Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[KG1]

Me too. I don't care what they identify as, if they're plumbed like a woman, they're stewardesses, and if plumbed like a man, stewards. If I can't tell, I just say, "Hey you! I need a refill over here."

You can't say "Hey you!" You are attempting to marginalize them. You must recognize their identities properly. Whatever they wish them to be.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You can't say "Hey you!" You are attempting to marginalize them. You must recognize their identities properly. Whatever they wish them to be.

Why is that? Is "you" no longer on the list of approved pronouns?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Lawyer explains what's next for KY clerk - CNN Video

 

[mrjarrell]

If history is any indicator we are going to have more than a few more cases of fools like this. It took the country a while to get the message after Loving v. Virginia. Some people are too stupid to learn from history and precedent.

Kentucky Clerk Refusing Marriage Licenses: What History Says

 

[mrjarrell]

And, on the funny news side. Huckabee had one of his aides totally cockblock Ted Cruz and keep him out of the limelight at today's rally. That's funny. Sad Cruz is sad.

Huckabee Aide Physically Blocked Cruz From Getting Into Kim Davis Money Shot

 

[MisterChester]

And, on the funny news side. Huckabee had one of his aides totally cockblock Ted Cruz and keep him out of the limelight at today's rally. That's funny. Sad Cruz is sad.

Huckabee Aide Physically Blocked Cruz From Getting Into Kim Davis Money Shot

I really don't think they legitimately care. They just want votes.

 

[jamil]

I really don't think they legitimately care. They just want votes.

Ya think?

 

[actaeon277]

Ya think?

I try not to (think)
Nothing good ever came from it.

 

[cobber]

If history is any indicator we are going to have more than a few more cases of fools like this. It took the country a while to get the message after Loving v. Virginia. Some people are too stupid to learn from history and precedent.

Kentucky Clerk Refusing Marriage Licenses: What History Says

Loving did not remotely address same-sex marriage, but other than that small distinction...


So, when is the SCOTUS going to strike down anti-polygamy laws? What's the big delay?

 

[historian]

Loving did not remotely address same-sex marriage, but other than that small distinction...


So, when is the SCOTUS going to strike down anti-polygamy laws? What's the big delay?

You know what the punishment for polygamy is?




More than one wife!

 

[Lowe0]

If history is any indicator we are going to have more than a few more cases of fools like this. It took the country a while to get the message after Loving v. Virginia. Some people are too stupid to learn from history and precedent.

Kentucky Clerk Refusing Marriage Licenses: What History Says

Seems like a massive waste of taxpayer resources. We could have all looked at Loving, seen where this was going from the outset, and not pissed away a lot of time and money.

 

[actaeon277]

You know what the punishment for polygamy is?




....!

Having more than one woman ***** at you.

 

[steveh_131]

If history is any indicator we are going to have more than a few more cases of fools like this. It took the country a while to get the message after Loving v. Virginia. Some people are too stupid to learn from history and precedent.

Kentucky Clerk Refusing Marriage Licenses: What History Says

Sometimes I forget that people are irrational enough to compare gay marriage to interracial marriage. Time somehow managed to play the 'race card' in an issue that has nothing to do with race, painting every Biblical Christian as equivalent to a racist. Impressive.

 

[Lowe0]

Sometimes I forget that people are irrational enough to compare gay marriage to interracial marriage. Time somehow managed to play the 'race card' in an issue that has nothing to do with race, painting every Biblical Christian as equivalent to a racist. Impressive.

What's the difference? (Gay vs. interracial marriage, that is, not Christians vs. racists.)

 

[steveh_131]

What's the difference? (Gay vs. interracial marriage, that is, not Christians vs. racists.)

One is contrary to scripture. The other is not.

There were specific groups that the Jews were not allowed to intermarry in the Old Testament, but that was because of the pagan belief systems embraced by those groups. Not because of their skin color.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

What's the difference? (Gay vs. interracial marriage, that is, not Christians vs. racists.)

This is 2015. You're allowed to choose your race now. #WrongSkin

 

[Lowe0]

One is contrary to scripture. The other is not.

There were specific groups that the Jews were not allowed to intermarry in the Old Testament, but that was because of the pagan belief systems embraced by those groups. Not because of their skin color.

Why should scripture determine whether something is legal? Whose scripture should be authoritative, and why?

 

[Birds Away]

 

[steveh_131]

Why should scripture determine whether something is legal? Whose scripture should be authoritative, and why?

I don't think that it should. I haven't said that it should. I am saying that one is a simple prejudice and one is a Biblical imperative, and the implication that they are equivalent is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Lowe0]

I don't think that it should. I haven't said that it should. I am saying that one is a simple prejudice and one is a Biblical imperative, and the implication that they are equivalent is intellectually dishonest.

Set the bible aside for a moment, and consider it strictly on observable facts.