- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Respect for Marriage Act passes House (258 to 169) - now heads to Biden's desk
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:45 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:45 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
What else does it do?
Provides the basis for Attorney Generals to prosecute organizations not complying with the newthink on gay marriage.
Provides the basis for people to sue organizations and persons not complying with the newthink on gay marriage.
2
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:46 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:Did it include forced reciprocity?
Well there is DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act, which this bill repeals.
I’m not saying I have a problem with states recognizing other states marriages. But the idea that it’s only necessary in certain circumstances is the issue.
FWIW, I think DOMA was largely but not entirely unnecessary. Just like this bill.
quote:
What else does it do?
quote:
Defense of Marriage Act, which this bill repeals.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:51 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:I agree almost across-the-board, but the highlighted language seems unlikely.
I preface this by saying my personal views RE: sex/marriage in general are probably more left of center than right. I don't see the problem with RFMA--I'd have an issue if, say, hetero marriages were under threat of revocation/non-recognition, but that's clearly not the case. I'm of the mind that prostitution should absolutely be legalized, and the same with bigamy/polyamory. I suppose I'm less "conservative" and more "libertarian" on such matters. Two (or more) consenting adults want to enter a legally recognized union, I have no problem with an ostensibly free society allowing them to do so.
Personally, I don't have any moral objections to plural marriage, but I don't see the government ever allowing it ... because a plural marriage could constantly add new members and thereby avoid inheritance taxes indefinitely. See "Friday" by Heinlein.
Government ain't letting that happen. It ain't surrendering those inheritance tax revenues.
This post was edited on 12/8/22 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:52 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
If done, the plaintiff's will lose in court.
Not the point, and you know it.
The process is the punishment. Whether they prevail or not, the defendants (churches) lose simply by having to defend their position.
My money says that when these lawsuits start, you’ll go radio silent on the matter.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:53 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:I agree with 100% of this.
I preface this by saying my personal views RE: sex/marriage in general are probably more left of center than right. I'd have an issue if, say, hetero marriages were under threat of revocation/non-recognition, but that's clearly not the case. I'm of the mind that prostitution should absolutely be legalized, and the same with bigamy/polyamory. I suppose I'm less "conservative" and more "libertarian" on such matters. Two (or more) consenting adults want to enter a legally recognized union, I have no problem with an ostensibly free society allowing them to do so.
And more “left” o social issues applies to me too. Hell, I joined a ghey right activist group at one time. I also left it when I saw the open religious bigotry among its members.
But I did cut out…
quote:Becasue I can see this is an over reach into marriage by the federal government. If the federal government can dictate what marriages must be recognized, it’s a miuch smaller step to telling churches to do it.
I don't see the problem with RFMA-
Id much prefer to see the e government get out of the marriage business, and incentivizing it, entirely. I said the same about DOMA.
This post was edited on 12/8/22 at 2:57 pm
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:59 pm to AggieHank86
Not that i have a problem with plural margie… but…
I’m old enough to remember when people said “government. would never use the Patriot Act to spy on domestic citizens”.
quote:There are no more dangerous words than “It can’t happen here”.
Government ain't letting that happen.
I’m old enough to remember when people said “government. would never use the Patriot Act to spy on domestic citizens”.
This post was edited on 12/8/22 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 12/8/22 at 3:00 pm to the808bass
"Newthink"...I must have missed that day in law school
Posted on 12/8/22 at 3:02 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Same sex still aren’t married.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 3:04 pm to Godfather1
quote:
Not the point, and you know it.
The process is the punishment. Whether they prevail or not, the defendants (churches) lose simply by having to defend their position.
Those hypothetical lawsuits can come right now. Gay marriage is the law of the land. This bill does less than Obergefell v. Hodges did so it makes no sense to wait on this bill as some sort of leg to stand on for a lawsuit when you already have the stronger leg in Obergefell.
quote:
My money says that when these lawsuits start, you’ll go radio silent on the matter.
I'll be as clear as possible: No church should ever be forced or threatened to perform any wedding or bless any marriage that they do not wish to be a part of.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 3:06 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
Same sex still aren’t married.
According to state and federal law they are which, personally, is all I care about on the subject
Posted on 12/8/22 at 3:07 pm to the808bass
quote:
You didn’t prove me wrong. You were pretending the idea of marriage tied to the church only arose in the 8th century and later. That’s a level of dumbfrickery not often equaled on the interwebs.
Then link something to prove me wrong like I did you. The only dumbfrickery is someone that cries because they can't handle facts.
quote:
For much of the early Christian Era, the Church stayed out of weddings and let the state handle the union of man and woman. Finally, sometime after 800 AD, the Church began to perform weddings, and a few centuries later the Catholic Church made marriage one of the sacraments.
quote:
However, it wasn't until the Council of Trent in 1563 that marriage was officially deemed one of the seven sacraments, says Elizabeth Davies, of
This post was edited on 12/8/22 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 12/8/22 at 3:08 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
Same sex still aren’t married.
Stupid post of the day. Congratulations!
Posted on 12/8/22 at 3:11 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Words mean things & marriage has existed for 1000’s of years.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 3:13 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Within 10 years you'll be fully on board with the idea that people who disagree with homosexuality have no place in our society and should be pushed to its margins, regardless of their tolerance/civility toward it.
Sounds good to me
Posted on 12/8/22 at 3:19 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Which “Rs” voted for this shite??
This post was edited on 12/8/22 at 3:20 pm
Posted on 12/8/22 at 3:23 pm to whatkindanameiskirby
quote:
Sounds good to me
So even if you are 100% civil but just fundamentally disagree with it, you should be ostracized and pushed to the margins of society? Why?
Posted on 12/8/22 at 3:24 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
I'll be as clear as possible: No church should ever be forced or threatened to perform any wedding or bless any marriage that they do not wish to be a part of.
Bookmarked.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 3:30 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Twenty or thirty years ago if I ever thought about same sex marriage my opinion was live and let live but my gut reaction was that such relationships were "icky".
That changed pretty strongly when my wife told me about the children of a same sex couple in our school district. I think they had four adopted children and three of them were in classes with our three.
Our kids are pretty straight laced and always tended to choose friends who were smart and well behaved. And they all came back with good reports on those adopted children.
I have read about "adopted child syndrome" and how may adopted children have behavioral problems. But not those kids. They were all just fine.
As it says in the Bible, by their fruits ye shall know them.
After that revelation I became an advocate of same sex marriage.
The fact that same sex couples can now get married has had zero effect on our 50+ year conventional marriage.
That changed pretty strongly when my wife told me about the children of a same sex couple in our school district. I think they had four adopted children and three of them were in classes with our three.
Our kids are pretty straight laced and always tended to choose friends who were smart and well behaved. And they all came back with good reports on those adopted children.
I have read about "adopted child syndrome" and how may adopted children have behavioral problems. But not those kids. They were all just fine.
As it says in the Bible, by their fruits ye shall know them.
After that revelation I became an advocate of same sex marriage.
The fact that same sex couples can now get married has had zero effect on our 50+ year conventional marriage.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 3:34 pm to Jrv2damac
Hell is a really big place, lots of room there for these antichrist folks.
And that's what they are, not the first one will see the 'Pearly Gates'.
And that's what they are, not the first one will see the 'Pearly Gates'.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 3:36 pm to MilwaukeeKosherDills
quote:
The fact that same sex couples can now get married has had zero effect on our 50+ year conventional marriage.
Probably somewhat reduced divorce rates in that you no longer have sham marriages of convenience now that you can marry someone of the same sex.
Page 10 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News