to you know where in a handbasket thnx SCOTUS

[mr1337]

I don't even know why I'm debating this with you guys, it's obvious that you've made your position and there's nothing that can be done to open your mind. I find it interesting that people who put so much emphasis on certain personal freedoms (the right to bear arms) can speak so harshly against other freedoms.

I have no political objection to the several states that proscribe to same-sex marriage as allowed by a referendum of the people or the legislation of a democratically elected body within a republican form of government. I do object to the activism of a federal judiciary.

Do you have a political objection to the several states that make it near impossible to get a CCW license or lawfully own certain weapons? Do you support the federal judiciary stepping in to cull those grievances?

[TXBO]

I don't even know why I'm debating this with you guys, it's obvious that you've made your position and there's nothing that can be done to open your mind. I find it interesting that people who put so much emphasis on certain personal freedoms (the right to bear arms) can speak so harshly against other freedoms.

I have no political objection to the several states that proscribe to same-sex marriage as allowed by a referendum of the people or the legislation of a democratically elected body within a republican form of government. I do object to the activism of a federal judiciary.

Do you have a political objection to the several states that make it near impossible to get a CCW license or lawfully own certain weapons? Do you support the federal judiciary stepping in to cull those grievances?

Yes, the Second Amendment clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of the people. That is not a state's right issue. That's a people's rights issue. The courts wouldn't have to declare a new fundamental right...... It's all there in black and white.

[Slowplay]

I don't even know why I'm debating this with you guys, it's obvious that you've made your position and there's nothing that can be done to open your mind. I find it interesting that people who put so much emphasis on certain personal freedoms (the right to bear arms) can speak so harshly against other freedoms.

I have no political objection to the several states that proscribe to same-sex marriage as allowed by a referendum of the people or the legislation of a democratically elected body within a republican form of government. I do object to the activism of a federal judiciary.

Do you have a political objection to the several states that make it near impossible to get a CCW license or lawfully own certain weapons? Do you support the federal judiciary stepping in to cull those grievances?

You do understand that actions in support of the 2nd Amendment would preclude the "activism" part, right? Edit: I see you were already responded to by TXBO...carry on.

[mojo84]

I don't even know why I'm debating this with you guys, it's obvious that you've made your position and there's nothing that can be done to open your mind. I find it interesting that people who put so much emphasis on certain personal freedoms (the right to bear arms) can speak so harshly against other freedoms.

The only thing I am pointing out is how the idea of separation of church and state came about and how it has been twisted from it's origin to fit a certain agenda. Like it or not, this country's founding was based on a moral compass which was the Bible. Our government is not intended to influence religion but be influenced by our religion and that religion is the religion of the bible, Christianity. The SCOTUS decision has it backwards.

I don't agree with blue laws. If you are saying that the US needs to base its laws off of Christianity, there's a whole lot that needs to be outlawed, as I outlined above.

This includes cursing, tattoos, dancing (in the interpretation of some churches), divorce, intoxication, and adultery.

Let's outlaw divorce because it destroys core family values. It literally rips a family apart, and divorce is not allowed in the Bible.

Let's outlaw intoxication because it's moral and right to do so.

Let's outlaw worshiping any religion except Christianity. Paganism is not moral. Neither is Islam. Or atheism.

A lot of western Europeans who migrated to North America in the time before the US did do to escape the religious oppression of Europe so they could freely live their lives.

A free nation demands a secular government. Once religion plays too much into the laws of the land, you no longer have a free state. You have the workings of many middle-eastern countries in which women must keep their entire bodies covered except for their eyes because that is the standard of ethics in their country.

Just because marriage equality is against your own morals doesn't mean that's the case for everyone. The important question is: is it unethical? I would argue that stealing is both immoral and unethical. You are trespassing against someone else when you steal. But when someone marries another of their own gender, who is trespassed? Who is damaged? Thus to you, it may be immoral, but to society as a whole, it is not unethical.

WOW!! I didn't say any of what you are insinuating. The country's founding is what it is whether you like it or not. Just because you want it to be different doesn't make it so. Because people twist things to fit there agenda doesn't make it true.

[baldeagle]

I don't agree with blue laws. If you are saying that the US needs to base its laws off of Christianity, there's a whole lot that needs to be outlawed, as I outlined above.

I don't believe anyone has said that.

This includes cursing, tattoos, dancing (in the interpretation of some churches), divorce, intoxication, and adultery.

All those things are the purview of the states, not the federal government.

Let's outlaw divorce because it destroys core family values. It literally rips a family apart, and divorce is not allowed in the Bible.

That might not be such a bad thing. Maybe people would think twice before marrying.

Let's outlaw intoxication because it's moral and right to do so.

This is already against the law. Do you think it should not be?

Let's outlaw worshiping any religion except Christianity. Paganism is not moral. Neither is Islam. Or atheism.

That would be a violation of the First Amendment.

A lot of western Europeans who migrated to North America in the time before the US did do to escape the religious oppression of Europe so they could freely live their lives.

