If The U.S. Supreme Court ‘Goes Rogue’ ...

a reply to: reldra

ETA: Never mind, just saw your edit. More Beer anyway

a reply to: kaylaluv

Once again, it wasn't the feds. It WAS local communities via local gov't bureaucrats that blocked access to community centers and school gyms. Not the legal route.

There were many that threatened to leave the Scouts and in fact did.

As far as churches goes..

www.breitbart.com...

originally posted by: FissionSurplus
I don't care who gets married, but I do see a problem if a pastor refuses to marry two people of the same sex, and the couple runs to the gubmint and cries that their civil rights have been violated.

In fact, I hope all gays get married. I want to see if they can make as much of a hypocritical travesty of it as the heteros have.

But leave the church out of it.

The 'Gubmint' will tell them to find someone else who will marry them. If they want a religious ceremony as well as civil paperwork, there are many non-denominational churches that will do this and non-denominational ministers.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Like it or not, the 2nd is ambiguous and only recently strongly defined. We can go back to ambiguous if you prefer but I don't think you'd like that very much.

The 1st is not ambiguous.

*shakes head*

I don't believe you.

Don't take it personally though.

I don't believe many here about this issue.

You willingly support a reinterpretation of the 2nd because you claim it is ambiguous.

But make a 180 on the 1st Amendment because you claim it is not.

Neither are "ambiguous".

It's all in how you interpret it.

And many here and even not here would sound the trumpets for a reinterpretation of the 1st.

a reply to: reldra

I didn't say they were a Christian organization. The basic morals were aligned with the Christian community otherwise where would the resistance to gay membership originate? LOL.

originally posted by: J.B. Aloha
a reply to: reldra

?

Same page of opinion about same sex marriage. My wife and I have conspired to conceive 5 kids, lol.

More Beer!

All I did was note, again, that I can perform ceremonies without official paperwork as well.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: reldra

I didn't say they were a Christian organization. The basic morals were aligned with the Christian community otherwise where would the resistance to gay membership originate? LOL.

Ok, it is a very conservative organization and it took a little prodding to help out some of the kids they were trying to help to begin with. Better?

a reply to: reldra Here Here! More Beer!

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Like it or not, the 2nd is ambiguous and only recently strongly defined. We can go back to ambiguous if you prefer but I don't think you'd like that very much.

The 1st is not ambiguous.

*shakes head*

I don't believe you.

Don't take it personally though.

I don't believe many here about this issue.

You willingly support a reinterpretation of the 2nd because you claim it is ambiguous.

But make a 180 on the 1st Amendment because you claim it is not.

Neither are "ambiguous".

It's all in how you interpret it.

And many here and even not here would sound the trumpets for a reinterpretation of the 1st.

If it is interpreted differently, often, that leads to ambiguous... It is pretty ambiguous, actually. I see it as the ability for each state to form a regulated militia, separated from the government. So in case the government is out of control..THAT well regulated and trained militia can protect the people. "John Smith' with 25 guns and no training and no wait laws and an endless amount of ammunition does not cut it.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: reldra

I didn't say they were a Christian organization. The basic morals were aligned with the Christian community otherwise where would the resistance to gay membership originate? LOL.

The Boy Scouts (years back) were floundering - - - then they were "saved" by Mormons. Really.

They are a religious organization. No atheists or agnostics allowed.

Original program came from England and was patterned after the military. What can I say, I research stuff.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Like it or not, the 2nd is ambiguous and only recently strongly defined. We can go back to ambiguous if you prefer but I don't think you'd like that very much.

The 1st is not ambiguous.

*shakes head*

I don't believe you.

Don't take it personally though.

I don't believe many here about this issue.

You willingly support a reinterpretation of the 2nd because you claim it is ambiguous.

But make a 180 on the 1st Amendment because you claim it is not.

Neither are "ambiguous".

It's all in how you interpret it.

And many here and even not here would sound the trumpets for a reinterpretation of the 1st.

If it is interpreted differently, often, that leads to ambiguous...

And that's how it starts. . . .

Hate to say "told ya so", but. . . . .

a reply to: ketsuko

No they are not.
Many have just accepted gay folk getting wed.
This is all going to be such a none issue in a couple of years.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Like it or not, the 2nd is ambiguous and only recently strongly defined. We can go back to ambiguous if you prefer but I don't think you'd like that very much.

