Will Queers still be allowed to 'Marry' ?

Will Queers still be allowed to 'Marry' ?

  • Yes. Many Christians are Queer.

    Votes: 3 50.0%

  • No. Queers are an abomination. (it's in the Bible)

    Votes: 1 16.7%

  • It has to be called something else. (Parriage, Civil Union)

    Votes: 2 33.3%
  • Total voters
    6
  • Poll closed .
Dutch Courage said:
The one they gave. Render unto Caesar. If they can't, then they should recuse themselves.
Click to expand...

Don't you need to prove that a judge is unable to set their personal beliefs aside and rule on the merits of a case according to the law?

Under Jackoff's scenario, only atheists should be allowed on the bench in any court, right?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Oooookay. So what is your solution? Nine gay atheists who will "get to 'interpret' what the Constitution says"?
Click to expand...

:)
I'm conducting a 'Poll'.
It's concerning 'Queers'. Something frowned on by 'Religious types'.
I, like others, have seen Barrett's religious affiliations: 'People of Praise'.
--->"At the same time, the Louisiana native and Notre Dame Law graduate, a favorite among Trump’s evangelical Christian base, has said legal careers ought not to be seen as means of gaining satisfaction, prestige or money, but rather “as a means to the end of serving God” "<---
Emphasis placed on "as a means to the end of serving God".

Just a Poll. Wondering how others feel. So far, 3 people say 'it's all good, nothing to worry about'. 2 others state a 'name change' would solve the problem. (Like, it wouldn't be a 'Marriage', ... it would be a 'Pairriage', or 'Civil Union', or 'Domestic Partnership', or 'Room Mates' or something)
 
Legion said:
Don't you need to prove that a judge is unable to set their personal beliefs aside and rule on the merits of a case according to the law?

Under Jackoff's scenario, only atheists should be allowed on the bench in any court, right?
Click to expand...

No. You said the key word: "set their personal beliefs aside". Barrett, using her own words, may not be able to do that.

--->"as a means to the end of serving God"<---
 
Jack said:
:)
I'm conducting a 'Poll'.
It's concerning 'Queers'. Something frowned on by 'Religious types'.
I, like others, have seen Barrett's religious affiliations: 'People of Praise'.
--->"At the same time, the Louisiana native and Notre Dame Law graduate, a favorite among Trump’s evangelical Christian base, has said legal careers ought not to be seen as means of gaining satisfaction, prestige or money, but rather “as a means to the end of serving God” "<---
Emphasis placed on "as a means to the end of serving God".

Just a Poll. Wondering how others feel. So far, 3 people say 'it's all good, nothing to worry about'. 2 others state a 'name change' would solve the problem. (Like, it wouldn't be a 'Marriage', ... it would be a 'Pairriage', or 'Civil Union', or 'Domestic Partnership', or 'Room Mates' or something)
Click to expand...

I saw the poll, but you arguing about Christians on the Bench. That's a different argument.

The state should call marriages/civil unions/whatever all the same thing. It's up to the individuals to call it a "marriage" based upon their individual rules and choices. If a couple wanted to call it a "bonding", a "binding" or a "buddy fucking", that's their choice. The state only cares (or should) about tax revenue and establishing a legal agreement. It should be standard for everyone.
 
Jack said:
No. You said the key word: "set their personal beliefs aside". Barrett, using her own words, may not be able to do that.

--->"as a means to the end of serving God"<---
Click to expand...
Where's the link to your quote? I think she'll be just fine.....I'm very impressed with her...are you not?
 
Damocles said:
Sounding a bit silly... when was the last time SCOTUS Nominee and Appeals Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett picked up rocks to kill folks for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? When was the last time a Jewish person did such a thing? It is their particular part of the Bible that you are reading from (fourth book of the Torah).

The reality is, pretending you are afraid that Amy Coney Barrett is going to take up arms against folks chopping wood on Sunday is absurd, and useless, it takes a true belief in the dogma of your political party to really believe that such nonsense will happen or to convince yourself it is a valid question.
Click to expand...

It appears that Jackoff is all in on identity politics.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
I saw the poll, but you arguing about Christians on the Bench. That's a different argument. The state should call them all the same thing. It's up to the individuals to call it a "marriage" based upon their individual rules and choices. If a couple wanted to call it a "bonding", a "binding" or a "buddy fucking", that's their choice. The state only cares (or should) about tax revenue and establishing a legal agreement. It should be standard for everyone.
Click to expand...

Dutch: "but you arguing about Christians on the Bench."
Jack: Wrong. Many in this part of the World call themselves 'Christian', but don't really subscribe to what the Bible says. Did you 'Turn the other cheek' when 2 buildings in NYC got knocked down? How about 'Forgive your Trespassers'?

Dutch: "The state should call them all the same thing".
Jack: That would be a solution. Calling then 'Civil Unions' wouldn't cause the Religious types to get worked up over who is 'Married' and who isn't.

Dutch: "The state only cares (or should) about tax revenue and establishing a legal agreement."
Jack: Agree.
 
Jack wants to pretend that Sotomayor would vote with "Jesus first" because: Catholic... Unless he is a hypocrite and only cares if it is a rightwinger Catholic.

The reality is, his "religious test" is itself against the constitution (and directly so, it says no religious test should be applied). Any nominee should simply tell them so when they ask about it.

There are currently 5 Catholics on the Supreme Court, it is just "this one" that Jack worries about because he doesn't want this President to nominate anybody...

Too late.
 
Jackoff said:
I've given you a link to 'People of Praise'. You can read it and come up with your own conclusion.
Click to expand...

So what?

Get back to me if you can ever prove that ACB wasn't able to set her personal beliefs aside.

Did you assume that RBG was going to rely om Mosaic law when she heard a case?
 
Damocles said:
Jack wants to pretend that Sotomayor would vote with "Jesus first" because: Catholic... Unless he is a hypocrite and only cares if it is a rightwinger Catholic.

The reality is, his "religious test" is itself against the constitution (and directly so, it says no religious test should be applied). Any nominee should simply tell them so when they ask about it.

There are currently 5 Catholics on the Supreme Court, it is just "this one" that Jack worries about because he doesn't want this President to nominate anybody...

Too late.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top