And now the government is telling them that if they refuse to bake a cake or take photographs for a gay wedding they will lose their business and pay a huge fine. So much for freedom.

A free nation demands a secular government. Once religion plays too much into the laws of the land, you no longer have a free state. You have the workings of many middle-eastern countries in which women must keep their entire bodies covered except for their eyes because that is the standard of ethics in their country.

America seems to have done just fine before the separation of church and state crowd started insisting that every vestige of one's beliefs be expunged from the public view. Doesn't it strike you as more than a little odd that you can't pray in school but you can teach Islam and homosexuality?

Just because marriage equality is against your own morals doesn't mean that's the case for everyone. The important question is: is it unethical? I would argue that stealing is both immoral and unethical. You are trespassing against someone else when you steal. But when someone marries another of their own gender, who is trespassed? Who is damaged? Thus to you, it may be immoral, but to society as a whole, it is not unethical.

Um no, the important question is is it constitutional for the federal government to mandate marriage laws for all 50 states. The clear answer is no. Ethics has nothing to do with it.

Why even bother to have state laws? Just let the federal government mandate everything. In fact, let's do away with the states entirely and force the same laws on everyone. THAT is what you are arguing for.

[mojo84]

Interesting turn of events. Anxious to see how this works out.

http://conservativetribune.com/alabama- ... 2015-06-29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, same-sex couples in Alabama will have to hold on and wait a few weeks before proceeding with their nuptials, thanks to an order issued by the Alabama Supreme Court.The court issued an order on Monday that essentially prohibits probate judges in the state from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples for 25 days.

This has effectively stalled the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling in Alabama, while providing time for interested parties to file motions and petitions contesting the ruling.

“Basically it states that in the court’s judgment, it (the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Friday) is tabled effective until after the hearing (before the Alabama Supreme Court),” Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore said. “It’s not in effect until after this hearing in this 25 day period.”

[mr1337]

Should have exited the thread several posts ago when I mentioned it's obvious none of the nay sayers are going to open their mind.

I'll leave now and let you guys have your thread back so you can discuss this uncontested. The important thing is #lovewins

[cb1000rider]

America seems to have done just fine before the separation of church and state crowd started insisting that every vestige of ones beliefs be expunged from the public view. Doesn't it strike you as more than a little odd that you can't pray in school but you can teach Islam and homosexuality?

The same America that banned interracial marriage? Some people say that there is/was a biblical basis for that too. I'm not ready to go back to the 1950s myself, although I do recognize that many of us think of that as the best of times.

The fact is that America can't pick and choose a religious belief system as a basis for law if it results in discrimination. SCOTUS will shut it down. Eventually. If we want to base laws based on religion, we need to setup situations that are non-descriminatory in nature. Then there is no lawsuit to file.

And then we need to select which particular religion we're going to use as a basis. The results of co-mingling religion and government will be even more disastrous. We can't even get the Christian faiths to agree on anything short of relatively basic tenants. And if we were to do that, we'd inherently need a "national" religion... When that happens, I'm getting the heck out of dodge, not because I'm non-religious, but because I know that's going to end badly.

We're a melting pot. You don't want my belief system. I don't want yours. Design a system of government that treats us all fairly...

[cb1000rider]

Interesting turn of events. Anxious to see how this works out.

Various locations in TX are refusing also...

[mojo84]

Should have exited the thread several posts ago when I mentioned it's obvious none of the nay sayers are going to open their mind.

I'll leave now and let you guys have your thread back so you can discuss this uncontested. The important thing is #lovewins

Search for "gay pride parade" in Google Images and then tell me it's just about LOVE and equality. If heterosexual people were acting like this in public they would be arrested for indecent exposure and lewd behavior.

[cb1000rider]

If heterosexual people were acting like this in public they would be arrested for indecent exposure and lewd behavior.

Mardi Gras. That's the big one that comes to mind.

[mojo84]

If heterosexual people were acting like this in public they would be arrested for indecent exposure and lewd behavior.

Mardi Gras.

Do the same search for Mardi Gras and you'll see many of the people doing the same are either gays or transvestites. Other than the girls lifting their shirts for beads, it's not the same. On top of that, some of the girls that do that get busted if seen by a cop and he is able to get to them.

[cb1000rider]

OK,it's just the homosexuals that behave badly... I guess I can work with that perspective.
How about we blame the un-married people? Does that fit better?

[mojo84]

OK,it's just the homosexuals that behave badly... I guess I can work with that perspective.
How about we blame the un-married people? Does that fit better?

I also didn't say what you insinuate I said. Apparently you've just decided to resort to unnecessary sarcasm. Guess that's what people do when they can't refute facts.

[cb1000rider]

Mojo, I'm not going to get personal and be responsible for derailing an otherwise reasonably civil debate.. I was being sarcastic, good call on that. I don't just think it's gay/transgender that are misbehaving at Mardi Gras. You're right though, I have no facts or statistics to base that on. It's just my observation.

I don't think the behavior that "Gay Pride" is necessarily representative of the entire community any more than I think the OCT is representative of responsible firearms owners. Both groups attract a lot of attention.