- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 12:10 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Posted on 12/8/22 at 12:10 pm to Mickey Goldmill
We really needed Congress to concentrate all of their energy on this redundancy.
1
Posted on 12/8/22 at 12:10 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Can someone point me to the language in the bill that allows this, or that is causing this concern?
Because now the courts or the IRS could refer to this law in determining that an organization is not “charitable.” The IRS, in reviewing non-profits, can review whether or not an organization’s conduct is “contrary to public policy.” I’m sure that shouldn’t be an issue, here, right?
And while the law says that churches won’t have to perform marriages, it doesn’t provide any other protections, especially for the individual in the public sphere.
This post was edited on 12/8/22 at 12:11 pm
Posted on 12/8/22 at 12:11 pm to Azkiger
quote:
It use to be one man many women. Don't pretend it hasn't changed within your religion.
Right. How is marriage a government thing now? Oh that's right. Governments wanted to adopt the religious practice because the main purpose of marriage is to raise a family. The government and the people running it loved the idea of a larger tax base.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 12:11 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
on this redundancy.
It’s not a redundancy. It’s calculated.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 12:12 pm to Azkiger
quote:
It use to be one man many women.
What religion are you referencing?
Posted on 12/8/22 at 12:12 pm to TGFN57
quote:
TGFN57
HEY TARZANAS BITCH
Posted on 12/8/22 at 12:13 pm to Liberator
quote:
Interracial marriage" has NEVER needed "protection
Absurd statement
It was illegal for a long time in numerous states.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 12:13 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
quote:
They will use this law to go after all religious faiths that don't recognize gay marriage.
quote:
How so, though?...
So what is causing the concern? Where is it coming from?
Are you serious?? How you really don't get this shouldn't surprise me. AND YET.
Totally clueless and disconnected from reality no matter what the subject, son, is no way to go through life.
*smdh*
Posted on 12/8/22 at 12:15 pm to Liberator
Posted on 12/8/22 at 12:15 pm to Indefatigable
You are utterly hopeless. And I say this as a medical professional who has seen too many similar cases of delusion and denial of obvious reality.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 12:15 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Right. How is marriage a government thing now? Oh that's right. Governments wanted to adopt the religious practice
Marriage is actually thousands of years old. Marriage linked to the church didn't come about until the 8th century so marriage was never about being together under GOD.
You can dv this all you want but it's a fact not a emotion.
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.
This post was edited on 12/8/22 at 12:17 pm
Posted on 12/8/22 at 12:16 pm to Fat Bastard
Exactamundo.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 12:16 pm to the808bass
quote:
When this law is used to sue churches, please immolate yourself out of shame.
If done, the plaintiff's will lose in court.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 12:16 pm to Liberator
quote:
"Interracial marriage" has NEVER needed "protection". This is out-and-out bullsh*t propaganda.
What the frick are you talking about?
Posted on 12/8/22 at 12:18 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Then what was the purpose of this law?
To codify it so it doesn't depend upon the Supreme Court.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 12:18 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Can someone point me to the language in the bill that allows this, or that is causing this concern?
READ the Bill yourself, Captain Cupcake. And don't omit the fine print.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 12:19 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
LOL
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.
Couldn't disagree with you more. I will always respect a person's religious views. I have family that isn't totally on board with me being gay, but we have a great/close relationship anyway.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 12:19 pm to Mickey Goldmill
The hijackers flew the planes into the wrong buildings.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 12:19 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
If done, the plaintiff's will lose in court.
Until they don’t.
And then you’ll be telling people why it’s a good thing that those people have lost their rights of conscience.
We expect nothing less from a dissembler.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 12:19 pm to tiger1014
quote:
It’s a majority opinion in the United States that gays should be allowed to marry.
They are determined to never adapt and to continue losing winnable elections by remaining immovable on social issues.
But they so would win if these elections were held in 1987.
Page 4 of 22
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News