That's not really all that significant. Of course the court would rule that way. Has a lawyer ever made the other argument in court? I know plenty of anti-gay people who make the argument, but I've never considered it a viable legal one.
This was a central plank of the argument the petitioners brought forward. Certainly something that can stymie the Supreme Court into considering the matter and granting cert in the first place is something that is (and now most crucially was) a viable legal agreement.
Coworker just told me this will kick off the series of events detailed in Revelations. WHAT HAVE YOU PEOPLE DONE!!!!!
A Christian should have no problem with the events of Revelations coming to fruition. I've never understood the freakout over an anti-christ or the end of the world by "alleged Christians." If you want to use the Bible to define yourself at least know what it says.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) was a United States federal law oh wikipedia, you
he needs to purchase insurance if so Get your workplace to follow the Anti-Christ mandate if we all pool our monies together, the losses from hellfire will be minimal
I don't know if she was worried about it, but I am. I am still not sure what will happen to my dogs during the End Times. She said, "I don't want to say anything controversial, but this will start the series of events detailed in Revelations. I know my Bible." And I just thought, "Well, at least she didn't say anything controversial."
Most people on the D&D have discussed the hypocrisy of Christians and how they do not respect other people or their religion. This harsh sarcastic is highly disrespectful and rude to Christians, and I ask that you please refrain from such caustic commentary.
Dood or Doodette, if the lefties on the board can't bash Christians they won't be able to bash anyone. And what fun is the internet if you can't bash anyone amirite?
if you'd like, I can sell you sensitive insurance too---every time you're shocked, and appalled at something said over the Internet, I can pay you in Lehman Brothers shares. well, I would pay you in such, but I'm too busy conducting sexually ambigious acts that can cause the downfall of a nation mmm...
I agree. The ruling seems like it gives state governments the ability to undermine the will of the voters by refusing to defend any challenged law with which they disagree.
I wish. I love Chick fil A and couldn't care less about their position on gay marriage, even though I'm in favor.
Maybe I have been around Rhad too much but to refer to my own post. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7778386&postcount=42 As I said in the other thread these rulings were what I expected.
Okay, gotta say it because this is a pet peeve of mine: It's "Revelation". Singular, not plural. We now return to our regularly scheduled program, already in progress...
The homosexual rights movement is not a political movement seeking equality. It is a religious movement seeking affirmation. Conservative Christian organizations refuse to offer affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle. In fact, they actually condemn it. So they become targets of homosexual activism. Paradoxically, homosexual activists also target conservative Christians because being rejected by them is an important part of the process of attaining affirmation from the general public. When a homosexual activist tries to "join" such a group, it is often done with the following goals in mind: 1. Using discrimination claims to strengthen the genetic argument (and using the genetic argument to strengthen discrimination claims). It is fairly obvious why homosexuals want to assert that homosexuality is genetic. If they are programmed to behave in a certain way then homosexuality becomes less of a behavior and more of a status. This helps advance efforts to include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws, which are meant to give homosexuals equal power in relation to legitimate civil rights causes based upon immutable physical characteristics. The only problem with the genetic argument is that it lacks supporting evidence. There is no more evidence for a gay gene than there is for Santa Claus or for legitimate feminist scholarship. The best the activist can do is to argue circumstantially that no one would choose a lifestyle that guarantees being subjected to discrimination. The argument is as silly as saying there must be an interracial dating gene because no one would choose to be subjected to discrimination for dating someone of another race. But homosexual politics is not about logic. It is about end results. Activists need to be subjected to "discrimination" in order to advance their cause. So they join conservative Christian groups they do not like, engage in advocacy they know offends and disrupts the group, get kicked out of the group, and then claim to have been discriminated against. Finally, they lobby for stronger anti-discrimination rules that put them on a par with blacks and women. 2. Defaming the opposition. Homosexuals have a lot of options on campus. They can join a Unitarian Universalist group, they can join a United Methodist group, or they can start their own religious group that affirms homosexual conduct. But the very thought that someone on their campus disagrees with their lifestyle makes them angry. They simply cannot "coexist" (no matter what their bumper stickers say). This anger is probably due to awareness that they are engaging in a lifestyle that is both unnatural and immoral. So, if you can't beat the Christians, just join them (and eventually destroy them). It’s always destroying, not joining, that motivates them. After they join the group they don't want to be in - and deny the stated principles of the group they never agreed with - the unable-to-coexist homosexual activist goes to the administration with a complaint. When the Christian group is expelled from campus under the anti-discrimination clause people ask "Why did the Christian group have to expel the homosexual?" Stated another way, the question becomes "Why can't Christians coexist with homosexuals?" In the end, the homosexual activist has made the group whose very existence he refuses to tolerate look intolerant. Another public relations victory! 3. Containing moral criticism. Of course, once the conservative Christian group is gone a clear message is sent to those who would dare to criticize the homosexual lifestyle. This exerts a powerful chilling effect on constitutionally protected religious expression. But that isn't the end of things. The homosexual rights movement continues to redefine homophobia in order to reduce any semblance of criticism directed toward the homosexual agenda. Isn't this similar to what we have seen in the struggle for racial equality in America? At first, the civil rights movement was about stopping lynching and racial segregation. After redefining racism (to include any disagreement with black leaders whatsoever) the movement has become little more than a mechanism used to suppress political speech. Racism went from being a social problem to being a political weapon. Redefining homophobia now serves the same function for the homosexual activist that redefining racism served for the civil rights activist. But there is one crucial difference between the black civil rights movement and the homosexual rights movement. The former began by addressing real oppression before eventually (and incessantly) crying “wolf” as a means of punishing political speech. The latter began as an attack on free speech that becomes more pronounced with each and every concession. The supreme irony of all this is that the NAACP is the organization that first won legal recognition of the right to freedom of association in 1958. They prevailed in a successful effort to keep the KKK from joining and destroying their organization. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the NAACP saying they could keep their membership lists secret and even keep out those who disagree with their beliefs. Today, in an effort to attain moral equivalency with the NAACP, the homosexual rights movement is adopting one of the old tactics of the KKK. Politics makes strange bedfellows – particularly when it demands affirmation of what goes on in the bedroom.
