1 - 10 Next
The state supreme court, which struck down Prop 22, agreed that Prop 8 was a duly adopted state constitutional amendment. Then a homosexual, partnered FEDERAL fudge, er, judge who stood to directly benefit from his ruling, struck down the constitutional amendment. Eventually, it went to SCOTUS. which said they couldn't decide the case because the defense (the people who backed the ballot measure, since California's elected leaders abandoned their oaths and refused to defend their own constitution) didn't have standing. This should have either knocked the matter back to what the state supreme court said (which affirmed Prop 8) or should have meant that only the specific plaintiffs in their respective counties (two couples, two counties) should have been issued "marriage" licenses based on the ruling. But everyone in power has pretended that SCOTUS struck down Prop 8 and that California must issue "marriage" licenses to any brideless or groomless couple. (Also, the same day, SCOTUS ruled in the federal DOMA cases AGAIN that marriage is a STATE matter, but that hasn't stopped federal judges from intervening since the ruling.)
Yes, words are important. That's why neither Prop 22 nor Prop 8 were "bans". Nobody was stopping anyone from having ceremonies, exchanging jewelry, changing names, receiving gifts, having a reception, going on a vacation, living together, calling themselves married, or any business or other non-government organization from recognizing them as such.
Law and order doesn't really apply when it comes to neutering marriage. It is "heads the marriage neutering crowd wins, tails the marriage defenders lose." That is why even though SCOTUS essentially ruled that marriage is a state matter, federal judges continue to intervene to neuter state marriage licenses as though it is a federal matter. Just imagine if conservatives passed on gun licenses the same way, disregarding gun laws. Of course the difference is that gun rights are enumerated in the Constitution, while the "right" to neuter state marriage licenses is not.
In response to:

The Rudeness of Registries

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Jun 23, 2014 10:55 AM
My wife keeps a wish list and encourages me (or anyone else) to use it when getting her a gift. It's GREAT! I don't see what the fuss is about, except when wedding invitations include a link to the registry. Those who are interested will ASK where they are registered. I think some people just don't like technological advancements. Don't like these? Don't use them, either for yourself or when buying a gift. Anyone who makes a registry should accept that not everyone is going to use it.
My cheeseburgers topped with bacon-wrapped shrimp aren't respected as much as food with with a "kosher" label, so I'm going to sue the people (represented by their government) until they are forced to apply the "kosher" label to my cheeseburger. After all, it doesn't hurt your food and your synagogue can still refuse to offer my cheeseburgers.
Oh, good. More talk from my fellow social conservatives about what makes someone a "real" man. Notice we never hear about what makes someone a "real" woman. It seems that for one gender, simply turning 18 is what matters. Members of the other MUST take on responsibility for other human beings, including another adult, to be "real". Now I am, BY CHOICE, a married father and sole provider for my family, However, I do not deny that someone can be a "real" man if he never marries and never has children. There are men who have lived such lives as REAL MEN, contributing more to society than they take.
So men NEED nagging, but not women?
Weddings are one thing. Marriage is quite another. As we're increasingly seeing, religious marriage and state licensing of "marriage" are becoming two completely different things. If we conservative Christians want to foster intimacy, then perhaps it is time to avoid the state involvement in the first place, especially in states that no longer honor brides and grooms, husbands or wives, only "spouses", and that punish the earning spouse (alimony) in the event of a divorce, while not holding anyone accountable for breaking vows (no-fault). Worse than welfare's attack on independence, "community property" and alimony as set by no-fault states is an attack on intimacy, especially when one spouse realizes they will have their bills paid, married or not, and no matter what they do to hurt intimacy within the marriage. A plain-worded example: some women, who have been supported for years in their desire to be SAHMs, encouraged by their friends and culture, abandon marital obligations, perhaps even committing adultery. Adultery is not punishable in most states even by civil lawsuit ("alienation of affection") and getting a divorce is not shamed (and he'll have to pay for her lawyer anyway), so some take the easy path and collect lifetime alimony. As long as they don't remarry (shacking up? no problem!) they can force their (ex) husband to pay their way through life, without having to listen to him complain about the lack of emotional support, the physical rejection, the overspending, the overeating, the lack of domestic accomplishment, etc. If you're a woman and you can't fathom doing that, that's because you're not one of those women. But they exist. (And before anyone tries it... yes, I'm married. I've never been divorced. I am not blind to what goes on around me and the sufferings of others.)
In response to:

Lockett & Load

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: May 08, 2014 12:05 PM
I propose that any convicted murderer who objects to lethal injection as "cruel and unusual": be executed by methods employed by the men who wrote and adopted those words into our Constitution.
In response to:

Lockett & Load

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: May 08, 2014 12:04 PM
"and not return violence with violence" To which verses do you refer? Remember, you must consider context and think about details. Turning the other cheek is about insults. Do not insult someone in return for their insulting you. "Live by the sword, die by the sword" was a very specific context. Jesus also told His disciples to sell extra clothing for swords. Defense is appropriate. Executing murderers is defense.
1 - 10 Next