach the democrats are taking.

---

Democrats are shitty drama queens, their stuff doesn't work on normal rational human beings.

These battles aren't won in the halls of government.

quote:

---

Tell everyone why you were perma-banned from the Aggie boards, Hank.....

---

Is this true? Even the aggs got tired of his narrow scope elitism?

quote:

---

Those people claim to love America, and to love the Constitution, but (when it boils down) they love their superstitions even more. Nothing wrong with that. Just admit it.

---

Of course we do. I love the constitution, but the Bible is infinitely more important. I love and am grateful for my US citizenship, but my heavenly citizenship is infinitely more important. My loyalty is to God first, over any political institution. This is not a new concept. I want my political leaders to have these same values in an ideal world.

quote:

---

they love their superstitions even more.

---

Prove that they are merely "superstitions".

Go ahead, disprove the existence of God and PROVE that these beliefs are nothing more than superstitions.

You ran your mouth, the onus is on YOU.

Hahaha.....

He must secretly be mortified.

After being expelled by the AggieKlan, he came here expecting to become some sort of message board hero, spreading his knowledge of all things to the peasants.

Instead, his name will now forever be tied to groomers, pedophiles, freaks, Narcissists, Drag Queens, Ukranian Nazis and all things filth.....

quote:

---

marriage is a government right

---

What government?

The Constitution is silent regarding Marriage. Not a peep. That Constitutional silence channels directly to the 10th Amendment. So in fact, there is no Constitutionally provided federal right to marriage. Just as there is no Constitutionally provided federal right to abortion.

So marriage itself is a state's right, not a federal right.

Federal incursion into the issue is on basis of "equal rights." If marriage is offered at all, SCOTUS says it must be offered in the form of SSM as well. That nuance muddies the water.

E.g., If two people regardless of gender, can enter into a relational agreement by right, why not three, four , or five?

What if a married man is a 'B' on the 2SLGBTQIA+ scale? Should he be forced to choose gay or straight marriage? Should the third party not be entitled by equal right to legal protections of marriage? Is current law not discriminatory toward Bi people?

It follows that if marriage access is decided on presumed basis of rights, abortion access must be similarly derived. Why should a pregnant woman not have the equal right to continue her job unfettered without the "nuisance" of pregnancy and childbirth. A man (I can say this because I'm a biologist btw) is not subject to such impediment.

In fact, the 2015 SSM issue should never have been decided based on 'marriage' at all. Rather it should have been decided based on the right to enter into a legal contract recognized as a civil union with rights and limitations upto and including all those of a marriage, assuming the couple decided it so. In that situation government would be required to treat the civil union, and std marriage as legal equivalents. That finding would have satisfied equal rights without the federal government intruding on an issue it was not constitutionally allowed to address.

quote:

---

secular government.

---

quote:

---

Define that for the class.

---

You can do that, right?

quote:

---

Well Mr.ConstitutionLover, where is marriage, or the right to marry, addressed in the US Constitution?

---