The 1st is not ambiguous.

*shakes head*

I don't believe you.

Don't take it personally though.

I don't believe many here about this issue.

You willingly support a reinterpretation of the 2nd because you claim it is ambiguous.

But make a 180 on the 1st Amendment because you claim it is not.

Neither are "ambiguous".

It's all in how you interpret it.

And many here and even not here would sound the trumpets for a reinterpretation of the 1st.

If it is interpreted differently, often, that leads to ambiguous...

And that's how it starts. . . .

Hate to say "told ya so", but. . . . .

LOL

a reply to: nwtrucker

So, what's your point? People have a constitutional right to disagree. People have a right to speak their mind. People have a right to boycott or protest - on either side of an issue.

I guess you're mad because the majority of Boy Scout members and others in the community didn't like the discriminatory (but legal) policy. Again, that has nothing to do with the government. Nothing unconstitutional was done to the Boy Scouts.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Like it or not, the 2nd is ambiguous and only recently strongly defined. We can go back to ambiguous if you prefer but I don't think you'd like that very much.

The 1st is not ambiguous.

*shakes head*

I don't believe you.

Don't take it personally though.

I don't believe many here about this issue.

You willingly support a reinterpretation of the 2nd because you claim it is ambiguous.

But make a 180 on the 1st Amendment because you claim it is not.

Neither are "ambiguous".

It's all in how you interpret it.

And many here and even not here would sound the trumpets for a reinterpretation of the 1st.

If it is interpreted differently, often, that leads to ambiguous...

And that's how it starts. . . .

Hate to say "told ya so", but. . . . .

No it doesn't. There's been many discussions on exactly what the 2nd amendment means.

Protection of church rights is very clear.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Like it or not, the 2nd is ambiguous and only recently strongly defined. We can go back to ambiguous if you prefer but I don't think you'd like that very much.

The 1st is not ambiguous.

*shakes head*

I don't believe you.

Don't take it personally though.

I don't believe many here about this issue.

You willingly support a reinterpretation of the 2nd because you claim it is ambiguous.

But make a 180 on the 1st Amendment because you claim it is not.

Neither are "ambiguous".

It's all in how you interpret it.

And many here and even not here would sound the trumpets for a reinterpretation of the 1st.

If it is interpreted differently, often, that leads to ambiguous...

And that's how it starts. . . .

Hate to say "told ya so", but. . . . .

No it doesn't. There's been many discussions on exactly what the 2nd amendment means.

Protection of church rights is very clear.

Yeah. . . . . uh-huh.

Ri-iiiight.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: buster2010

Btw Texas what's it like living under the Christian version of Sharia?

It sucks.

I think that's also illegal in Texas.
Missionary position only.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: reldra

I didn't say they were a Christian organization. The basic morals were aligned with the Christian community otherwise where would the resistance to gay membership originate? LOL.

The Boy Scouts (years back) were floundering - - - then they were "saved" by Mormons. Really.

They are a religious organization. No atheists or agnostics allowed.

Original program came from England and was patterned after the military. What can I say, I research stuff.

The Boy Scouts will not say either way and generally say they are not a religious orgainization, have not established themselves as such Boy Scouts I research too Anee

a reply to: reldra
On the point of the three person marriage. It can be legal in some of the states, and the arguments are already laid down, along with the laws are on the books. The RFRA laws that have been popping up, the ones that are suppose to be anti gay, where in short it states that laws can not be used to burden against a persons religious belief. If a group, belonging to a religion, could argue and force the issue in court, getting the various criminal laws struck down and forcing a show down in the US Supreme Court. And those groups have a valid argument that the current laws by denying them poly marriage is a burden on their faith and religion.

Thus the court would have to decide to either strike down criminal laws and federal law, and reverse a prior courts decision and uphold the RFRA laws, or strike down the RFRA laws and uphold the various criminal, federal laws and the prior court case.

originally posted by: ketsuko
But none of those people are stopped from marrying so long as they choose to marry in a legally approved manner.

Not yet. But once the law is changed to allow same sex people to marry each other then that will all change.

Like you said, once it's legally approved and they qualify then they can get legally married. They won't need some stupid church to do it either. Because it's a question of Legality not Religion.