Previous 11 - 20 Next
Are you saying the Judeo-Christian tradition had no effect on English Common Law either?
Why do you assume we are haters just because we disagree with your position?
Amen, Publius. How many Democrats have spoken out recently about wanting to modify the First Amendment?
No legal precept, I base it on God's Word. If you do not accept that, it's okay by me. Just because something is legal does not mean it is moral or ethical.
I disagree. It is not a good decision. The courts are attempting to redefine marriage, which IS a religious issue. And if you think that after all 57 states start to "allow" same-sex marriages the courts won't start to force churches to marry homosexuals, you do not understand the "progressive" agenda.
The court is wrong - marriage is NOT for all. It is for a man and a woman, period.
Actually I believe she said, "We have to pass it so that we can find out what's in it."
"I don't expect to actually read the legislative language, because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I've ever read in my life." Why does "legislative language" need to be confusing? How about writing laws in plain English? I can think of at least two reasons offhand. 1. This leaves room for later interpreting the law in any way desired and 2. It creates work for lawyers.
No, Congress gave them amnesty. Reagan signed the law because they promised to enforce the border which, of course, they never did. That is part of the reason we are in this mess today.
Obama wants to provide "temporary relief from deportation and work authorization for perhaps several million undocumented immigrants." "Temporary" to a liberal means "forever" to the rest of us. "Work authorization" - to do what? We already HAVE millions of Americans out of work. Where are they going to find jobs? Besides, I thought all the illegal. . . er, I mean undocumented, people coming over the border were children.
ALL liberals and the majority of the population are ignorant of basic economics.
Previous 11 - 20 Next