Forums | MacLife

Man.  One of the articles our law review quotes some GREAT things about religion (specifically Christianity and the idea of the Trinity or the Divinity of Christ) by Jefferson and Madison.  Lets just say, CG5Addict, they weren't completely sold on the idea of THAT God being THE God.

Last edited by KHannon (2008-10-17 1:07 am)

KHannon wrote:

Man.  One of the articles our law review quotes some GREAT things about religion (specifically Christianity and the idea of the Trinity or the Divinity of Christ) by Jefferson and Madison.  Lets just say, CG5Addict, they weren't completely sold on the idea of THAT God being THE God.

Hey, someone that just started here (at my job) went to ND Law School.

user wrote:

CG5Addict wrote:

3) What's recently?

1956.

I'm sure that probably seems like ancient history to you, but it is in fact a recent change. Interestingly, in one challenge to it in the Supreme Court, IGWT was upheld because it has "lost through rote repetition any significant religious content".

Which raises the question, if it has lost its religious meaning, what good is it now? It's meaningless.

Might as well replace it with "booga booga booga".

I pledge alliegance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the republic, for which it stands,
one nation, booga booga booga,
with liberty, and justice for all.

You have a child???




This is just all too much to take.

bratboy wrote:

You have a child???




This is just all too much to take.

Ya I was born on 9/6/93

I don't understand the suggestion that that is "part of this prop."

The proposition would alter the CA Constitution to read:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.

If it fails, I suppose children would at some point be exposed to the fact that homosexual couples can legally marry in California.  Hopefully you won't teach your children that they should treat people who are gay any different than they treat anyone else....and may your god help you if you think homosexuality can be "taught" to children in school.

CG5Addict wrote:

Well let's also say, I don't want it spoken in school that it's o.k. for Jack to marry Larry to my child. Because that is against my views and that is part of this prop.

Like I said before, this could go on and on, I'll end my responses here on the subject.

The prop says it is OK for Jack to marry Larry to your child?

Larry who?
And does the prop say it is ok for Jack to marry Larry just to your child, or is it OK for Jack to marry Larry to anyone's child?

I am assuming that Jack is licenced in the state of California to perform weddings.

You want the prop to forbid people in your child's school to talk about your child's wedding to Larry?

Here's the question that people should be asking. How is allowing two people. whom you probably don't even know, to enjoy the same rights as you going to negatively impact anyone, much less you?

I consider myself a fairly staunch conservative, but when I ask that question, I often find myself taking what are considered fairly liberal views. I believe government should do only what is necessary, and no more - but what it does do, it should do fairly and equally.

The current situation, as regards state recognition of homosexual unions is, IMHO, unfair and unjust. It doesn't serve the purposes of society or state, and needlessly discriminates against one group to the satisfaction of another - specifically religious conservatives. The consequences of this discrimination can be quite dire legally, and with no counterbalancing positive effects. Reversing this stance won't harm my marriage, my (soon to arrive) kid, or my community. As such, it's a no-brainer for me to support such a reversal.

That said, from my own moral view, I do not think Christian churches have any business performing religious marriages for homosexuals. I believe the Bible is very clear on the subject, and to go against that teaching is to violate the will of God in a very dangerous manner.

So, as a citizen of a (supposedly) secular republic, I fully support the equalization of legal rights for any union between two consenting adults. As a Christian, I still find the practice to go against the scripture, and an dismayed at churches that disregard God's law on the matter. A fine line, and one I catch grief for on both sides, but a necessary one in my opinion.

As quoted on Doonesbury.com:


"Hello. I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC, because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home, and killed Americans."

-- McCain campaign robocall currently being made in Nevada, Wisconsin and at least twelve other targeted states

Gee, I only get "Obama only worked 20 minutes on the economy crisis, then jetted off to an hours-long party the Hollywood liberal elite" now....

Nah. They couldn't call it a 'homocide bomb'.

Funny, McCain decried such robocalls in 2000....

It'd help if Inglesias made an ad for him. (I'd advise something more direct than telling the liberal medai.) It doesn't soundbite too well, I don't think.

Last edited by daemon (2008-10-17 2:48 pm)